One of the greatest concerns of all faiths, and a primary motivator of belief, is the issue of what happens to us after death. The faithful look forward to life after death, meeting their maker in his kingdom, and living in eternal bliss. But what part of us continues to the world beyond this one? General consensus among believers is that each of us possesses a soul, an immaterial, eternal essence which, following death, leaves our body and continues on to the afterlife. The concept of a soul is almost taken for granted, as though it were a clear reality; this couldn't be further from the truth.
The most obvious objection one might raise against the idea of a soul is this: how can an immaterial, eternal "thing" be associated with a material, temporal body? Those who believe in the soul consider it to be associated with an individual, either somewhere inside of them (there was once a time when the pineal gland was the supposed soul container) or around them. Yet how could this be? By simple definition, things which are immaterial are not bound by the laws of the material world. In fact, they represent the opposite of the world we know; these objects have no substance, can not be housed, nor can they interact with those things which are material, like a human body. In a perfect world, the argument would end here, and yet I'm sure that some of our detractors would appeal to the omnipotence of god and his creations to explain that my puny human mind can not understand the complex interactions of a soul and a body. I must admit that this is possible and therefore, must appeal to more complex arguments.
Let us take a moment to reflect upon the reason why the idea of souls is so appealing. Aside from the obvious appeal to be found in looking towards infinite bliss, one must admit that every ship needs a captain and the soul seemingly provides this role for the human body. The scientifically inclined may pipe up at this moment to claim that the human body already has a perfectly good (and clearly verified) captain, the brain. And yet, the brain is no more than a collection of neurons which send and receive signals amongst one another. Physiologists have yet to discover a "master neuron" which spontaneously instructs the other parts of the brain. Therefore, one can't help but wonder, when Sally decides she would like a new dress, which particular neuron or region of the brain came up with that desire? Surely something must be in charge, and the soul concept provides us with a conductor.
Indeed, most people who believe themselves to possess a soul, see that entity as more or less analogous to their personality/consciousness/mind. The soul, simply put, is us in the purest sense; it is the thing which desires, fears, loves, becomes inspired and somehow transmits these things to our brain. This is demonstrated by the way people discuss the afterlife: they look forward to seeing deceased relatives once more, and interacting as they once did in life, by speaking, and feeling emotions. Further, those who pray or speak with the souls of loved ones who have passed on, do so as though they were talking to any living person, which is to say, using their mind to communicate with an other's. Once again, one might wonder how an immaterial thing could communicate with the material brain (who's only language is physical neurotransmitters), yet this is besides the point. The far more important issues is the simple fact that, if the soul is in anyway similar to one's "mind," than this reality raises some serious concerns about the benevolence of the giver of souls, god.
These concerns arise because, if the soul is indeed some sort of reflection of the mind, then it would seem as though a great deal of mankind has been endowed with flawed souls. Take for example, the developmentally delayed, those whose minds never develop beyond late childhood, those who are never capable of the full complexity of adult thoughts and emotions. Are these minds a reflection of these peoples' souls? If so, this means that they must spend all of eternity as an idiot angel, never to fully reap the joys of paradise. One should also consider the mentally ill. Following death must a delusional schizophrenic spend all of eternity plagued by the delusions which tormented him in life? What heaven is this? It sounds much more like eternal damnation. Those who are born with imperfect minds, and thus imperfect souls, could not have possibly committed some sin at the moment of conception that would merit god's punishment. Why then does he choose to endow some of us with flawed souls, and others with normal ones? How can we call such a creature benevolent?
Yet the concerns do not end here. After death, we are told that one's soul continues on in either paradise or hell for all of eternity (though some religions do not include the concept of hell, they do all refer to the infinite nature of souls). This concept begs a serious question: what version of our soul/mind persists for eternity? One must admit that the mind certainly goes through significant changes as one goes through life. These changes can be rather mundane, from acquiring the taste for a new dish, or changing one's political affiliation. Yet, these changes can also be much more significant. Take for example, the development of a child. At one time, each and every one of us could not help but defaecate in our own clothes, nor could we communicate to anyone around us what we had done. Indeed, our minds did not even possess an understanding of defecation, or verbal communication at that time. Hopefully as we grew, these things changed, and our minds became more sophisticated and capable of a greater complexity of thought and emotion.
