2,344 Forum Posts by "ImmoralLibertarian"
AxTekk, it's really late here so I'm off to bed. I'll answer you tomorrow if that's okay.
At 11/7/13 05:55 PM, NickBeard wrote: Yahweh is a supernatural being because he is defined as outside of time and space in the Bible. Yes I believe he created everything, I believe the fine-tuning of the cosmos is evidence for that.
Right.
I'll start by saying I think you've made a mistake on your choice of god. But that's hardly your fault as statistically speaking there's an overwhelming likelihood that you were born into that particular sect of that particular religion and brainwashed from birth to believe what your parents where brainwashed from birth to believe.
When I say I think you've made a mistake what I mean is that the modern Yahweh is an obvious fabrication. The ancient Israelites, the tribe from which all branches of Abrahamism spring, were not monotheists. Originally, they were polytheists with a whole pantheon of gods of which Yahweh was simply the personal god of the ruling family.
"...the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible give a strong indication that the early conception of Yahweh was that he was an ancient Near Eastern tribal deity. As I argue in my book, following Rollston, the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyon's children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israel's patron deity, was one of Elyon's children.
The best evidence suggests that Yahweh did not begin as the "only true God" of later Jewish monotheism; he did not begin as the creator of the world. Yahweh began as a young, up-and-coming tribal deity whose prowess among other gods mirrored Israel's aspirations vis-a-vis surrounding tribes and nations."
Some of these other gods were incorporated into "the one God", others were demoted to demigod or angel status, others were demoted even further to demonic or satanic level, and some were just chucked on the scrap heap and forgotten about.
As far as I'm concerned that ends any discussion on the validity of Abrahamism. Unless you want to talk about the likelihood on the existence of the entire ancient Israelite pantheon in its original form. Modern Abrahamism is just a bunch of lies.
As for the word "supernatural" in you definition. For me that word is meaningless. Nothing, and I mean nothing can be supernatural. Everything that exists exists as part of nature, and that goes for any potential creator beings. Nothing can be external to that.
You state that you believe God created everything. But then who created God?
They way I look at it you have two choices...
1) God is eternal and created existence
or
2) Existence is eternal and needs no creator
Existence is unimaginably complex. But it's undeniable that an omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent creator being would be even more complex than its creation. Occam's Razor teaches us that from a choice of two highly unlikely possibilities the more likely to be true is the least complicated option. Therefore, it's more likely that there is no God than there is one.
Finally, the "fine-tuning" argument.
That's not one I've ever really grasped to be honest. It's always seemed absurdly weak.
Our observable universe is over forty billion lights years across. At the moment the only place that we can live is on and about a mile above the surface of this one planet. It doesn't appear to me that this current cosmic expansion was created especially for us. And of course the fine tuning argument completely ignores that fact that evolution teaches us that we were fine tuned for the universe, not the other way around.
To get more technical, I know that part of the argument alludes to the fact that if the laws of physic were just slightly different there probably wouldn't be a planet for us to evolve on in the first place. But this is utterly negated by Everett's Many Worlds theory - the postulation that every possible outcome is explored by existence.
And that's it. By the way Nick, I've never debated this with someone playing the role of a believer opposed to actually believing - that was fun, thanks! :-)
At 11/7/13 05:21 PM, AxTekk wrote:At 11/7/13 03:17 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: I've already explained this multiple times. Once more? Religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, are chock full of homophobia and lots of other nasty shit. This nasty shit helps reinforce the beliefs of nasty people. And this is helped by all those lovely Christians who wouldn't hurt a fly by them holding up Christianity as the pinnacle or morals.I think you're falsely attributing attitudes derived from tradition as being derived from religion. Huge difference. Take away a homophobic Christians faith, they're unlikely to suddenly become a beacon of tolerance and unconditional acceptance. I mean, a lot of Southern racists used to claim their hatred had a basis in Genesis, but as far as I was aware we all acknowledge just how irrelevant Christianity actually was to such attitudes.
Considering how long Abrahamism has been around I don't think you can easily separate it from tradition. But if you want to talk about how homosexuality was treated in pre-Christian Europe perhaps you should think about ancient Greece, it was abound there. They were all bumming each other. Even in the more conservative ancient Rome homosexuality was tolerated.
In Viking Scandinavia it was more complicated. There appeared to be nothing wrong in male homosexual sex as long as you were the guy penetrating. If you were the penetrated you were looked upon as girlish. And in such a macho culture there was little worse than being viewed as feminine.
Archaeological evidence suggests that same sex marriages were okay in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt.
"Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated."
I think this sentence needs repeating.
"Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice."
Particularly interesting that bit isn't it? Puts a new spin on the evil and hate filled Egyptians and the good and loving Israelites, eh?
I'm trying to find out what the Western Europe Pagans (or the Celts) thought of homosexuality. But the Christians did such a good job of destroying all references to their practices and beliefs that there doesn't seem to be anything on the subject besides wild suppositions.
Or, we can look at pre--Christian America. The "Two Spirit" practice was a common practice were a shaman would live the life of a female. Obviously transgenderism is different from homosexuality. But for the sake of argument I think it's safe to assume that the Native Americans would be much more forgiving of alternative lifestyles before the puritanical Christians turned up.
I'm interested which other religions besides the Abrahamic ones you think are homophobic. The next biggest religion would be Hinduism, and despite a whooooole bunch of Hindu homophobes, Hinduism doesn't even mention homosexuality as existing.
Don't know where you got that information from, but you're dead wrong.
"Hindu views of homosexuality and, in general, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues, are diverse and different Hindu groups have distinct views. Homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire. Although some Hindu dharmic texts contain injunctions against homosexuality, a number of Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful.[1] There are several Hindu temples which have carvings that depict both men and women engaging in homosexual sex.[2] Same-sex relations and gender variance have been represented within Hinduism from Vedic times through to the present day, in rituals, law books, religious or so-called mythical narratives, commentaries, paintings, and sculpture. The extent to which these representations embrace or reject homosexuality has been disputed within the religion as well as outside of it. In 2009, The United Kingdom Hindu Council issued a statement that 'Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality', subsequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court to legalise homosexuality in India.[3]"
From the Wikipedia page on "LGBT topics and Hinduism".
Seems unfair to blame misogyny on Christianity in that regard - women have always been punished more harshly for adultery than men (before we became civilised enough for egalitarianism at least). That much is just because humans naturally default to polygeny. The bible's just reflecting natural human morality in that regard. It is more that Jesus was waaay ahead of his time by saying to treat men and women equally in this regard and less that the older Jewish laws were just lagging behind.
I'm going to be honest... I'm really surprised by how many Christian apologists are on this forum. Although saying that when I first started posting here 10 years ago the argument wouldn't of been "Is Christianity homophobic" as much as "Is homosexuality evil". So I guess that's some progress.
Christianity is misogynistic. Perhaps not as so as Islam, but then that's hardly saying anything. You undoubtedly are correct AxTekk when you say our society has been misogynistic from the outset. As far as I'm aware there's only a couple of female dominant tribes hidden away in the jungles of South America and Indonesia. Every other society has been male dominated.
But is Christianity taking this position and running with it an excuse for it spewing out misogynistic beliefs in the modern world?
Christianity is part of our past. A fascinating part from a sociological standpoint, but still - it's from our past and that exactly where it belongs.
I'm willing to change my opinion on this however. The moment when people stop using the bible as an excuse to keep down [insert persecuted minority here] is the moment I shut the fuck up and never say a bad word against it.
Do you think that day will come any time soon?
At 11/7/13 02:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So you're not calling them idiots. You're merely saying the way they live their life is idiocy. I see the difference there. Instead of them being direct idiots, they're just indirect idiots. I mean, only and idiot would devote their life to idiocy, right?
Wrong.
I see I'm going to have to hold your hand and explain this to you in small steps.
Imagine I'm a bleeding heart liberal and you're a cold heartless libertarian. I say universal healthcare and a strong social safety net is vital for a healthy society. You disagree - very strongly. You believe universal healthcare is a useless drain and a social safety net just breads laziness amongst the poor. You believe that my standpoint is idiotic, and yes, you think IN THIS REGARD that I am an idiot. But that that mean you think I am a total retard despite that fact that (for the sake of argument) I did much better in school and have a higher IQ? Does that mean that you think I am utterly inferior to you? Because that's the attitude you are trying to paint me with.
