If God can affect humans, then there is a context in which God and humans coexist.
If this context exists, then humans should be able to access God.
If God can be accessed, then he can be observed and measured, thus proving the existence of God.
The fact that no theist has embarked on a successful quest to find this shared context and to access God for observation and measurement admits to one or more possible explanations. They may be too lazy. They may be afraid of what they'll find (which admits to a number of possible conclusions itself). The may not be capable of doing so. It may not exist. There are probably others that I've missed, but all of this leads us to a conclusion that God is not very probable, given that the people having the vested interest in proving the existence of God haven't done so.
That also leads to another possible conclusion - that they have a vested interest in not proving the existence of God, which allows them to define God for their own mysterious purposes.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Don't bring attention to your God
To my Facebook friends:
You know I love and respect each of you - except for one of you, who is a complete barking nutbag. You know who you are.
Please stop posting exhortations that there should be more "God" in the classroom,or in government, or in society. If your God needs your help, you might consider getting a new one, because that one doesn't appear to be powerful enough to shoulder his (her, its, their) way into a classroom full of six year olds, let alone set the country on a course that you have personally conceived and approved.
Also, you might reflect on how these declarations of yours draw attention to your God from the rest of us. We are now fully aware how much he/she/it/they need your help. It's not impressive.
Just a thought.
You know I love and respect each of you - except for one of you, who is a complete barking nutbag. You know who you are.
Please stop posting exhortations that there should be more "God" in the classroom,or in government, or in society. If your God needs your help, you might consider getting a new one, because that one doesn't appear to be powerful enough to shoulder his (her, its, their) way into a classroom full of six year olds, let alone set the country on a course that you have personally conceived and approved.
Also, you might reflect on how these declarations of yours draw attention to your God from the rest of us. We are now fully aware how much he/she/it/they need your help. It's not impressive.
Just a thought.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Dawn of Reason
I'm a caveman with a rock in front of me. It is rock. It is not a giraffe. If I walk away and come back tomorrow, it will still be a rock.
Is this how primitive Man began to reason?
Is this how primitive Man began to reason?
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Rationalizing
Rationalization - aka making excuses - is something we all do. I had a conversation with my Mom on Christmas, and she asked me if I remember being taken to sit on a fake Santa's lap at Christmastime when I was a child. I told her that I didn't think she ever took me, at which news her relief was audible. She then appeared to rationalize that she must have not wanted to lie to us about imaginary characters. It sounded as if she was making it up as she spoke. That was thoughtful of her - not wanting to lie about imaginary characters - but as she approaches the ripe old age of ninety, she has become more religious. I see a conflict there. And also old age. Could be more of the latter, facing her eventual demise.
Now, ***I*** rationalize as well. I'm approaching sixty, and as I try to piece together my journey through religion into more rational ways of thinking, the internal narrative often goes something like this: I was Episcopalian, then briefly Pentecostal, during which time I fervently believed in Jesus, Heaven and Hell. The New Testament was a profoundly holy book - until I read the Old Testament. Then a few decades of vaguely deist/quasi-pagan/agnostic, "non-religious but spiritual" life followed(1), culminating in a more focused and persistent attempt at learning about the philosophy of religion, logic, and religion itself. Finally, 99.999999% atheism.
Except for that brief supermarket sweep through Pentecostalism, I've generally been unconcerned with religion except as an academic topic. RATIONALIZATION ALERT!!! Actually, the Bible freaked me out for a while. I'm not sure why, but now that I'm more mature(2), relaxed and honest, I can cite three possible reasons the Bible scared me for years. Reason One: I was afraid that it was true, and that by rejecting it, I was tempting God to smite me, or booglerize me, or whatever he's supposed to do to back-sliders. Reason Two: I was afraid of getting sucked into a cult, and thought that the Bible had enough persuasive power to lure me back in. Reason Three: Bad Acid Trip. I read the first few chapters of Revelation while having a Bad Acid Trip in my teens, and was afraid that reading the Bible again would set off a flashback. Did I mention "Bad Acid Trip"?
Summary: my rationalization is that I was generally non-religious for most of my life. The flaw in thinking that is that religion has affected me in subtle ways, and for several decades until I reached my mid-forties. I haven't raped any altar boys or participated in a crusade or jihad, so I guess it all worked out okay.
(1) Dog, I hate that phrase now!
(2) I hope!
Now, ***I*** rationalize as well. I'm approaching sixty, and as I try to piece together my journey through religion into more rational ways of thinking, the internal narrative often goes something like this: I was Episcopalian, then briefly Pentecostal, during which time I fervently believed in Jesus, Heaven and Hell. The New Testament was a profoundly holy book - until I read the Old Testament. Then a few decades of vaguely deist/quasi-pagan/agnostic, "non-religious but spiritual" life followed(1), culminating in a more focused and persistent attempt at learning about the philosophy of religion, logic, and religion itself. Finally, 99.999999% atheism.
Except for that brief supermarket sweep through Pentecostalism, I've generally been unconcerned with religion except as an academic topic. RATIONALIZATION ALERT!!! Actually, the Bible freaked me out for a while. I'm not sure why, but now that I'm more mature(2), relaxed and honest, I can cite three possible reasons the Bible scared me for years. Reason One: I was afraid that it was true, and that by rejecting it, I was tempting God to smite me, or booglerize me, or whatever he's supposed to do to back-sliders. Reason Two: I was afraid of getting sucked into a cult, and thought that the Bible had enough persuasive power to lure me back in. Reason Three: Bad Acid Trip. I read the first few chapters of Revelation while having a Bad Acid Trip in my teens, and was afraid that reading the Bible again would set off a flashback. Did I mention "Bad Acid Trip"?