Now I ask you: does the child that sadly dies shortly after birth, persist in eternity as a dribbling, helpless soul, incapable of communicating or appreciating the situation it finds itself? Consider also the man who dies after having suffered from age related dementia; is his soul to forever wander paradise not knowing its name or recognizing the souls of its relatives? Once again one must wonder, have the above two reached paradise or hell? Perhaps our souls have the opportunity to transform into the form which represents us at the stage of life we enjoyed most. Thus, the old man's soul can become that which reflects him at his most vibrant age. This would pose a problem for the infant, who never had the life experiences necessary to transform its soul. Further, what of the murderer, who when standing at the pearly gates, and having to answer for his sins declares: "No, no lord, for that was me at age 34, I would like to submit my 32 year old soul for judgement."
The concept of the soul/mind is plagued with problems, and problems not encountered when one considers his mind to be nothing more than the sum of all the neural processes occurring in his central nervous system at any given time. The brain does change as we age, as neural connections become more extensive and varied, allowing for greater diversity of thought. Sometimes, these connections are aberrant, or individuals develop without the normal density of a certain neurotransmitter or receptor. In these cases, developmental delays or mental illnesses can arise. There is no current explanation for how a soul could lead to such malignancies. Further, does one's soul "go to sleep" when the brain does? What of the comatose soul, how does it know that it is not yet time to leave the body? What does it do in the meanwhile? When one takes drugs, drugs which physically interact with the brain to cause mental status changes, does the soul suffer the same ill effects? If not, why is it somehow incapable of preventing the lapses in judgement we are so prone to during these moments?
One could bypass all of the above arguments with one simple statement: the soul is not a reflection of one's mind, but rather something else, something completely different. Perhaps they would call this something one's "essence." If this were so, I would certainly have to admit that the issues raised above would no longer apply. However, I would also have to ask: of what besides one's consciousness is he aware? I am not aware of any part of myself that would not fall under the umbrella of my consciousness or mind, and so, if some part of me existing outside this umbrella were to pass onto eternity, why look forward to it? If the soul is not the mind, this would mean that one is completely ignorant as to the nature of his own. Where is the motivation to looking towards eternity as a foreign entity? No where to be found, I would answer.
Monday, December 24, 2007
To Touch on Miracles
The truth of divine intervention is most often validated through the vehicle of miracles. If people did/do not subscribe to such events faiths spanning the world would have to rely on personal feelings of faith alone. Personal conviction may have some power of transmission but certainly falls short compared to tangible eyewitness accounts. There are many miracles worth discussing but since today is the eve of Christmas we are presented with a perfect opportunity to evaluate Immaculate Conception. The main ideas presented in this article come from the works of David Hume, Anatole France and Christopher Hitchens.
It is possible for a miracle to occur, but as the following will demonstrate the possibility is bleak. In order for a miracle to withstand sufficient proof, the falsification of the event must be more miraculous then the said event at question (An enquiry concerning Human understanding, Hume). For example is it more likely that Jesus was born of a virgin mother or as Hitchens brings to question is it more likely that a Jewish minx was telling a lie? Again we are simply applying Occam’s razor, with all things equal the simplest explanation is the best. To claim that the natural order of sexual reproduction was suspended only presents more questions.
Further, is a miracle a one-time event, or is it possible to have numerous occurrences? Based on the definition, a miracle is: a surprising and welcome event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. Therefore how many occurrences would it take to lose its surprise, Jesus is not the first deity born of a virgin, he is just one of at least fifteen others that we know of born by the same method. At what point does a virgin birth transform itself from miraculous to common occurrence. In this case a said miracle is in fact occurring more and more frequently. Perhaps then the current physiological model of procreation should be in question and remodeled, if this is accomplished. The stated miracle is dissolved, along with its claim to supernatural intervention.
It is possible for a miracle to occur, but as the following will demonstrate the possibility is bleak. In order for a miracle to withstand sufficient proof, the falsification of the event must be more miraculous then the said event at question (An enquiry concerning Human understanding, Hume). For example is it more likely that Jesus was born of a virgin mother or as Hitchens brings to question is it more likely that a Jewish minx was telling a lie? Again we are simply applying Occam’s razor, with all things equal the simplest explanation is the best. To claim that the natural order of sexual reproduction was suspended only presents more questions.