The world isn't black and white dude. It's possible to disagree with someone and hold that their opinions on certain matters are utterly worthless WITHOUT attributing total worthlessness to that person.
Then why do you blame religion?
I've already explained this multiple times. Once more? Religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, are chock full of homophobia and lots of other nasty shit. This nasty shit helps reinforce the beliefs of nasty people. And this is helped by all those lovely Christians who wouldn't hurt a fly by them holding up Christianity as the pinnacle or morals.
You're not getting it. You just aren't. It's 100% OK to voice your opinions on any subject in debate. It's NEVER OK to outright say or overtly imply that the opposite party is inherently inferior for believing otherwise.
And...that...is...not...what...I'm...saying. Despite your repeated attempts to put words into my mouth. You're just having an argument with yourself here.
I think Christianity is retarded. I don't think Christians are retards.
The religion does not provide the morals. The religion merely reinforces them. The massive cleavages of morals from person to person even within the smallest of religious structures is perfect evidence of this. 1 guy in a parish can think it's A-OK to cheat on his wife, whilst the rest believe it's a huge problem. Those who believe it's a huge problem reinforce it through the religion, the guy who does not, openly chooses to not listen to the moral backing on that point.
Bad example. Because Christianity is quite clear on adultery (despite the fact it attributes much harsher punishments on females - but what else would one expect from a hugely misogynistic faith system?). The cheating dude would have to totally ignore what the bible says.
This is a better example - one guy wants to sell his daughter into sexual slavery. His brethren at his church are rightly disgusted by this. But the guy points to Exodus 21:7.
Yet they have oft changed their morals to fit the times in open opposition to that preached in the Bible. You have a horrible dichotomy here. When it fits you you say they gather their morals from the Bible, and when it fits you you say they do it themselves. I posit that they always have done it for themselves. The Bible has a huge shotgun of morals, many that are even contradicted within the book. Most moral situations we can think of today are addressed on both sides in the Bible.
They do it themselves - full stop. If I led you to believe I think they "get" their morals from the bible I apologise. Yes, they absolutely get their morals from their own moral compass, but a lot of Christians don't even realise this. If you ask them they'll tell you that the get their morals from the bible. Which is preciously my problem (that I must of explained about a half dozen times by now but you seem unwilling to address). Because if one thinks that the bible is the pinnacle of moral righteousness you get things like Uganda's "Kill the Gays Bill".
You seem to be under the impression that this has nothing to do with the homophobia strewn through the bible and that exactly the same thing would happen in fully secularised societies. If I'm right in this assumption, I challenge you to find an example (just one, opposed to the dozens I could provide you) of a similar anti-gay or anti-female law introduced by a secular nation with no connection to religion.
That's the human doing that, though. Not the religion. That same person would form that homophobic sentiment through secular means as well.
Possibly, yes, but much less likely. There is no secular doctrine. There is no atheistic manifesto, and even if there was it would not be claiming to be the Perfect Word of God. Without such things it is much harder to cross the line to the dark side.
The southerners supported slavery through Federalist means, NOT Christian means. They believed it was their Constitutional right to do so.
Backed up by scripture. What, you think that the religious nutcases of the Southern States stopped being religious nutcases when they considered slavery and approached it from a secular and rationalistic viewpoint? Please.
You just admitted you believe that they live their life based on idiocy. How is that not calling them an idiot? It's like saying "You're not stupid, just everything you do and think is stupid."
I think you're doing Christians a huge disservice here. They are so much more than their silly faith in a homophobic and misogynistic magical sky-daddy.
At 11/7/13 12:44 PM, NickBeard wrote:At 11/7/13 11:56 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:I define my God as Yahweh, as revealed through the teachings Jesus Christ.At 11/7/13 09:34 AM, NickBeard wrote: Would any of the atheists here like to provide some valid arguments against the existence of God? I am an agnostic, I'm willing to be convinced either way about whether God exists.Gladly. But first you must define God.
Okay dokey. But I still need more than that. Is Yahweh supernatural and is he the creator of all of existence?
At 11/7/13 09:34 AM, NickBeard wrote: Would any of the atheists here like to provide some valid arguments against the existence of God? I am an agnostic, I'm willing to be convinced either way about whether God exists.
Gladly. But first you must define God.
At 11/6/13 11:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 11/6/13 12:44 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Could you at least try and explain where my logic if flawed instead of just stating so? In the last post of the last page I go into relative detail on why I assert a supernatural creator being is logically impossible.The atheists that feel so strongly that those who believe are stupid do so because they think of things in simplistic terms. They treat life as if life were an equation, instead of a tapestry. They make large logical jumps about what religions have done without looking into the far more complex why, and they definitely love to forget about how secular groups often mirror religious ones in their failings.
Where did I say I think theists are stupid? I said religion is idiocy, not that that those who believe it are idiots. An important distinction.
Who's talking about living one's life? I'm talking about the fascinating question on where our existence came from. I like to think I'm a pretty moralistic person, so I'd imagine my life would be more or less identical if I was a theist. However, individualism aside, faith in supernaturalism does a fucking hell of a lot of damage. To begin with, the belief in an eternal afterlife means so many people are wasting the one shot they've got. And if I was a Christian, attended an evangelical church and contributed 10% of my income to it, a lot of that money would be spent of fucking disgusting projects across the globe.Sure, religion has dogma, but you fail to see that the dogma is a very minor part of the religion. The lifestyle is the major part. It's a community. It's a crutch. It's a support. It's an outlet. It's a sanctuary. It's someone to bind one's life to. Ask most religious folks and they'll openly say that there are major parts of their religious dogma they think are merely stories of guidance, or even outright wrong. However, if one chooses to have religion be the rock in their life to hold them down to Earth and keep them steady when things begin to go awry, more power to them. They are neither stupid nor weak for doing so.
Agreed. Neither stupid or weak. Just misguided.
You claim my non-belief is ironic whilst "ironically" ignoring you own irony! Oh, the irony!I'm not telling you your lack of belief in God is wrong. I'm merely telling you to stop being a missionary. There is no need to convert people to atheism and there is definitely no need to brow beat others for how they live their personal lives.
So I'm not allowed to say I think you're wrong but you're allowed to say it to me? We all hold different beliefs (or lack thereof). There's NOTHING wrong in having an adult discussion on the differences of these beliefs. So we both think each other is wrong? Welcome to the world dude.
As I have said - organised religion has the potential to do great evil. Obviously as an atheist I don't think there is anything about religion besides the belief of those who follow it. There is no god behind the curtains pulling the strings. Just the people who believe there is a god. So when you and others say it is the people who do evil things in the name of religion I agree 100%.
However, organised religion is especially efficient at giving an excuse for religious people to do horrible things to their fellow humans. Much more so that its secular counterparts.
I don't go looking for arguments with believers. I don't preach and I don't go door to door. However, when the opportunity arises, and when people are interested in my thoughts, I will give them apologetically. And I am most certainly not going to apologise to you for talking about my non-belief in a thread on an internet forum entitled "Atheism Vs. Theism". If I can't talk about it here, where the fuck can I talk about it?
You don't have to like what I say, and you're certainly free not to read what I write. You see that little "x" in the top right hand corner of your screen? Use it.
You partially correct here, of course. But that's mainly because you're erecting strawmen and claiming I've said things I haven't. Homophobes use religion as an excuse to confirm their disgusting beliefs.... of course they do. But the reason THEY CAN do this is because the Old Testament is chock full of demands to kill homosexuals. Do you honestly believe that religious homophobes hatred of homosexuality has nothing to do with God's repeated condemnation of gays? If you're brainwashed from a young age that the Perfect Creator hates gays then hatred of gays is not only sensible, it's downright necessary.If only that were true. Sure the text of the religion does lend itself to be used as such. However it lends itself to a shit ton of stuff that not even the most fundy crazy would do. People don't follow the Bible because the Bible says so. They pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow based on what THEY themselves want to believe.
Exactly. They use their own internal moral compass. A compass that is created through a mixture of evolution and social engineering. There is no need for the bible (or any other Bronze Age holy book). If only people had more faith in themselves instead of an non-existent magical man.
Another strawman. I'm no American, but I'd imagine that the Bible Belt isn't as fucked up a place as you suggest it could be despite Christianity. It's the more secular North you have to thank for that.Not a strawman at all. You in fact posited the strawman. You claim that religious folk want to live in Bronze Age laws. That's just wrong.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that a good majority of people take their morals from a book written in the Bronze Age, not that they want to "live in Bronze Age laws".
