You're mistaken

The following are excerpts from a post made on a forum in response to an atheist. Most of the ideas espoused in the reply contains common misunderstandings and logical fallacies. I will be explaining them here - not on the forum itself, for I've long given up of spending hours explaining these ideas over and over again.

The forum and author is not named and unnecessary. The post in question was not made directly to me either.

Here we go,

Moving on, I see that you're a materialist in that you believe that only things proven by science should be held as unequivocally true, and none else.

Granted, the person in question may hold that position but in general, most atheists don't think that. Things that are "proven" by science are not held as unequivocally true - not even scientists hold that position. Anyone who understands the Scientific Method would know that science do not prove anything with absolute certainty - all theories are thought to be tentatively true when sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence.

For me at least, "materialism" itself is also a tentative position.

However, that worldview only has one problem: there is absolutely no reason to think that to be true. Furthermore, that belief itself cannot be proven by the scientific method; i.e. it's self-defeating.

Absolutely no reason?

Again, "materialism" and "naturalism" are tentative positions. They are conclusions. And as far as evidence goes, they are "proven"

Okay, and before I continue, I think I should explain why I put materialism and naturalism is " " quotes. Those are allegations - they are positions I do not hold, at least not in the form I'm being accused of. For example, I am a materialist insofar that nothing non-matter/non-energy has been demonstrated to exist - and not because I think that non-material stuff cannot exist.

The word "proven" is useless unless it has been agreed beforehand whether or not it is being used colloquially. Because in conversations with theists/laymen, it is always used with regards to science and in science, we don't prove theories - that only happens in mathematics.

So, back to the charge of materialism. I think the belief is "proven" by scientific method in the sense that it works. Without the addition of supernatural/immaterial entities, science explains accurately the workings of the universe. Technology demonstrates that science knows what it is talking about. I'm not sure if I have to say more than that.

As for the notion that the Big Bang created everything and that there's no need to invoke the supernatural, you've quite frankly just put your foot in your mouth. Going by your line of reasoning, before the Big Bang there was just pure, utter nothingness (I'm aware that time did not exist before the bang, but let's just focus on the logic here). And if we're to be rational, I guess it's unanimously held to be true that from nothing, nothing comes, without exception.

Wrong on the Big Bang Theory. Utterly wrong.

I've explained this line of reasoning in a previous post (the video is critical, so watch that as well): Something from Nothing?

The short answer is, we don't believe that the universe came from nothing - that's a false accusation.

If the Big Bang was the absolute beginning, it literally is supernatural! The universe, being material, has to have an immaterial, intangible cause, I'm by no means intending to make a case here that that cause therefore is God. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the said position, namely scientific naturalism. Consider this:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. (God being the creator of time if he exists, did not begin to exist and therefore needs no cause i.e. you can't begin to exist when there's no time)
2. The universe has clearly been proven to begin to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
4. If we postulate a material cause, you have just set into motion infinite regression as the material cause itself has to have a cause.
5. The universe's cause is immaterial.

If you disagree with the above, you inevitably have to believe that nothing created something. If that be so, all logic and argumentation breaks down and we have no need to continue any discourse. If you agree, scientific naturalism no longer is viable.

Premise 1 is just wrong in so many ways.
I'd suggest reading this essay by Dan Barker: Cosmological Kalamity instead of rewriting all the points myself on my poor blog.

However, I'm more fascinated by the fourth and fifth point. How does concluding with an immaterial cause solve anything? How does immaterial entities escape causality? Consider souls - are they uncreated as well? If they are not eternal, they demonstrate that having an immaterial nature does not grant escape from causality within that worldview. If that's the case, what is the logical link between the fourth and fifth point?

In any case, the argument is unsound.

But how does the argument relate to "scientific naturalism" being not viable? Science relies on Methodological Naturalism - it presumes naturalism but it does not preclude it. If there is a supernatural entity, science does not assert that it must not exist - it merely ignores it so as long it does not interfere with the natural world.

On other hand, skepticism demands that we reject the existence of such an entity until we have evidence to demonstrate its existence. Everything else is moot.