Further, is a miracle a one-time event, or is it possible to have numerous occurrences? Based on the definition, a miracle is: a surprising and welcome event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. Therefore how many occurrences would it take to lose its surprise, Jesus is not the first deity born of a virgin, he is just one of at least fifteen others that we know of born by the same method. At what point does a virgin birth transform itself from miraculous to common occurrence. In this case a said miracle is in fact occurring more and more frequently. Perhaps then the current physiological model of procreation should be in question and remodeled, if this is accomplished. The stated miracle is dissolved, along with its claim to supernatural intervention.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
First cause
"How can you look at this world, at this universe and all its wonder and complexity and imagine that it came about 'by accident'?" Believers have been posing this question for ages, and it respresents the most essential trump card in the deck of dogma. The non-believer is asked, nay, dared to try to explain how something (especially something as big as the universe) can come from nothing. We know of no circumstance during which something spontaneously springs into being from nothingness, thus something must have made the universe.
Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause.
Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us.
Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten.
If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked.
There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument.
Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works.
Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.
Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause.
Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us.
Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten.
If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked.
There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument.
Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works.
Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.
Shifting gears
Thus far we have focused not so much upon debunking dogma itself, but rather the confidence with which we adhere to our particular creed. This is because the first step in our transitions from believers to realists was taken when we realized that there was no reason to believe in one dogma over another. Our earlier posts should have made it very clear that believers believe in one system over another simply because it is the system in which they were raised; had their life circumstances been different, so too would their beliefs.
This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool.
What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god.
At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma.
For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language.
It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?
This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool.
What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god.
At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma.
For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language.
It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Respecting beliefs
In several of our discussions concerning dogma and religion in general, we have heard one phrase in particular thrown around rather liberally. This saying reflects the notion that "in the face of disagreement we should all still respect each other's beliefs." The question must be asked, what does this familiar phrase actually mean, and in regard to this universal respect, how far does it extend? Let's first look at the meaning of the word respect. Respect can be defined as esteem or admiration for a particular person or thing. Working with this definition, the above phrase compels us to admire all belief systems including which ever one we happen to be disagreeing with at that moment. If this is the case then our present disagreement is clearly at odds with this supposed admiration; as a general principle of reality we don't usually admire that with which we disagree. For example, outlier beliefs are generally both disagreed with and met with anything but admiration. In fact, they are usually quelled by those who hold beliefs which are generally considered to be normal. An example of this would be the beliefs a schizophrenic. We use the term belief, here, for the sake of argument; in reality, these beliefs are generally classified as delusions. The discrepency between these terms illustrates our point: while the schizophrenic himself truly believes in a particular vision or occurence, the outside majority which considers itself and its beliefs "normal," fails to respect the beliefs of said individual. Rather, they relegate his personal belief to the realm of fiction. Still working with the above definition of respect, it is possible that we are asked not to admire the content of one's belief so much as their ability to hold said belief. Referring back to our example of the schizophrenic once more, not only does modern society fail to admire his ability to produce delusions, it also forces him to take medications aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of such beliefs.
There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.
There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Did you decide revisited
Posted by Brandon and Steve-
In regard to the question of whether or not we choose our faiths, Brandon and I are aware that several religious sects claim to practice a choosing period or ritual during which an individual makes a conscious, personal decision to embrace their religion. This is an illusion. Firstly, only a subset of religions practice such choosing rituals, and more importantly, these rituals vary extensively from one sect to another. For example, young people of the Amish faith participate in rumspringa, a year or more long immersion in the "outside" world, after which they either choose to dedicate themselves to the church for life, or to leave the community all together.
We can compare this to the Catholic confirmation, the sacrament during which a Catholic confirms his/her acceptance Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. The former case theoretically represents an unbiased, prolonged, and individual reflection upon one's religion. Whereas in the latter circumstance one spends a mere month exclusively learning the religion that he is "deciding" to accept. Our point here is that whichever choosing ritual one participates in, was in fact predetermined by circumstances completely out of their control. A young Catholic preparing for confirmation is not presented with the option of participating in rumspringa, or any other choosing ritual, for that matter. Therefore what seems to be a conscious decision is in fact a non-choice; rather it represents one more ritual in a long line of sacraments forced upon a child.