I'll say it again - when an otherwise good and moralistic (by our modern secular standards) person reads the bible they see lots of good laws to live their life by. But they also see lots of disgusting laws. If they are the type of person who could be a borderline homophobe (for example) and they see their own perfect God railing against gays it would be SIGNIFICANTLY easy to become homophobic.
Also, FYI, as far as slavery goes, it was the Northern CHRISTIANS who were the strongest voice against it believing that holding another of God's children in servitude to be a Christian sin.
Just as it was the southern CHRISTIANS who used their faith as an excuse to keep slaves. As I said, slavery was defeated DESPITE of Christianity, not BECAUSE of it.
That my branch of atheism (which is "until you provide proof of the existence of god(s) I'll take the natural stance that no god(s) exist) is "dickhead-atheism".No, that's general atheism. What separates you, is your missionary tendencies. If regular atheism is the Catholics, you are a Jesuit.
You have no idea what you're talking about dude. You've made a judgement of me from a couple of hundred words I've written. What makes me a "missionary"
Or is it the fact that I enjoy having existential discussions with those hold different views than myself that makes me an adherent to "dick-head atheism".Such discussion are fine, and many people here are very adept at having them on both sides of this issue. What sets you apart (along with the likes of Pox) is that instead of merely debating the existential issue of God, you make the wholly unsupported and entirely hypocritical claim that those who believe are inherently stupid.
I don't care if you say they're wrong. That is the essence of a debate. What I seriously distaste is not that you believe they are wrong, but that you believe they are inferior.
Or is it the fact that I assume that anyone who doesn't share my lack of belief is wrong. In the exact same way that anyone who doesn't share my lack of belief thinks I'M wrong?
A downright, unsubstantiated lie. I politely request you cease this slandering of me immediately. Oh sure, building me up in you imagination as this posturing angry atheist helps in your own self worth. But it's pathetic.
Oh, I forgot to say Steve...
I'd be very interested to know what your exact existential beliefs are. From talking to you I'm going to guess you were raised Christian but have moved onto more of a small "t" theism. Perhaps a form of pantheism or panentheism? Am I close? :)
[START OF PART TWO]
And by the way, that's where you might find the irony. Claims of certitude come from both sides, but you'd think that the people who (tend to) hold to the worldview of reductionist materialism (or is it materialist reductionism?) would be in a much better position to recognize the absurdity of making such a claim of certitude to begin with. Being (hopefully, presumably) more scientifically-inclined, they should have a better understanding of the current scope of our knowledge and the challenges that accompany the questions that conversations about the nature of reality / our conscious experience always end up producing.
The ONLY statement of certainty I will make is that a God is impossible (I know, but bear with me) if…
…your definition of God is a supernatural being that existed before existence…
because…
a) nothing can be supernatural. Everything must follow the basic laws of physics and nature. Even if it comes from “another” universe with different laws it would still be bound by those and therefore not supernatural.
b) nothing can exist before existence. If anything did, then it in itself would be existence.
This is preciously why (and I’m sure someone with your experience on this subject knows this already so this is for any others who may be reading) the ABSOLUTE FIRST THING ONE MUST DO BEFORE ENTERING AN EXISTENTIAL DISCUSSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS TO FIRST DEFINE THE NATURE OF GOD.
If your definition of God is simply a powerful creator being that brought our current cosmic expansion into being I’m not willing to say it’s impossible, although I would still argue until the cows come home that it is utterly unnecessary to explain existence.
And even then despite my certainty if I was provided irrefutable evidence to the contrary that a magical sky-daddy exists I’d throw my hands in the air and grudgingly admit I was wrong and be the first on my knees begging the megalomaniac for forgiveness.
This is where I differ from “theists”. Because the non-existence of God can never be proven. This is where my claim than agnostic-atheism holds the trophy on uncertainty comes from. Faith in God has the luxury of being a certainty because you know for a fact it can NEVER be refuted.
They already understand that fundamentally, the basis and foundation of our existence is much, MUCH different and more complicated than what we see and experience on a regular basis... so this whole "I'll believe it when I see it" type of bullshit attitude they pull, treating "faith" as something that's unequivocally foolish or derogatory, as if they're waiting for some fucking statistical meta-analysis to be published that will prove or disprove the concept of deity or the idea that consciousness must first be involved in the fabric of reality before material life could subsequently evolve from it... just comes off as being really, really stupid to me. They see the trees, they miss the forest. They have only a hammer in their toolbelt, and see everything as a nail that needs whacking. Insert cliche metaphor here. They're being dumb, basically.
If I’m honest, I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about . You start of talking about materialists but then seem to go onto Emergentism. Yes, I consider myself a Materialist. But fucking hell dude, the idea of Emergentism is one of the biggest loads of steaming bullshit philosophy has ever developed. What type of Materialists have you been talking to?!?
I hate when people do this to my posts, but the next bit it quite complicated so I've split it up. Sorry.
The metaphor of the pool table and billiard balls is still the model for this sort of materialist/reductionist worldview (which for most intents and purposes might as well just be a synonym for atheism).
Agreed.
Everything, everything is understood to be rooted in the interaction of particles. Conscious thoughts and actions DO NOT come first and ARE NOT crucial or a primary facet of the fabric of reality; they are simply the emergent properties we observe stemming from layers upon layers of intricate particle physics.
Agreed.
But our understanding of the pool table model has been evolving also. Turns out, the billiard balls change into other types of balls, too.
Not as far as I know. An electron is always an electron. A proton is always a proton.
Some even blink in and out of existence.
That depends on you definition. All matter is energy, as you undoubtedly know. And energy cannot “blink out of existence“.
Some communicate with each other from all the way across the table, faster than the fucking speed of light!
No actually they don’t. it’s complicated but information simply CANNOT travel faster than c. They can have a certain effect on each other, but not “communicate”. I know, I know, it’s just an analogy and I’m being fucking pedantic. But science is the closest thing I have to a faith… so I like to be precise. I also can't help but feel were about to slide down the slippery slide of quantum woo.
And this is entirely logical to you? Nothing about this seems counter-intuitive? The model of quantum physics and the model of spacetime proposed and developed by Einstein are not even compatible with one another…
I think it was Feynman who said something along the lines of “If you think you understand quantum mechanics then that means you don’t know enough about quantum mechanics.”
Of course its counter intuitive! We’re macro beings. we exist for all intents and purposes exclusively in Newton’s simple, normal, easily understandable world. Asking us to fully grasp the intricacies of the quantum universe is akin to asking us to visualise a universe with five special dimensions. Go on, try it. It'll turn your brain to mush.
yet results of both have been reasonably predicted and demonstrated, and you want to insist here that logic is the *only* means by which we can survey reality? Pff.
You’re damn fucking right I do! As you just said. Despite it’s alien nature we can still make accurate predictions and theories using the beautiful tool that is mathematics. A tool that is entirely logical. Not even in the quantum world does 2 + 2 = 5.
What other tools do you suggest I use to examine the nature of existence? My feelings? My emotions? I’ll take your “pfft” sir and I’ll raise it by a factor of about ten million. No thanks. I’ll stick to the scientific method and logic.
Atheism is a model of reality that suggests that the pool table has no players. It's just balls smashing into one another and the varied reactions they produce.
No. Atheism is the model that we don’t know jack about what’s going on. But we do know that all the claims the other side are making are baseless. This is pretty rudimentary so I’m surprised I have to explain it to you to be honest.
Us atheists have looked at the evidence, and we find it severely lacking.
If I had a penny for every time I heard someone claim that atheism was the positive position that god(s) definitely do not exists... well it's not. What you're talking about there is "strong" or "gnostic" atheism. Whereas I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of the atheists you've talked to have been agnostic-atheists.
Theism is a model of reality that suggests that the pool table does have a player, or player(s), and that maybe it/they aren't all total jerks.
Theism is many things. But if you were to ask me what it is fundamentally… or at least what it is to MOST (not all) theists...
Well, I’d say it’s a model of reality that propositions that reality itself was made especially for us human beings.
Have a look at my signature.
Okay Steve. From the outset I see you've focused on my lazy use of the word "theism" in reference to "Abrahamism" or "theists" in reference to "Christians/Jews/Muslims". I apologise for that. Perhaps I can clear things up...