Summary: my rationalization is that I was generally non-religious for most of my life. The flaw in thinking that is that religion has affected me in subtle ways, and for several decades until I reached my mid-forties. I haven't raped any altar boys or participated in a crusade or jihad, so I guess it all worked out okay.
(1) Dog, I hate that phrase now!
(2) I hope!
Monday, December 31, 2012
You don't HAVE to have Faith
You may hear religious person say something like "you just have to have faith" when discussing religious topics, God, etc.
You know, as do I, that you don't HAVE to have Faith. Most of us - beliebers* included - instinctively understand this and operate accordingly. We use faith as a last resort, like when we jump off a cliff into a creek. We don't KNOW that there're no rocks immediately beneath the water's surface forty feet below, but we hope there aren't. Faith, in this instance, still isn't as good as knowing, but sometimes an epistemic shortcut is what we use, practical or not.
* don't ask me why Justin Bieber is relevant here. I just don't know.
You know, as do I, that you don't HAVE to have Faith. Most of us - beliebers* included - instinctively understand this and operate accordingly. We use faith as a last resort, like when we jump off a cliff into a creek. We don't KNOW that there're no rocks immediately beneath the water's surface forty feet below, but we hope there aren't. Faith, in this instance, still isn't as good as knowing, but sometimes an epistemic shortcut is what we use, practical or not.
* don't ask me why Justin Bieber is relevant here. I just don't know.
Friday, December 28, 2012
The Reality Hypothesis
Deacon Duncan just completed a series of ten posts discussing The Gospel Hypothesis:
In its simplest form, you can state the comparison just as a programmer would structure a conditional logic statement:
You can then compare the facts listed in the "If" and "Else If" clauses and adjudge the more plausible conclusion.
You can use this approach on any topic you care to - with the caveat that you have to be honest, make sound arguments, and just say "I don't know" when you don't know the answer to something. And always remember that concluding that your preferred result pertains will only work if concluding so is logically valid, and its premises and warrants are valid and true.
DD could have extended his series to many topics within the Bible - creation of the universe, creation of life, Noah's Ark, Jesus' resurrection - but that wasn't necessary to make his point. The result of any comparison that concludes that goddidit remains that Bible stories do not explain what we observe in the world, hence can be assumed to be myth until evidence is provided that could change that conclusion.
Links to the prefatory posts:
Links to individual Gospel Hypothesis posts:
He prefaced them with three posts that introduced the series - so I consider them to be part of the overall thesis. I think this can be generalized somewhat to"documenting the fact that it takes many more rationalizations to reconcile reality and theism than it does to reconcile reality and atheism"
"it takes many more rationalizations to reconcile reality and propositions that are not observed in reality, than it does to reconcile reality and propositions that are observed in reality".I offer this generalization in order to include anything supernatural, conspiracy-based, cultish, etc. including magic, prophecy, ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, the "9/11 was an inside job" meme and the like.
In its simplest form, you can state the comparison just as a programmer would structure a conditional logic statement:
If Proposition A is trueSpoiler alert: this is dead simple!
Then some facts about Proposition A will be observed in the world
Else If Reality is true
Then some facts about Reality will be observed in the world
You can then compare the facts listed in the "If" and "Else If" clauses and adjudge the more plausible conclusion.
You can use this approach on any topic you care to - with the caveat that you have to be honest, make sound arguments, and just say "I don't know" when you don't know the answer to something. And always remember that concluding that your preferred result pertains will only work if concluding so is logically valid, and its premises and warrants are valid and true.
DD could have extended his series to many topics within the Bible - creation of the universe, creation of life, Noah's Ark, Jesus' resurrection - but that wasn't necessary to make his point. The result of any comparison that concludes that goddidit remains that Bible stories do not explain what we observe in the world, hence can be assumed to be myth until evidence is provided that could change that conclusion.
Links to the prefatory posts:
Links to individual Gospel Hypothesis posts:
- Gospel Hypothesis 1: The Nature of Revelation
- Gospel Hypothesis 2: The Voice of God
- Gospel Hypothesis 3: On the Origin of Scriptures
- Gospel Hypothesis 4: Hermeneutics
- Gospel Hypothesis 5: The Contents of Scripture
- Gospel Hypothesis 6: Evangelism
- Gospel Hypothesis 7: Churches
- Gospel Hypothesis 8: Miracles
- Gospel Hypothesis 9: Theology
- Gospel Hypothesis 10: Evil
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
What good is prayer?
What good is prayer? It makes you feel good. If that's what you're after, then prayer works.
I use meditation, in a non-Transcendental Meditation sort of way. I'll say silent affirmations or aspirations to put myself in the right frame of mind - calm, clear, refreshed, whatever. I know that directing prayers outwardly to others is, realistically, futile nonsense - but I can't help wanting to "want" the same things for others as I am silently aspiring to for myself. So, I do it. It's more generally expressing to the universe - space, time, matter and energy - the positive things that I hope for my loved ones.
I don't expect it to work, but I do it anyway.
Call it prayer, if you want. It doesn't bother me.
I use meditation, in a non-Transcendental Meditation sort of way. I'll say silent affirmations or aspirations to put myself in the right frame of mind - calm, clear, refreshed, whatever. I know that directing prayers outwardly to others is, realistically, futile nonsense - but I can't help wanting to "want" the same things for others as I am silently aspiring to for myself. So, I do it. It's more generally expressing to the universe - space, time, matter and energy - the positive things that I hope for my loved ones.
I don't expect it to work, but I do it anyway.
Call it prayer, if you want. It doesn't bother me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)