More importantly, this supposedly unbiased choice of a particular dogma, is intimately intertwined with significant social ramifications. Let's be honest, those participating in choosing rituals have not been raised since birth learning about, participating in, and analyzing every form of religion known to man, and even if this were the case, bias would be introduced by any awareness of the religion chosen by those who raised them. Choosing ritual participants are not evaluating the relative merits, or reasons to believe in one dogma over all others, but rather reflecting upon everything they have been raised to understand of the religious world. Essentially what this boils down to is choosing whether or not to reject the faith of your family and friends, your current understanding of the origins of the universe and morality, and every happy religious festival you have ever participated in. Going into such a situation with a free and unbiased mind is effectively impossible.
Now we understand the social reasons behind your supposed conscious choice to pursue your religion. At this point we should mention the factors which contribute to an individuals decision to convert to another faith later in life. Most convertees undertake this significant leap due to some social factor which necessitates transition, be it the need to compromise with a lover's faith, the desire to fit in with new peers,or the hope to escape persecution focused upon the current faith. If it has not become apparent how choice is conceived or you remain uneasy understanding dogma from a social perspective, what argument remains? Could it be that individuals select religion based on actual truth? If so, are all dogmas true, or only the one you like best?
In regard to the question of whether or not we choose our faiths, Brandon and I are aware that several religious sects claim to practice a choosing period or ritual during which an individual makes a conscious, personal decision to embrace their religion. This is an illusion. Firstly, only a subset of religions practice such choosing rituals, and more importantly, these rituals vary extensively from one sect to another. For example, young people of the Amish faith participate in rumspringa, a year or more long immersion in the "outside" world, after which they either choose to dedicate themselves to the church for life, or to leave the community all together.
We can compare this to the Catholic confirmation, the sacrament during which a Catholic confirms his/her acceptance Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. The former case theoretically represents an unbiased, prolonged, and individual reflection upon one's religion. Whereas in the latter circumstance one spends a mere month exclusively learning the religion that he is "deciding" to accept. Our point here is that whichever choosing ritual one participates in, was in fact predetermined by circumstances completely out of their control. A young Catholic preparing for confirmation is not presented with the option of participating in rumspringa, or any other choosing ritual, for that matter. Therefore what seems to be a conscious decision is in fact a non-choice; rather it represents one more ritual in a long line of sacraments forced upon a child.
More importantly, this supposedly unbiased choice of a particular dogma, is intimately intertwined with significant social ramifications. Let's be honest, those participating in choosing rituals have not been raised since birth learning about, participating in, and analyzing every form of religion known to man, and even if this were the case, bias would be introduced by any awareness of the religion chosen by those who raised them. Choosing ritual participants are not evaluating the relative merits, or reasons to believe in one dogma over all others, but rather reflecting upon everything they have been raised to understand of the religious world. Essentially what this boils down to is choosing whether or not to reject the faith of your family and friends, your current understanding of the origins of the universe and morality, and every happy religious festival you have ever participated in. Going into such a situation with a free and unbiased mind is effectively impossible.
Now we understand the social reasons behind your supposed conscious choice to pursue your religion. At this point we should mention the factors which contribute to an individuals decision to convert to another faith later in life. Most convertees undertake this significant leap due to some social factor which necessitates transition, be it the need to compromise with a lover's faith, the desire to fit in with new peers,or the hope to escape persecution focused upon the current faith. If it has not become apparent how choice is conceived or you remain uneasy understanding dogma from a social perspective, what argument remains? Could it be that individuals select religion based on actual truth? If so, are all dogmas true, or only the one you like best?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Can't We All Just Get Along
I have heard many religious apologists, when asked to account for the heinous deeds commited in the name of their god, appeal to the idea that their religion is not one of violence but rather peace. Further, secularists are implored to disregard the few "bad apples" who "misinterpret" religious scriptures, and instead recognize that the vast majority of believers are inspired by god to lead peaceful, tolerant lives.
First of all, any follower of one of the monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) who claims that their religion does not advocate violence, clearly has not taken the time to investigate their religious texts. Let's use Judaism as an example: commandment #355 (Deut 13: 16-17) of the 613 Mitzvot instructs Jews to "slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." Let me point out for those who may have missed it, this is a commandment from god, not a suggestion or interesting thought for interpretation, but rather a direct, and very clear instruction. Thus, to anyone who defends the peacefulness of your religion, please disist, for you are mistaken. If anything, the monotheisms can be considered contradictory to the highest degree, for there are both entreaties against murder and violence and those for them.