Also, I’ve tried to clean things up a wee bit but if I’ve gone and buggered up the quotes I’m sorry for it.
[START OF PART ONE]
At 11/6/13 06:36 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: If I make a claim and put it in print, it doesn't make a difference whether one person believes it or one billion people believe it. The claim came from me, the individual who wrote it. If someone else adds a new paragraph and a new claim , it came from them, a separate individual. If still others repeat these claims and assert their accuracy, then they do so individually. What you call "wishy-washy theists" are just regular people using their own fucking heads to judge the value or truthfulness of the claims being asserted by others. As much as you'd prefer to believe so, having a theistic worldview does not require one to be dogmatically-bound to the Bible or any other book for that matter.
"As much as you'd prefer to believe so..."
Give that bullshit a break would you mate? Instead of slenderising me how about we just discuss this?
In the above paragraph you make good points. But in the layering of individuals you get groups. Perhaps one does not need to take EVERYTHING from the bible to be a Christian (and for the sake of argument I'm going to focus on Christianity). But I would certainly argue that to be a true Christian you must believe that it is the inspired Word of God. Yes, there was many authors, but Christians will tell you each and every one had the same old bearded guy watching over their shoulder as they wrote the words down. This is why I simply don't understand "wishy washy" Christians. Either it's all the untouchable Word of God (you know, besides the shit that directly contradicts the other shit) or none of it is. The Westboro Baptists might be a bunch on super-cunts, but at least they're consistent. If you're going to use your own internal moral compass to choose what to follow you might as well pick up a copy of Catcher in the Rye and take your morals from that.
It all seems hugely hypocritical to me. But then so much of Believers' faith does. And by the way that's "believers" with a capital "B" - Christians, Muslims ect.
Small "t" theists, agnostic theists, deists, pantheists and the rest, whilst I believe are misinformed about the nature of reality don't do that much damage to our society. It's the "B"elivers I have a problem with. The ones that propagate the organised religions that are seriously fucking us all up.
Your argument that religion "inherently" does anything is flawed. Have you read the Bible? Okay, neat! Have you also read the Vedas? Tao te Ching? Any Buddhist texts perhaps? Literally ANYTHING that may be otherwise under-represented in these sorts of conversations on the nature and existence of deity? Are you going to tell me they all say the same thing? Or is your only familiarity with theism strictly related to the Abrahamic religions? So then, are you familiar with their wide variety of subdivisions, or are you only aware of the major branches? Does your familiarity with these come from an earnest attitude of "I wonder what these are talking about, I'd like to understand what they're trying to tell me", or a pedantic attitude of "Let me skim through this so I can tell you what's wrong with it" ?
Woah. That’s a lot of questions. I’ve got a feeling that a lot of them were rhetorical but fuck it…
I've read a few Buddhists texts. Mostly concerning Zen. Had a bit of an existential crisis in my late teens before I realised it was the same bullshit but just in a different, more palatable package. I've debate philosophy intently both online and in RL since a was 15, almost 15 years ago now.
What’s your fucking qualifications?
So yeah, it is all the same thing. It’s asking questions but instead of answering them (or just admitting they cannot be answered yet) invoking the Pink Unicorn.
If anything, it's "all about" uncertainty. It's all about questions for which there are no clear answers, but beg for answers anyway. Having an answer, however tenuous it may be, is a means by which people bring comfort to themselves. Some people would rather stick to their answer, even if it may be wrong. Some would rather know the truth, however disconcerting it may be. These attitudes are not exclusive to theists or atheists. This is everyone.
Sorry Steve, I couldn't disagree more here.
Faith IS NOT about uncertainty. It’s about the VERY opposite. Faith is belief. A particular type of belief which is an acceptance of a truth for which there is no evidence. This is the certainty I’m talking about. A certainty that frankly, I find hugely arrogant.
Whilst I’m careful to keep a boundary between my agnostic-atheism and my scientific literacy they are undeniably connected. Science (or more specifically an acceptance of the scientific method) is the opposite of faith. They are both essentially the asking of questions, yes. But science only takes an answer as truth if it has overwhelming evidence to support it. If there is no evidence either way, it states that the answer is unknown - "check back later, we may figure this out“.
Science also does something else easily that faith finds incredibly difficult. If evidence contrary to a current answer appears, science can admit it was wrong.
Again, "theism" is not a monolith, and neither is religion. Thus, you can only speak of particular ideas, existing in and across various worldviews and models of reality. It tickles me that you say I have a deep misunderstanding of religion and faith, it really does. You complain about priests and ministers withholding knowledge and manipulating people for their own ends, as if Jesus hadn't made the same arguments against the religious leaders of his own day. He wasn't a fan of dogma either. For all the tenets and rules and exceptions and blah blah blah that Judaism has and has-had, he said the whole of the law boiled down to just two ideas. He also said there was one, and ONLY one thing a person could do and not be forgiven for it. If you want to rail against the Bible, fine, but understand there are different sections written by different people for different purposes. It's a library of books and letters, not "a" book. If you want to rail against Christianity, then tell me all about how bad Jesus' ideas and teachings were, don't tell me what the Pauline epistles said or what some dickwad preacher or religious nut told you about hell's fires or whatever.
I addressed this above. Either it’s all the Holy Untouchable Inspired Word of God or it’s all bullshit. I have a feeling I know which. If someone wants to do a Jefferson and remove all of Jesus’ claims to divinity that’s fine. But I’d still argue that there are thousands of other fictitious books out there with more appropriate moralistic systems to borrow from. And that goes for the New Testament as well as the Old.
[END OF PART 1]
At 11/6/13 05:42 PM, Memorize wrote:At 11/6/13 05:23 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:Pray tell then please what you would call the Bible, the Torah and the Koran if not dogmatic theistic tomes? Tomes with set rules and set punishments for breaking those rules?Doesn't every society have rules with punishments for breaking them?
Indeed they do. The difference, however, is that a secular society's laws evolve over time. A theocracy is stuck with Bronze Age laws.
Oh sure, you get your wishy-washy theists who pick and choose what they want to follow. Who pick things they find morally acceptable whilst ignoring the things they (quite rightly imho) find morally repugnant. "love thy neighbour"? Sure! "Sell my daughter into sexual slavery"? No thanks God! You can keep that one.Don't atheists and Deists do the same thing? Dont you pick and choose what's acceptable and what's not which would be different from other atheists?
Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is...
We have all the answers for you!" the priests and ministers shout from their pulpits.Which is kind of funny considering what you're doing.
Is this the part you tell me I'm not allowed to hold the opinions I hold again?
What am I doing, exactly, you know - despite just giving my opinions. I would quite happily enter into an existential discussion with you Memorize, but you seem unwilling.
At 11/6/13 04:46 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:At 11/6/13 04:24 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: And to go further, individual theists are fine, but on a whole theism is a dangerous beast. [...] the difference is theism makes claims of absolute certainty on both the nature of existence and how we should all behave.Um, no.
The same way that atheists like to remind people that "there is no atheist dogma", blah blah blah et cetera et cetera... well, there is no theist dogma. It's a description of a worldview. It's a broad set of ideas and postulates. It doesn't come in just one shade or just one flavor, you're ALREADY acutely aware of that fact, so cut that shit out.
Pray tell then please what you would call the Bible, the Torah and the Koran if not dogmatic theistic tomes? Tomes with set rules and set punishments for breaking those rules?
Oh sure, you get your wishy-washy theists who pick and choose what they want to follow. Who pick things they find morally acceptable whilst ignoring the things they (quite rightly imho) find morally repugnant. "love thy neighbour"? Sure! "Sell my daughter into sexual slavery"? No thanks God! You can keep that one.
The accusation that theism inherently asserts ultimate certitude is stupid on its face, especially when you consider how often religions remind folks about how mysterious/unknowable 'God' / the true nature of reality is to us.
I find it difficult to see how you can think that. You claim that religion DOES NOT inherently asserts ultimate certitude? Have you even read the bible? There is CERTAINLY good and CERTAINLY evil. God CERTAINLY created the world. He CERTAINLY sent his only son to save us from whatever it is he made wrong with us in the first place. If you don't accept Jesus into your heart as your personal savior you will CERTAINLY go to Hell. And yes... if a man lies with another man he is CERTAINLY to be stoned.