I don't think that it's sensible to write off God without examining thoroughly the case for it for it's far too important a matter to just dismiss out of probably either a fear of being accountable to your maker, or some vague notion of wanting to be your own 'god' and live life your way, or perhaps cursory cognizance of some trifling objections to his existence from existence of evil, even gratuitous forms of it, in the world, of which satisfactory explanations in the context of God exist in abundance.

This one is just condescending.

How about this for a reason: NO EVIDENCE.

That's all.

God cannot be proven scientifically simply because he's immaterial and science only deals with the physical world, though it can be shown that a theistic position is more rational than an atheistic one.

Wrong. It depends on the god in question.

The deistic god cannot be demonstrated to exist by science since he does not interfere with the universe.

BUT the theistic god does. And as long the god interferes with the world in some testable manner, science can in fact demonstrate his existence. Prayer is one way. If god answers the prayers in a statistically significant way, that would be some evidence in his favor. So far, this is not shown to be the case.

You can't see the wind, but you can tell it's there when the leaves rustle. God is not perceivable by the senses being a spirit being, but his fingerprints are all over creation, not the least of which resides in the cell in the form of DNA.

The analogy fails.

Wind is moving air. We have demonstrated with evidence that air freaking exist. God, we have not.

"Creation" here is merely an assertion - an argument from incredulity/ignorance. I'm not sure how is DNA supposed to fit into this but if it's something like "OMG, it's so complex. Therefore, god" (which seems to be what it usually boils down to), I'm not impressed.

And that's to the end of that post.

Religious harmony, really?

Recently, in the newspapers, there have been a couple of praise or mention of religious harmony in Singapore. One letter in the forum section of the Straits Times even commented that "The Prime News photograph yesterday (above) of Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Buddhist monk the Venerable Fa Rong and Mufti Syed Isa Mohamed Semait nearly moved me to tears." (The Straits Times - ST Forum - Picture perfect harmony)


It's good so far
Before I continue, I need to say that I do like the fact that Singapore enjoys religious harmony. Religions do not make much issue here unlike some of our neighbours (such as Christianity vs Islam in Indonesia).

To be clear, I am all for religious harmony.

Now here comes the big "but",
But, I don't think that that is a solution in the long run.


Exclusivity of religious truth
Religions make truth claims. Unless the religion advocates the kind of universalism where it teaches that all religions are different paths to god(s), religions are mutually exclusive. No two religion can be simultaneously correct.

Look at Old Testament (Christianity) or Tanakh (Judaism) on the issue of other gods

From the Book of Deuteronomy (Tanakh/Bible)

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (New International Version, NIV)
If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.


What about the Koran's (Islam's) view of Christianity,

From the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam

Qur'an 5:72-78 (Yusufali translation)
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things." Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.

I think I need not say more about the exclusivity of the truth claims of the fore mentioned religions.

Even without these intolerant ideas in their holy books, religions feeds off human tribalism. It fosters divisiveness explicitly or implicitly, creating a Us versus Them situation whenever it is deemed fit.


The inherent danger of reversion
Yes, I understand believers have various reasons to ignore or not act on behalf of their holy books. But the fact remains that those verses are in their holy books. A simple reversion to fundamentalism or literalism will unleash yet more evils of religion upon the society.

Religious fervor transcend educational and economic boundaries (and indeed, national ones). This is notably true in present day events. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were educated Muslims from middle income families from different countries. There was the assassinations of abortion-providing doctors in the United States of America. Religion is clearly capable of inspiring insane atrocities.


Really harmony?
Is this harmony (in Singapore) we see truly what it seems?
Can it survive the religious fanaticism emanating from the rest of the globe?

Are the religions in Singapore really holding hands and skipping across the beautiful meadows of peace?

Or is it just begrudging tolerance - with religions sitting around a table with weapons behind them waiting for someone to say or do the wrong thing?

I am simply saying that we need to recognize this issue and actually address it. This fluffed up image of harmony fails to address this inherent danger of religions.

Peace does not come about by ignoring clear and present danger.

Being late has its advantages - The Qur'an

One of the perks for being a young religion is that you get to demonize/denounce other religions and put it right in your holy book. Ain't that nice?

Christianity had its turn with the ancient gods of the region which it pejoratively generalized as the "pagan" gods. So being sister religion, Islam had a go too against her big sister.