Yet, this argument must be taken further, for their are many believers who have rejected the nastier bits of their faith and proclaim that, if everyone else would simply follow suit, this whole difference of opinion (which, as we discussed earlier, is actually a difference of belief) wouldn't be such a big deal. The error in this thinking is twofold. Any Christian who has ever attended Sunday mass, or made a sacrifice for Lent has no right to criticize an Islamic jihadist. Both circumstances illustrate believers undertaking actions that they believe to be direct instructions from their god. Both consider themselves to be righteous, and both are supported by explicit scriptural passages. If anything, the jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his life out of love for Allah is the greater believer, and more righteous man.
Now, do I think that a suicide bomber is righteous? Of course not, for murder is morally abhorrent (we will get into the discussion of morals outside of religion later). Many self proclaimed believers agree, and yet unlike myself, they have no right to say so. More importantly, and herein lies this second fallacy of the passive believer theory, any man or woman who wishes to hold onto his or her personal faith, has no right to punish those who murder in the name of theirs. Those who defend their right to pray and celebrate as instructed by their god, must allow others to act in accordance with their god's supposed wishes. It is only after the majority of mankind throws off the yoke of superstition, that we can say as a collective voice: "evil perpetrated in the name of an imaginary being is irrational and unacceptable." To those who may be shocked by my assertion I ask you, how dare you tell the Jewish rapist who wishes to marry his victim in accordance with the 613 Mitzvah that he is acting immorally? He only wishes to obey and love his god as you would yours.
Before closing, since we are on the subject of divine decrees, I should like to take the opportunity to point out a major absurdity found in the personality of all three monotheistic gods. Yaweh, God, and Allah all have a very big problem with idoltry. In all three religions, the worshipping of other gods or man-made objects, and blashphemy against god are offenses punishable by exile or death. By placing such an emphasis upon this sin, the supreme being reveals himself to be rather vain. Now I ask you, how ludicrous is it that god would exhibit vanity; vanity, the most pathetic of human emotions, the reason that the majority of mankind simply can not imagine that the universe itself was not created just for little 'ol us? Could it be that god, with his demands of allegiance, daily worship, groveling, and sacrifice is in fact no more than a supernatural king imagined by men who lived in a time of king' and emperors. No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.
First of all, any follower of one of the monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) who claims that their religion does not advocate violence, clearly has not taken the time to investigate their religious texts. Let's use Judaism as an example: commandment #355 (Deut 13: 16-17) of the 613 Mitzvot instructs Jews to "slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." Let me point out for those who may have missed it, this is a commandment from god, not a suggestion or interesting thought for interpretation, but rather a direct, and very clear instruction. Thus, to anyone who defends the peacefulness of your religion, please disist, for you are mistaken. If anything, the monotheisms can be considered contradictory to the highest degree, for there are both entreaties against murder and violence and those for them.
Yet, this argument must be taken further, for their are many believers who have rejected the nastier bits of their faith and proclaim that, if everyone else would simply follow suit, this whole difference of opinion (which, as we discussed earlier, is actually a difference of belief) wouldn't be such a big deal. The error in this thinking is twofold. Any Christian who has ever attended Sunday mass, or made a sacrifice for Lent has no right to criticize an Islamic jihadist. Both circumstances illustrate believers undertaking actions that they believe to be direct instructions from their god. Both consider themselves to be righteous, and both are supported by explicit scriptural passages. If anything, the jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his life out of love for Allah is the greater believer, and more righteous man.
Now, do I think that a suicide bomber is righteous? Of course not, for murder is morally abhorrent (we will get into the discussion of morals outside of religion later). Many self proclaimed believers agree, and yet unlike myself, they have no right to say so. More importantly, and herein lies this second fallacy of the passive believer theory, any man or woman who wishes to hold onto his or her personal faith, has no right to punish those who murder in the name of theirs. Those who defend their right to pray and celebrate as instructed by their god, must allow others to act in accordance with their god's supposed wishes. It is only after the majority of mankind throws off the yoke of superstition, that we can say as a collective voice: "evil perpetrated in the name of an imaginary being is irrational and unacceptable." To those who may be shocked by my assertion I ask you, how dare you tell the Jewish rapist who wishes to marry his victim in accordance with the 613 Mitzvah that he is acting immorally? He only wishes to obey and love his god as you would yours.