You seem to have a deep misunderstanding on the nature or faith and religion. It's all about certainty! It's all about ultimate good and evil. All about black and white. That's the cornerstone of it's dogma. "Believe what we tell you to believe and never have to wonder about anything ever again. We have all the answers for you!" the priests and ministers shout from their pulpits.
At 11/6/13 03:50 PM, Memorize wrote: And this is what you don't get. People are people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. People will always kill, steal, and lie regardless due to this little thing called human nature.
If you can blame religion for the crusades even when that particular religion expressly forbade those idiots from enacting that event, then you shouldn't bitch about religious people bringing up the many millions slaughtered by "atheistic" regimes (and vice versa to you religious people too).
Because there are many types of different people with varying beliefs and levels of beliefs even with the same overall structure, your religion (or lack of religious affiliation) doesn't mean shit to me because that doesn't inform me of what your beliefs are on things that actually matter.
You might get atheists who are in favor of wars, or against them.
You might have religious people who are all gungho about it too, but then you'll find many of them subscribing to the "Christian (in this case) Just War Theory" which is to only go to war as very last result.
Your personal beliefs in God or religion mean nothing.
What matters is whether or not you're a war-mongering, homophobic, prick.
Sigh.
As I've explained, of course someone's own personal opinions will trump their religious convictions. You get homophobic prick nontheists and you get fantastically sound Christians. But when one's faith is homophobic I think it's a pretty safe bet to assume the likelihood of one turning out to be homophobic is increased. Would you not agree?
And to go further, individual theists are fine, but on a whole theism is a dangerous beast. You put together a load of cool, easy-going Xians and you end up with a mob mentality. Of course, this can be said of ANY group of people. But the difference is theism makes claims of absolute certainty on both the nature of existence and how we should all behave. With the Christian mob mentality you end up with American evangelicals spreading hate in Africa, the Vatican claiming condoms cannot stop the spread of HIV, creationists trying to get ID taught in science lessons, religionists trying their hardest to hold back the tide of history and deny homosexuals the right to marry and frankly so many other examples all the way down to Christian nutcases in my own country of Scotland trying to stop ferries from sailing to the Western Isles on Sundays.
Apologies for the fucked up quotes in the middle of that last post. I forgot how awkward the quote fnction was here...
At 11/6/13 12:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 11/6/13 11:25 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: There can only be one right answer. Either theism is right or nontheism is. And as a) there is no evidence for a supernatural creator being and b) the very idea of a supernatural creator being is logically impossible I'll continue to assert that I am in the right and all those who believe in a magical sky daddy are in the wrong.I find this style of atheism to be hilariously ironic. For the belief that claims to be scientific and the smartest, they sure have a huge tendency to miscalculate and misuse logic.
Could you at least try and explain where my logic if flawed instead of just stating so? In the last post of the last page I go into relative detail on why I assert a supernatural creator being is logically impossible.
Life ain't a math problem. There is no right or wrong answer. Hell, there aren't even that many questions. The only relevant questions about living one's life are what how and why, but not the retrospective ones. The meaningful questions are "how do you want to live your life?"; "Why do you want to live it that way?"; and "what can you do to live the way you wish?" And when it comes to these questions, there is not only more than 1 right answer, there are millions if not billions of right answers.
Trying to say there's a right answer to living one's life is like judging a light bulb on the amount of words it can write.
Who's talking about living one's life? I'm talking about the fascinating question on where our existence came from. I like to think I'm a pretty moralistic person, so I'd imagine my life would be more or less identical if I was a theist. However, individualism aside, faith in supernaturalism does a fucking hell of a lot of damage. To begin with, the belief in an eternal afterlife means so many people are wasting the one shot they've got. And if I was a Christian, attended an evangelical church and contributed 10% of my income to it, a lot of that money would be spent of fucking disgusting projects across the globe.
Oh, I won't deny that organised religion can do good but neither can I ignore the tremendous amount of damage supernaturalists are doing to their fellow humans. Do you have any idea what's happening in east Africa right now? Homosexuals are being put to death thanks in part to the "charity" work of American evangelical churches. And the Vatican's stance on condoms have lead to tens of thousands, if not more, of people contracting HIV unnecessarily.Again, the dickhead atheist (not saying you're a dick head, just that the sect of atheism that ISNISTS upon proving they are right and all others are stupid should be officially called "dickhead atheism, and that is what they are,) completely misunderstands the perameters.
You claim my non-belief is ironic whilst "ironically" ignoring you own irony! Oh, the irony!
So I'm not allowed to say I think you're wrong but you're allowed to say it to me? We all hold different beliefs (or lack thereof). There's NOTHING wrong in having an adult discussion on the differences of these beliefs. So we both think each other is wrong? Welcome to the world dude.
:You think these people hate on homosexuals because of their religion? That's a load. These people hate them for other reasons and conveniently use their religion to support it, the same way others concoct bullshit "gayz be bad parents!" arguments. The fact that there are billions upon billions of religious people that accept homosexuals with open arms shows that it's not the religion that is flawed, rather the men and women who hold the view.
You partially correct here, of course. But that's mainly because you're erecting strawmen and claiming I've said things I haven't. Homophobes use religion as an excuse to confirm their disgusting beliefs.... of course they do. But the reason THEY CAN do this is because the Old Testament is chock full of demands to kill homosexuals. Do you honestly believe that religious homophobes hatred of homosexuality has nothing to do with God's repeated condemnation of gays? If you're brainwashed from a young age that the Perfect Creator hates gays then hatred of gays is not only sensible, it's downright necessary.
Those Christians who don't have a problem with gays are enlightened DESPITE of their religion, not because of it.
Religions, particularly those "evil" regions based on Abraham's teachings (ie Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are holding our species back. We live in the 21st century, yet a good proportion of our population get their morals from a Bronze Age tome. It's a sickening state of affairs.Are you telling me that the Bible Belt is full of slavery, acceptable rape, and endless revenge killings? Again, where is the enlightened intellect that atheists so claim to have?
Another strawman. I'm no American, but I'd imagine that the Bible Belt isn't as fucked up a place as you suggest it could be despite Christianity. It's the more secular North you have to thank for that.
I'm still not overly sure what your point is;
That my branch of atheism (which is "until you provide proof of the existence of god(s) I'll take the natural stance that no god(s) exist) is "dickhead-atheism".
Or is it the fact that I enjoy having existential discussions with those hold different views than myself that makes me an adherent to "dick-head atheism".
Or is it the fact that I assume that anyone who doesn't share my lack of belief is wrong. In the exact same way that anyone who doesn't share my lack of belief thinks I'M wrong?
At 11/6/13 10:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 11/6/13 10:22 AM, NickBeard wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&lc=3ECC75_henYmqMK_T9B7ws84GyNh2pP60oZ_s-k58ig.At 11/6/13 10:39 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: You don't understand why nontheists who clearly see the tremendous damage theism is doing to our society don't want to do what they can to stop it? Every believer who looses their faith is one less adding to the idiocy that is religion.THAN YOU BOTH!!!
You have proved it! There are retarded assholes on both sides.
That video is full of shit. It assumes that the answer "we do not know it yet" or the absence of science is proof of God. It is not. Just as science does not disprove he existence of God, the lack of science does not prove the existence of God. In far too many cases the "there is no science, so it must be God" subjects have later been found to be very mundane science.
That being said, those who believe in religion are neither stupid, nor are they a cancer on this Earth. Mind you there has been far more charity on this planet in the name of religions than there has been for secular purposes. There has been a great deal of community and nation building in the name of religion. Religion, like any tool, while it can be used for harm, is far more often used to build and create and enhance. Religion is no different. To say atheism is the only right answer is to be the exact same sort of dull, shallow, and stupid person you claim religious folks to be.
There can only be one right answer. Either theism is right or nontheism is. And as a) there is no evidence for a supernatural creator being and b) the very idea of a supernatural creator being is logically impossible I'll continue to assert that I am in the right and all those who believe in a magical sky daddy are in the wrong.
Oh, I won't deny that organised religion can do good but neither can I ignore the tremendous amount of damage supernaturalists are doing to their fellow humans. Do you have any idea what's happening in east Africa right now? Homosexuals are being put to death thanks in part to the "charity" work of American evangelical churches. And the Vatican's stance on condoms have lead to tens of thousands, if not more, of people contracting HIV unnecessarily.
