A lovely addition to Evid3nc3's video uploads - A History of God. This video more or less summarises the development of Judaism from earlier polytheistic religions to its modern monotheistic form.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have been thinking. It seems that there is something fundamentally odd (perhaps, just plain wrong) with postulating an immaterial (and supernatural) entity as the creator of the universe.
I'm not exactly sure but the reason for adding such a property goes something like this: The universe (in its current state) is an effect whose cause is traced back to the Big Bang. No matter how science may attempt to explain using natural/material causes, it will eventually run into the problem that the cause must itself have been an effect. Thus it would only just add one more step to the regress.
The solution (in their opinion) is to postulate an immaterial (and/or supernatural, I don't think the distinction matters too much) agent (ie, god) to end the regress. Thus, it is also called the uncaused cause. Other properties that comes along include eternal and intelligent.
But I think it is just odd.
How does postulating an immaterial entity supposed to solve anything?
In fact, couldn't an immaterial cause be itself an immaterial effect and thus be no solution at all?
If the solution lies in the property of being eternal, why can't the cause be material?
Perhaps I'm just missing something and this post is just brain diarrhea.
It has always struck me as a little odd that theists use logical arguments for the existence of their god at all. Although it is notable that those arguments have always been found to be based on faulty logic, that I shan't pursue here. Even if it were granted that those arguments were logically sound, I'd still argue that it is insufficient grounds for belief in the existence of anything at all, let alone god.
Reasoning alone is insufficient - Evidence is another critical criteria that should be fulfilled before belief is reasonably warranted.
A logical argument, if correct, only shows that the entity in question may exist. Emphasis on "may" - It has merely demonstrates that the entity should theoretically be in existence. But it does not demonstrate that existence of the entity itself.
If the logical argument alone, without any evidence in favour of it being presented, is sufficient to warrant belief in the existence of the entity being argued for, how is any different from arguing something into existence (ie, irrational).
Furthermore, in case for the existence of a deity, it does not even inform what sort of properties such an entity has (other than the ones within the argument itself). So this makes even odder when theists jump straight for the conclusion that that god is their god.
Take the cosmological argument for the existence of god for example:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
If you accept the argument to be true (which I don't), it has demonstrates nothing about the existence of any gods.
So, there is a First Cause. So what?
The identity of that First Cause is unknown.
The current state of existence of it is also unknown.
The properties of that agent is also unknown if it is still in existence.
Any attempts to link the First Cause to any specific deity known to humanity is tenuous at best.
The same goes for all the alleged logical arguments for the existence of god.
No evidence.
QualiaSoup is back with his latest video - Putting faith in its place. It's about the relationship between claims of existence, faith and evidence.
I was hit by the following chain mail a long while ago and has since been wanting to post something about it on my blog. I have finally got about to doing so today.
Warning: This post is going to be a looonngg one. The contents of the chain mail are as follows:
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes sir,” the student says.
“So you believe in God?”
“Absolutely.”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good.”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
“Yes.”
“Are you good or evil?”
“The Bible says I’m evil.”
The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes sir, I would.”
“So you’re good…!”
“I wouldn’t say that.”
“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”
The student remains silent.
“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
“Er…yes,” the student says.
“Is Satan good?”
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”
“Then where does Satan come from?”
The student falters. “From God”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”
“Yes.”
“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”
Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“So who created them?”
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”
The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”
“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”
“No, sir, I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”
“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“Yet you still believe in him?”
“Yes.”
“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”
“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”
“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”
“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”
“And is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”
“No sir, there isn’t.”
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”
“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”
“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”
“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”
“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”
“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”
“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”
“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”
The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.
“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”
“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”
“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”
Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"
No one appears to have done so.
The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."
The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.
The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.
"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."
"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."
"Oh," said the Christian.
"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."
"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.
"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.
"I guess not."
"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"
The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.
"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"
The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."
The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."
The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"
"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"
"Uh, no."
"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"
"Well..."
"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.
"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."
The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."
"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."
"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"
"I didn't know that."
"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."
"Really?"
"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"
"I guess not."
"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."
"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."
"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."
"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.
"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"
The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.
The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"
"There is the absence of good," said the student.
"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."
The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."
"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."
The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."
"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."
The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."
The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."
"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.
"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."
"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"
"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."
"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."
"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."
"There you go," said the professor.
"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."
"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.
"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."
"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"
"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."
The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"
"Yes, yes," said the professor.
"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."