Before closing, since we are on the subject of divine decrees, I should like to take the opportunity to point out a major absurdity found in the personality of all three monotheistic gods. Yaweh, God, and Allah all have a very big problem with idoltry. In all three religions, the worshipping of other gods or man-made objects, and blashphemy against god are offenses punishable by exile or death. By placing such an emphasis upon this sin, the supreme being reveals himself to be rather vain. Now I ask you, how ludicrous is it that god would exhibit vanity; vanity, the most pathetic of human emotions, the reason that the majority of mankind simply can not imagine that the universe itself was not created just for little 'ol us? Could it be that god, with his demands of allegiance, daily worship, groveling, and sacrifice is in fact no more than a supernatural king imagined by men who lived in a time of king' and emperors. No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Why Run the Risk?
posted by Brandon-
One of the main forces behind religion’s virulence is the explanation of post death experience. This is a fairly serious concern, if religion not only provides an explanation, but a ticket to participate in such an experience, it would behoove one to pay close attention to the rules and regulations of many different creeds. This rarely happens, the majority of individuals do not shop around for after-life mythology. You do not see waves of devote people weighing the benefits between the journey to Hades and reincarnation, or being a resident of Christian hell, and being of righteous dead awaiting the messiah. Instead people choose (or as we pointed out before, receive) one religion. Not only do they feel that their myth is correct, most people are unaware of any other concept of immortality. This is quite interesting, it would seem that with the stakes so high (just to put this in perspective, we are talking how you spend the rest of eternity) one would want some reassurance that they participate in the correct dogma. Well the truth is, considering the countless types of possible religions (including cults) statistically you have selected/received the wrong faith. Just imagine you are Christian, die and to your awful surprise find out that heaven has 72 virgins per attendee and rivers of milk and honey, guess what? In this case the God of Islam is really the right god and you cannot enter. This point can be made equally well by inserting any dogma and an after-life example of a contradictory mythology. What can be done? As Daniel Dennett suggests in his wonderful book Breaking the Spell Religion as a natural phenomenon. We should examine religion objectively, the same as we would examine any natural phenomenon. If religion is as important as believers claim would it not make sense to examine it and find out as much as we could? For all we know, (however unlikely, although perhaps more likely then any working model of religion humans created) everyone could all be wrong and find out that a certain microorganism created the universe and governs some type of micro heaven. In that case all humans are in pretty bad shape, since we are already at the mercy of worldly microorganisms. Unfortunately until religion’s immunity to open criticism, study and discussion is lifted people will just have to keep gambling against tremendous odds that he or she is right. Why run the risk.
One of the main forces behind religion’s virulence is the explanation of post death experience. This is a fairly serious concern, if religion not only provides an explanation, but a ticket to participate in such an experience, it would behoove one to pay close attention to the rules and regulations of many different creeds. This rarely happens, the majority of individuals do not shop around for after-life mythology. You do not see waves of devote people weighing the benefits between the journey to Hades and reincarnation, or being a resident of Christian hell, and being of righteous dead awaiting the messiah. Instead people choose (or as we pointed out before, receive) one religion. Not only do they feel that their myth is correct, most people are unaware of any other concept of immortality. This is quite interesting, it would seem that with the stakes so high (just to put this in perspective, we are talking how you spend the rest of eternity) one would want some reassurance that they participate in the correct dogma. Well the truth is, considering the countless types of possible religions (including cults) statistically you have selected/received the wrong faith. Just imagine you are Christian, die and to your awful surprise find out that heaven has 72 virgins per attendee and rivers of milk and honey, guess what? In this case the God of Islam is really the right god and you cannot enter. This point can be made equally well by inserting any dogma and an after-life example of a contradictory mythology. What can be done? As Daniel Dennett suggests in his wonderful book Breaking the Spell Religion as a natural phenomenon. We should examine religion objectively, the same as we would examine any natural phenomenon. If religion is as important as believers claim would it not make sense to examine it and find out as much as we could? For all we know, (however unlikely, although perhaps more likely then any working model of religion humans created) everyone could all be wrong and find out that a certain microorganism created the universe and governs some type of micro heaven. In that case all humans are in pretty bad shape, since we are already at the mercy of worldly microorganisms. Unfortunately until religion’s immunity to open criticism, study and discussion is lifted people will just have to keep gambling against tremendous odds that he or she is right. Why run the risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)