Religions, particularly those "evil" regions based on Abraham's teachings (ie Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are holding our species back. We live in the 21st century, yet a good proportion of our population get their morals from a Bronze Age tome. It's a sickening state of affairs.
This is something I posted on another forum a while back. Perhaps y'all will find it interesting. Pretty rudimentry stuff I admit.
I don’t remember becoming a non-believer. I remember believing in God when I was a child. I’d get angry when people wrote Xmas instead of Christmas, and the sectarian troubles in my nation and the province of Northern Ireland confused me - they all believe in Jesus! But by the time I was a young teenager I called myself an atheist. I’m sure I’d remember if I had an epiphany moment, so it’s my supposition that it came about gradually.
My early atheism wasn’t based on logic or detailed thought on the matter. In fact it may be more accurate to call myself an agnostic at that time, as I just didn’t think about it. But as I grew older, I began having detailed philosophical debates with others in real life and on the internet.
It became apparent to me that religions were nonsense. I began to understand that the Abrahamic religions (Christianity and its sister religions, Judaism and Islam) were obviously made up. All you have to do is look at the historical facts. The tribe that became what we now call the Israelites were once polytheistic. They worshipped, or at least acknowledged other gods, of which Yahweh was only the most dominate because he was the god of the ruling family. Over time the other gods were either incorporated into ‘the one God’ or were reduced to angels and demons within the holy books. How can a true faith system that has monotheism at it’s heart come from polytheism? How can the ‘One True God’, Yahweh of once existed in a religion in which there were many gods? How can people still blindly follow these three religions and their many offshoots knowing this?
So I am confident that the Abrahamic religions have no worth. Or at least, no worth in finding the truth about existence.
It always seemed more likely to me that all religions were wrong than one of them was right. But this still leaves the possibility that there could be a god of some sort, a being that created existence. Closer to what Desists or Pantheists believe perhaps.
But if something created the universe would it be a god?
I describe a god as a supernatural, omniscient and omnipotent being that existed before existence. And my logic tells me such a being simply cannot be. There is no such thing as supernatural, this is a meaningless word. If something exists, it must follow the laws of the universe. It is also impossible for something to exist before existence. So could our universe be the construct of an intelligence? It’s possible, but current scientific understanding does not require it. Would such an intelligence be a god? No. Is it possible that our universe is so complex and so large, that it itself has intelligence? Yes. Would this be a god? No.
One of the most common arguments totted out by theists is that everything must have an origin, a cause. That the universe and/or existence couldn’t just pop into existence. This isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy. But the inclusion of a god into this problem only makes it more complicated. You don’t solve an equation by adding an extra variable. If God created existence because everything needs a cause, who created God? Who created the thing that created God? This doesn’t answer any questions, it only leads to a never ending loop on non-answers.
This is why I’m an atheist.
At 11/5/13 09:24 PM, Memorize wrote:At 11/5/13 03:11 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:Why would you think that? Just because someone holds ideas and beliefs that didn't originate from the presumption of a caring universe or supernatural being doesn't mean they have any less reason to proselytize than someone whose ideas and beliefs did.Because everything anyone ever does or says ultimately means absolutely nothing through time.
It's like when I hear people bitch about how "some good people" might end up in hell and that's "unfair"... which I find amusing coming from the people whose belief set means that everyone in the world, no matter how good or noble, gets the same end result of "nothingness" as Hitler and Stalin.
Point being. I don't understand why people who choose to live in the moment of the 1 shot they get at life which results in nothing would be more obsessed with discussing a "god" or "after life" than those who believe it amounts to "something."
You don't understand why nontheists who clearly see the tremendous damage theism is doing to our society don't want to do what they can to stop it? Every believer who looses their faith is one less adding to the idiocy that is religion.
The ridiculousness of the argument aside, whether nontheists can be moral or not is completely irrelevant to the question of if there is a god or not.
At 3/9/10 12:32 PM, Ericho wrote: Seeing as how he is regarded as a dictator...
By whom?
Some form of natural God was also proposed by Fred Hoyle, in a provocative book titled The Intelligent Universe. Hoyle drew on his work in astronomy and quantum physics to sketch the notion of a "superintellect"-a being who had, as Hoyle liked to say, "monkeyed with physics," adjusting the properties of the various fundamental particles and forces of nature so that carbon-based organisms could thrive and spread across the galaxy. Hoyle even suggested that this cosmic engineer might communicate with us by manipulating quantum processes in the brain. Most scientists shrug off Hoyle's speculations, but his ideas do show how far beyond traditional religious doctrine some people feel they need to go when they contemplate the possibility of advanced life forms beyond Earth.
Though in some ways the prospect of discovering extraterrestrial life undermines established religions, it is not all bad news for them. Astrobiology has also led to a surprising resurgence of the so-called "design argument" for the existence of God. The original design argument, as articulated by William Paley in the eighteenth century, was that living organisms' intricate adaptation to their environments pointed to the providential hand of a benign Creator. Darwin demolished the argument by showing how evolution driven by random mutation and natural selection could mimic design. Now a revamped design argument has emerged that fully embraces the Darwinian account of evolution and focuses instead on the origin of life. (I must stress that I am not referring here to what has recently become known as the Intelligent Design movement, which relies on an element of the miraculous.) If life is found to be widespread in the universe, the new design argument goes, then it must emerge rather easily from nonliving chemical mixtures, and thus the laws of nature must be cunningly contrived to unleash this remarkable and very special state of matter, which itself is a conduit to an even more remarkable and special state: mind. This sort of exquisite bio-friendliness would represent an extraordinary and unexpected bonus among nature's inventory of principles-one that could be interpreted by those of a religious persuasion as evidence of God's ingenuity and foresight. In this version of cosmic design, God acts not by direct intervention but by creating appropriate natural laws that guarantee the emergence of life and mind in cosmic abundance. The universe, in other words, is one in which there are no miracles except the miracle of nature itself.
The E.T. debate has only just begun, but a useful starting point is simply to acknowledge that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would not have to be theologically devastating. The revamped design argument offers a vision of nature distinctly inspiring to the spiritually inclined-certainly more so than that of a cosmos sterile everywhere but on a single planet. History is instructive in this regard. Four hundred years ago Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Church in Rome for, among other things, espousing the notion of a plurality of inhabited worlds. To those whose theological outlook depended on a conception of Earth and its life forms as a singular miracle, the very notion of extraterrestrial life proved deeply threatening. But today the possibility of extraterrestrial life is anything but spiritually threatening. The more one accepts the formation of life as a natural process (that is, the more deeply embedded one believes it is in the overall cosmic scheme), the more ingenious and contrived (dare one say "designed"?) the universe appears to be.
- Paul Davies
Clearly, there is considerable diversity-one might even say muddle-on this topic in theological circles. Ernan McMullin, a professor emeritus of philosophy at Notre Dame University, affirms that the central difficulty stems from Christianity's roots in a pre-scientific cosmology. "It was easier to accept the idea of God's becoming man," he has written, "when humans and their abode both held a unique place in the universe." He acknowledges that Christians especially face a stark predicament in relation to ETI, but feels that Thomas Paine and his like-minded successors have presented the problem too simplistically. Pointing out that concepts such as original sin, incarnation, and salvation are open to a variety of interpretations, McMullin concludes that there is also widespread divergence among Christians on the correct response to the ETI challenge. On the matter of multiple incarnations he writes, "Their answers could range ... from 'yes, certainly' to 'certainly not.' My own preference would be a cautious 'maybe.'"
Even for those Christians who dismiss the idea of multiple incarnations there is an interesting fallback position: perhaps the course of evolution has an element of directionality, with humanlike beings the inevitable end product. Even if Homo sapiens as such may not be the unique focus of God's attention, the broader class of all humanlike beings in the universe might be. This is the basic idea espoused by the philosopher Michael Ruse, an ardent Darwinian and an agnostic sympathetic to Christianity. He sees the incremental progress of natural evolution as God's chosen mode of creation, and the history of life as a ladder that leads inexorably from microbes to man.
Most biologists regard a "progressive evolution," with human beings its implied preordained goal, as preposterous. Stephen Jay Gould once described the very notion as "noxious." After all, the essence of Darwinism is that nature is blind. It cannot look ahead. Random chance is the driving force of evolution, and randomness by definition has no directionality. Gould insisted that if the evolutionary tape were replayed, the result would be very different from what we now observe. Probably life would never get beyond microbes next time around.