"So it would seem," said the professor.
"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"
The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.
The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.
God has been invoked many times throughout history. When humanity was temporarily confounded by natural phenomenons, we invoked god as the explanation. As time went past, some curious mind decides to investigate, finds the real answer and removes god from his gaps. This is seen time and time again in history. And it happened to the greatest minds in science as well.
Having finally gotten off my lazy arse and watched Session 2 of Beyond Belief 2006, I now understood the history of the God of the Gaps better. In the first 40 minutes of the video, Neil deGrasse Tyson gave that presentation.
Hmm...... This video by NonStampCollector got me thinking a bit.
Scripture as evidence?
Uh, no.
Written or inspired by god?
Firstly, scriptures are all written by Man. If you think god(s) wrote any of them personally, please go read up some history. Claims that they were inspired by god are unverifiable because (1) inspiration is subjective and (2) they are dead now, no one can check.
Like I said previously on the opening post to this series, evidence for god would be evidence of god manifesting. Scripture is poor evidence for any god simply because it is not necessarily the product of god.
This applies to all religions.
Since I have a tad bit more knowledge about the bible, I'll use it as the example.
The holy book of inconclusive authorship
If you still haven't realized, the bible is a collection of books. And for most parts, the authors are unknown.
For example, none of the old testament was written by Moses himself. They were likely to be at best hearsay written decades after the fact. Is hearsay reliable? After so many years, wouldn't embellishments inevitably occur?
Neither was the New Testament written by Jesus' actual disciples. The four gospels named after Jesus' disciples were written some 100-150 years after Jesus and his disciples were dead. They are second hand accounts. Where's the reliability in that?
What about the embellishments?
(Even it may adhere to the themes of the bible, is it still not an embellishment?)
If the bible is reliable, would you believe that claims of UFO abduction as well? After all, the claimants are alive and are first-hand accounts.
"Scientific" verses as proof of divinity
Seriously, no.
For every scientific truth in the bible, there is a couple of unscientific lie to complement. That is not proof of omniscient. If you're going to keep the hits and ignore the misses, you're cherrypicking your own damn holy book (big book of MCQ, eh?).
I've given an answer to such an argument previously, so I shall quote myself here:
Verses "hinting" scientific knowledge? Frankly, they are usually distorted or required extremely vague interpretations in order for the verse to make sense scientifically. Such "interpretations" have been done several times over by the devout looking for some anchor in reality for their beliefs. Just search Quranic science on Youtube and you probably get a dozen or more "examples".
For any verse to convince anyone that it hints scientific knowledge, it needs to be flat out obvious to anyone who reads it. And when I say scientific knowledge, I mean something big like a theory rather than a simple fact. Stuff like the "Earth is round" is barely substantial and hardly convincing. If a holy book have an entire chapter dedicated to the Atomic Theory, that would be convincing. However, I may not convert right away, more evidence would be required for a skeptic like me.
Not to mention, such bible science or quran science are usually made AFTER science itself have made the discovery. It is an dishonest attempt to frame the discovery to appear as though the "gods" got there first. It would be much more convincing if it was the holy books which prompted a research in science as opposed to framing the discovery as a religious idea after all the research was done.
However, that being said, evidence of god himself would be more convincing as opposed to hints of scientific knowledge in a 2000 year old book.
[Click here for original post]
[Take a look here (#699 & 700) if you're interested in some of the verses I've had to deal with]
One of the episodes of the Atheist Experience that I enjoy most is episode #572.
At first, I thought of trying to transcribe the episode. I failed miserably. And I think people who able to transcribe stuff are amazingly insane (in an admirable way, of course). Way too difficult for me.
Here's the episode:
Tracie Harris:
Here he is again trying to describe it (God):
"This is the awesome glory of God, I don’t have a clue as to what he is – none whatsoever! This is what makes him so magnificent – because there is nothing in this world that could explain or describe or imagine what his glory is like. We only say 'God' and 'He' because it is the best way for us to identify what we are talking about. But that doesn’t describe what He is like or what He is made of or anything. A 'thing', we can describe. 'God' we cannot."
And let me tell you that the last part of that paragraph is something that most atheists would give a hearty amen to because it does seem like "a thing you can describe but god you cannot" and it also seems like "we don’t know who or what" or, you know, "what we are talking about" or anything about it. So if this is the description that I’m getting back and I’m trying to have a conversation with someone about "God exist" and I can’t even get past "God". I don’t know how to have a conversation.