This post is mainly for referencing purposes. So here are the relevant excerpts from the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an (Koran).

Qur'an 4:88-93 (Yusufali translation)
They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.


Qur'an 4:171 (Yusufali translation)
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.


Qur'an 5:72-78 (Yusufali translation)
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things." Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.

Science as a disbelief system

The following is an interesting take from a discussion page at RichardDawkins.net.

It's titled "Science as a disbelief system" and written by the user, "Schrodinger's cat".

I recently had a friend make a comment along the lines of "You believe in science....I believe in religion...they are both belief systems," as if to imply some sort of equitable relationship between the two. I'm sure many of us have had similar experiences.

The friend seemed quite startled when I responded, "Actually no, science is a disbelief system." I pointed out that what makes science different from any other thought system is that while the congregation in religion is shouting 'Hallelujah!', in science they are shouting 'Prove it!' And to cap it all, the scientific high priests are required to provide a means of disproving that anything they say is true! Can you imagine the Pope doing that?

Not only is science not on equitable terms with religion, it is effectively the complete opposite. If science were a religion, then it's the only one where the holy scriptures demand not unquestioning belief but questioning disbelief.

It's high time we got rid of this 'just another belief system' mentality in society. We could start by banning 'faith' schools and their ridiculous notion that teaching science and religion is somehow 'complementary'.

I have never done a repost but this one was interesting enough for me to have done it.

One of core principle in science is the requirement that its theories be falsifiable - and indeed be falsified if evidence ever turns up to falsify the theory however old, popular or elegant. Science is self-correcting and demands that correction be made if one is to remain honest about the state of our knowledge.

That is the beauty of science.

A Sadomasochistic God

In recent months, I have subscribed to a number of channels on Youtube and one of them is DiscoveringReligion. This channel is host to an original series by the same name and it is of excellent quality.

Just hours ago, this video titled "A Sadomasochistic God" was uploaded. This video expounds on the concept of a omniscient god behind the purported sacrifice of his son/self supposedly for his love for his creation, humanity.

I love it. It's almost like the video version of my previous posts (Denouncing Christianity, A morally inferior god, Immoral Acceptance) on the topic.



His series, Discovering Religion, is extremely well made. Here I shall post the latest episode (3 parts) which managed to unsettle me.






Thank goodness

Well, this is old news. But I'm posting this anyways for posterity's sake.

This is Daniel Danett's open letter that he wrote during recuperation after his heart surgery. It's a meaningful piece with bits worth repeating here.

Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today.

Do I worship modern medicine? Is science my religion? Not at all; there is no aspect of modern medicine or science that I would exempt from the most rigorous scrutiny, and I can readily identify a host of serious problems that still need to be fixed. That's easy to do, of course, because the worlds of medicine and science are already engaged in the most obsessive, intensive, and humble self-assessments yet known to human institutions, and they regularly make public the results of their self-examinations.

One of the gentler, more supportive themes to be found in every religion (so far as I know) is the idea that what really matters is what is in your heart: if you have good intentions, and are trying to do what (God says) is right, that is all anyone can ask. Not so in medicine! If you are wrong—especially if you should have known better—your good intentions count for almost nothing. And whereas taking a leap of faith and acting without further scrutiny of one's options is often celebrated by religions, it is considered a grave sin in medicine...... Good intentions and inspiration are simply not enough.

What, though, do I say to those of my religious friends (and yes, I have quite a few religious friends) who have had the courage and honesty to tell me that they have been praying for me? I have gladly forgiven them, for there are few circumstances more frustrating than not being able to help a loved one in any more direct way...... But I am not joking when I say that I have had to forgive my friends who said that they were praying for me. I have resisted the temptation to respond "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" I feel about this the same way I would feel if one of them said "I just paid a voodoo doctor to cast a spell for your health."...... Don't expect me to be grateful, or even indifferent. I do appreciate the affection and generosity of spirit that motivated you, but wish you had found a more reasonable way of expressing it.

Nicely put.

He can't just forgive

Yet another excellent video by darkmatter2525.




Yahweh cannot forgive without making an ultimatum. Not very godly, methinks.