But some respected biologists disagree sharply with Gould on this point. Christian de Duve does not deny that the fine details of evolutionary history depend on happenstance, but he believes that the broad thrust of evolutionary change is somehow innately predetermined-that plants and animals were almost destined to emerge amid a general advance in complexity. Another Darwinian biologist, Simon Conway Morris, of Cambridge University, makes his own case for a "ladder of progress," invoking the phenomenon of convergent evolution-the tendency of similar-looking organisms to evolve independently in similar ecological niches. For example, the Tasmanian tiger (now extinct) played the role of the big cat in Australia even though, as a marsupial, it was genetically far removed from placental mammals. Like Ruse, Conway Morris maintains that the "humanlike niche" is likely to be filled on other planets that have advanced life. He even goes so far as to argue that extraterrestrials would have a humanoid form. It is not a great leap from this conclusion to the belief that extraterrestrials would sin, have consciences, struggle with ethical questions, and fear death.
The theological difficulties posed by the possibility of advanced alien beings are less acute for Judaism and Islam. Muslims, at least, are prepared for ETI: the Koran states explicitly, "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them." Nevertheless, both religions stress the specialness of human beings-and, indeed, of specific, well-defined groups who have been received into the faith. Could an alien become a Jew or a Muslim? Does the concept even make sense? Among the major religious communities, Buddhists and Hindus would seem to be the least threatened by the prospect of advanced aliens, owing to their pluralistic concept of God and their traditionally much grander vision of the cosmos.
Among the world's minority religions, some would positively welcome the discovery of intelligent aliens. The Raëlians, a Canada-based cult recently propelled to fame by its claim to have cloned a human being, believe that the cult's leader, Raël, a French former journalist originally named Claude Vorilhon, received revelations from aliens who briefly transported him inside a flying saucer in 1973. Other fringe religious organizations with an extraterrestrial message include the ill-fated Heaven's Gate cult and many UFO groups. Their adherents share a belief that aliens are located further up not only the evolutionary ladder but also the spiritual ladder, and can therefore help us draw closer to God and salvation. It is easy to dismiss such beliefs as insignificant to serious theological debate, but if evidence for alien beings were suddenly to appear, these cults might achieve overnight prominence while established religions floundered in doctrinal bewilderment.
Ironically, SETI is often accused of being a quasi-religious quest. But Jill Tarter, the director of the SETI Institute's Center for SETI Research, in Mountain View, California, has no truck with religion and is contemptuous of the theological gymnastics with which religious scholars accommodate the possibility of extraterrestrials. "God is our own invention," she has written. "If we're going to survive or turn into a long-lived technological civilization, organized religion needs to be outgrown. If we get a message [from an alien civilization] and it's secular in nature, I think that says that they have no organized religion-that they've outgrown it." Tarter's dismissal is rather naive, however. Though many religious movements have come and gone throughout history, some sort of spirituality seems to be part of human nature. Even atheistic scientists profess to experience what Albert Einstein called a "cosmic religious feeling" when contemplating the awesome majesty of the universe.
Would advanced alien beings share this spiritual dimension, even though they might long ago have "outgrown" established religion? Steven Dick, a science historian at the U.S. Naval Observatory, believes they would. Dick is an expert on the history of speculation about extraterrestrial life, and he suggests that mankind's spirituality would be greatly expanded and enriched by contact with an alien civilization. However, he envisages that our present concept of God would probably require a wholesale transformation. Dick has outlined what he calls a new "cosmotheology," in which human spirituality is placed in a full cosmological and astrobiological context. "As we learn more about our place in the universe," he has written, "and as we physically move away from our home planet, our cosmic consciousness will only increase." Dick proposes abandoning the transcendent God of monotheistic religion in favor of what he calls a "natural God"-a superbeing located within the universe and within nature. "With due respect for present religious traditions whose history stretches back nearly four millennia," he suggests, "the natural God of cosmic evolution and the biological universe, not the supernatural God of the ancient Near East, may be the God of the next millennium."
The theological battle line in relation to the formation of life is not, therefore, between the natural and the miraculous but between sheer chance and lawlike certitude. Atheists tend to take the first side, and theists line up behind the second; but these divisions are general and by no means absolute. It's perfectly possible to be an atheist and believe that life is built ingeniously into the nature of the universe. It's also possible to be a theist and suppose that God engineered just one planet with life, with or without the help of miracles.
Though the discovery of microbes on Mars or elsewhere would ignite a passionate theological debate, the truly difficult issues surround the prospect of advanced alien beings in possession of intelligence and technology. Most scientists don't think that such beings exist, but for forty years a dedicated band of astronomers has been sweeping the skies with radio telescopes in hopes of finding a message from a civilization elsewhere in the galaxy. Their project is known as SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).
Because our solar system is relatively young compared with the universe overall, any alien civilization the SETI researchers might discover is likely to be much older, and presumably wiser, than ours. Indeed, it might have achieved our level of science and technology millions or even billions of years ago. Just contemplating the possibility of such advanced extraterrestrials appears to raise additional uncomfortable questions for religion.
The world's main faiths were all founded in the pre-scientific era, when Earth was widely believed to be at the center of the universe and humankind at the pinnacle of creation. As scientific discoveries have piled up over the past 500 years, our status has been incrementally diminished. First Earth was shown to be just one planet of several orbiting the Sun. Then the solar system itself was relegated to the outer suburbs of the galaxy, and the Sun classified as an insignificant dwarf star among billions. The theory of evolution proposed that human beings occupied just a small branch on a complex evolutionary tree. This pattern continued into the twentieth century, when the supremacy of our much vaunted intelligence came under threat. Computers began to outsmart us. Now genetic engineering has raised the specter of designer babies with superintellects that leave ours far behind. And we must consider the uncomfortable possibility that in astrobiological terms, God's children may be galactic also-rans.
Theologians are used to putting a brave face on such developments. Over the centuries the Christian church, for example, has time and again been forced to accommodate new scientific facts that challenge existing doctrine. But these accommodations have usually been made reluctantly and very belatedly. Only recently, for example, did the Pope acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is more than just a theory. If SETI succeeds, theologians will not have the luxury of decades of careful deliberation to assess the significance of the discovery. The impact will be instant.
The discovery of alien superbeings might not be so corrosive to religion if human beings could still claim special spiritual status. After all, religion is concerned primarily with people's relationship to God, rather than with their biological or intellectual qualities. It is possible to imagine alien beings who are smarter and wiser than we are but who are spiritually inferior, or just plain evil. However, it is more likely that any civilization that had surpassed us scientifically would have improved on our level of moral development, too. One may even speculate that an advanced alien society would sooner or later find some way to genetically eliminate evil behavior, resulting in a race of saintly beings.
Suppose, then, that E.T. is far ahead of us not only scientifically and technologically but spiritually, too. Where does that leave mankind's presumed special relationship with God? This conundrum poses a particular difficulty for Christians, because of the unique nature of the Incarnation. Of all the world's major religions, Christianity is the most species-specific. Jesus Christ was humanity's savior and redeemer. He did not die for the dolphins or the gorillas, and certainly not for the proverbial little green men. But what of deeply spiritual aliens? Are they not to be saved? Can we contemplate a universe that contains perhaps a trillion worlds of saintly beings, but in which the only beings eligible for salvation inhabit a planet where murder, rape, and other evils remain rife?
Those few Christian theologians who have addressed this thorny issue divide into two camps. Some posit multiple incarnations and even multiple crucifixions-God taking on little green flesh to save little green men, as a prominent Anglican minister once told me. But most are appalled by this idea or find it ludicrous. After all, in the Christian view of the world, Jesus was God's only son. Would God have the same person born, killed, and resurrected in endless succession on planet after planet? This scenario was lampooned as long ago as 1794, by Thomas Paine. "The Son of God," he wrote in The Age of Reason, "and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life." Paine went on to argue that Christianity was simply incompatible with the existence of extraterrestrial beings, writing, "He who thinks he believes in both has thought but little of either."
Catholics tend to regard the idea of multiple incarnations as verging on heresy, not because of its somewhat comic aspect but because it would seem to automate an act that is supposed to be God's singular gift. "God chose a very specific way to redeem human beings," writes George Coyne, a Jesuit priest and the director of the Vatican Observatory, whose own research includes astrobiology. "He sent his only son, Jesus, to them, and Jesus gave up his life so that human beings would be saved from their sin. Did God do this for extraterrestrials? ... The theological implications about God are getting ever more serious."
Paul Tillich, one of the few prominent Protestant theologians to give serious consideration to the issue of alien beings, took a more positive view. "Man cannot claim to occupy the only possible place for incarnation," he wrote. The Lutheran theologian Ted Peters, of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, has made a special study of the impact on religious faith of belief in extraterrestrials. In discussing the tradition of debate on this topic, he writes, "Christian theologians have routinely found ways to address the issue of Jesus Christ as God incarnate and to conceive of God's creative power and saving power exerted in other worlds." Peters believes that Christianity is robust enough and flexible enough to accommodate the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, or ETI. One theologian who is emphatically not afraid of that challenge is Robert Russell, also of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. "As we await 'first contact,'" he has written, "pursuing these kinds of questions and reflections will be immensely valuable."
The recent discovery of abundant water on Mars, albeit in the form of permafrost, has raised hopes for finding traces of life there. The Red Planet has long been a favorite location for those speculating about extraterrestrial life, especially since the 1890s, when H. G. Wells wrote The War of the Worlds and the American astronomer Percival Lowell claimed that he could see artificial canals etched into the planet's parched surface. Today, of course, scientists expect to find no more than simple bacteria dwelling deep underground, if even that. Still, the discovery of just a single bacterium somewhere beyond Earth would force us to revise our understanding of who we are and where we fit into the cosmic scheme of things, throwing us into a deep spiritual identity crisis that would be every bit as dramatic as the one Copernicus brought about in the early 1500s, when he asserted that Earth was not at the center of the universe.
Whether or not we are alone is one of the great existential questions that confront us today. Probably because of the high emotional stakes, the search for life beyond Earth is deeply fascinating to the public. Opinion polls and Web-site hits indicate strong support for and interest in space missions that are linked even obliquely to this search. Perceiving the public's interest, NASA has reconfigured its research strategy and founded the NASA Astrobiology Institute, dedicated to the study of life in the cosmos. At the top of the agenda, naturally, is the race to find life elsewhere in the solar system.
Researchers have long focused on Mars in their search for extraterrestrial life because of its relative proximity. But twenty-five years ago, as a result of the 1976 Viking mission, many of them became discouraged. A pair of spacecraft had passed through the planet's extremely thin atmosphere, touched down on the surface, and found it to be a freeze-dried desert drenched with deadly ultraviolet rays. The spacecraft, equipped with robotic arms, scooped up Martian dirt so that it could be examined for signs of biological activity. The results of the analysis were inconclusive but generally negative, and hopes faded for finding even simple microbes on the surface of Mars.
The outlook today is more optimistic. Several probes are scheduled to visit Mars in the coming months, and all will be searching for signs of life. This renewed interest is due in part to the discovery of organisms living in some remarkably hostile environments on Earth (which opens up the possibility of life on Mars in places the Viking probes didn't examine), and in part to better information about the planet's ancient history. Scientists now believe that Mars once had a much thicker atmosphere, higher temperatures, rivers, floods, and extensive volcanic activity-all conditions considered favorable to the emergence of life.
The prospects for finding living organisms on Mars remain slim, of course, but even traces of past life would represent a discovery of unprecedented scientific value. Before any sweeping philosophical or theological conclusions could be drawn, however, it would be necessary to determine whether this life was the product of a second genesis-that is, whether its origin was independent of life on Earth. Earth and Mars are known to trade material in the form of rocks blasted from the planets' surfaces by the violent impacts of asteroids and comets. Microbes could have hitched a ride on this detritus, raising the possibility that life started on Earth and was transferred to Mars, or vice versa. If traces of past life were discovered on Mars but found to be identical to some form of terrestrial life, transportation by ejected rocks would be the most plausible explanation, and we would still lack evidence that life had started from scratch in two separate locations.
The significance of this point is crucial. In his theory of evolution Charles Darwin provided a persuasive account of how life evolved over billions of years, but he pointedly omitted any explanation of how life got started in the first place. "One might as well think of origin of matter," he wrote in a letter to a friend. A century and a half later, scientists still have little understanding of how the first living thing came to be.
Some scientists believe that life on Earth is a freak accident of chemistry, and as such must be unique. Because even the simplest known microbe is breathtakingly complex, they argue, the chances that one formed by blind molecular shuffling are infinitesimal; the probability that the process would occur twice, in separate locations, is virtually negligible. The French biochemist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod was a firm believer in this view. "Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance," he wrote in 1971. He used this bleak assessment as a springboard to argue for atheism and the absurdity and pointlessness of existence. As Monod saw it, we are merely chemical extras in a majestic but impersonal cosmic drama-an irrelevant, unintended sideshow.
But suppose that's not what happened. Many scientists believe that life is not a freakish phenomenon (the odds of life's starting by chance, the British cosmologist Fred Hoyle once suggested, are comparable to the odds of a whirlwind's blowing through a junkyard and assembling a functioning Boeing 747) but instead is written into the laws of nature. "The universe must in some sense have known we were coming," the physicist Freeman Dyson famously observed. No one can say precisely in what sense the universe might be pregnant with life, or how the general expectancy Dyson spoke of might translate into specific physical processes at the molecular level. Perhaps matter and energy always get fast-tracked along the road to life by what's often called "self-organization." Or perhaps the power of Darwinian evolution is somehow harnessed at a pre-biotic molecular stage. Or maybe some efficient and as yet unidentified physical process (quantum mechanics?) sets the gears in motion, with organic life as we know it taking over the essential machinery at a later stage. Under any of these scenarios life becomes a fundamental rather than an incidental product of nature. In 1994, reflecting on this same point, another Nobel laureate, the Belgian biochemist Christian de Duve, wrote, "I view this universe not as a 'cosmic joke,' but as a meaningful entity-made in such a way as to generate life and mind, bound to give birth to thinking beings able to discern truth, apprehend beauty, feel love, yearn after goodness, define evil, experience mystery."
Absent from these accounts is any mention of miracles. Ascribing the origin of life to a divine miracle not only is anathema to scientists but also is theologically suspect. The term "God of the gaps" was coined to deride the notion that God can be invoked as an explanation whenever scientists have gaps in their understanding. The trouble with invoking God in this way is that as science advances, the gaps close, and God gets progressively squeezed out of the story of nature. Theologians long ago accepted that they would forever be fighting a rearguard battle if they tried to challenge science on its own ground. Using the formation of life to prove the existence of God is a tactic that risks instant demolition should someone succeed in making life in a test tube. And the idea that God acts in fits and starts, moving atoms around on odd occasions in competition with natural forces, is a decidedly uninspiring image of the Grand Architect.
At 3/9/10 05:03 PM, MrHero17 wrote:At 3/9/10 03:56 PM, Memorize wrote:And are we supposed to take a claim like that at face value and not ask for some sources or justifications?At 3/9/10 03:42 PM, Imperator wrote:QED: The Judeo-Christian God is a 6 year old who never learned to play nice with others.And people wonder why atheists are the least trusted minority group.
It's true as far as I know.
American theists won't trust someone who doesn't believe in the big fairy in the sky....but then American theists are morons.
At 3/7/10 04:38 PM, Yorik wrote: (rather than the very beginning of life on earth, which is obviously up in the air)
My favourite theory involving the genesis of life on Earth is that the qauntum universe played a part. The chances of amino-acids and other inorganic materials suddenly becoming organic are obviously very low when looking at it from a normal point-of-view.
But if the molecules could take on more than one configuration (the same way the theorised Quantum Computers bites would be at 0, 1, neither AND both simultaneously) at any one time then the chances of organic life emerging are greatly improved.
At 3/30/09 04:43 PM, Scarab wrote: I want to ask, how do you tell a peaceful protestor from a violent troublemaker when these groups are so mixed?
One's holding placard, the other's holding a brick.
wow, I don't remember anyone on here....anyone remember me...?
I was also known as o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l.
At 1/20/08 05:31 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: Sadly, yes.
If that's true a feel sorry for anyone who has to live in such a bigoted society.
The UK voted in a female PM in the 80s (it was a terrible mistake, Thatcher was a fool).
Saying that, there are virtually no minority MPs of any high ranking in any of the three major parties, so perhaps we're not so enlightened.