Matt Dillahunty:
Yea, and... and I... you know, while I wouldn’t have phrase it this way and certainly wouldn’t have start with "this is the awesome glory of God." The idea that you’re saying, I believe in this thing that I can’t possibly understand, I can’t comprehend, I can’t even imagine, I can’t describe, I can’t know anything about. Why would anybody believe in that?
Tracie: Well… What is that?
Matt: What is it that you’re believing in
Tracie: Right.
Matt: How can you say that I can’t comprehend it but I believe it
Tracie: Right.
Matt: I can’t understand it. I can’t describe it. But I believe it.
Tracie:
Right. I mean I don’t know what it is I am supposed to be understanding that you believe when this is the response. Erm. I have no idea what, I mean, if you can’t make sense of it and you can’t understand it. How in the world you can possibly expect to communicate that to someone else?
Matt:
And what does it say for example if we extend it into what they’re normally talking about where this is a god that created you. And he specifically created you in a manner you’re unable to comprehend, understand, identify and describe or in any way know anything about him.
Now, I realize that not all the believers necessarily fall into this category but if you’re in that category, if you can’t, I mean, if you don’t even know what this thing is and you don’t understand, yet you’re believing it and then eventually you get the justification that I believe it because, you know, he made me, he made everything, that type of thing. Well… erm.. how do you know that, how you know there is any 'there' there? I mean it’s just madness.
Tracie:
Well, basically, it’s the description of nothing. I mean it’s a description of nothing. And then I supposed to talk about it like it’s something. And I don’t know how to do that. And I think that’s what I’m trying to say today is... that there is a definitional divide, I think, between, like, apologists and atheists that… there is no wonder that communication doesn’t happen or it’s so difficult.
When a person that is offering that sort of description for god does not understand the non-information they are providing. They are providing me a whole bunch of words and saying nothing. They’re describing nothing. They have given zero information in that paragraph. They’ve just spent an entire paragraph explaining to me why they can’t explain to me god and yet they want to dialogue with me about god.
Well if I want to have a conversation with someone about god, they have got to be able to tell me what they’re talking about. If you can’t tell me what you’re talking about, there cannot be a conversation. So I would say before you approach somebody to discuss your god, you need to sit and do some reflection and try figure out what you mean by that word, specifically what you mean.
And I also don’t mean what do you think what god does. I mean what do you mean god is. Because what you think god does is really irrelevant until there is, shown to be a god that is. Erm, you can tell me all day long, god creates worlds, god wrote the bible, god… and I cannot confirm any of it because I have no god to go to and examine and say you know what, that’s correct this god did write the bible.
Erm, that’s the other problem that we have with this particular person was the idea that the evidence that was being put forward on behalf of his god’s existence all assume god existed. So you would have the bible put forward and it’s like god created the bible and so here’s the bible and this is evidence for god. But if there is no god then god didn’t created the book so I can’t, you can’t come to me when we’re trying to determine or not whether there is a god and say you’ve got this book that is the product of that god and you want to enter that into evidence for your god. And I should accept it as evidence because it was created by your god. But, well, if the point of contention is whether or not god exist, of course I’m not going to accept that the book was created by god. We need to establish first that there is a god that can create the book. Then we can talk about whether or not he did create the book.
I've been watching "The Atheist Experience" videos in their archives these past days. They are incredibly interesting to watch. Very informative and insightful. I learnt quite a bit from the videos I have watched so far.
In particular, I enjoy watching the episodes where Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris are hosting together. They rock the show in my opinion!
So I shall list a few of the videos that I found extremely interesting.
The Old Testament, Monotheism or Henotheism?
► Episode #464
► Episode #466
► Episode #483
On Consciousness
► Episode #500
► Episode #504
Skepticism and Children's books
► Episode #548
► Episode #552
What do you mean by "God exist?"
► Episode #572
Today, during class, there was a mini hooha over a phrase. It went something like that...Student (Christian): I am who I am.
Teacher (Also christian): No, you can't say that, you know?
*Brief pause*
Teacher: God said that. You're a christian so you cannot say that. The others can say that but you can't.
Me: *Rolls eyes*
First things first, that probably isn't exactly how it was said but it should be sufficiently accurate so as not to lose its original meaning.
Some might be thinking: So? What's the big deal?
You know what? There actually is.
The phrase "I am who I am" implies that the person who said that is the "uncreated creator" which is basically Yahweh (since it's Christianity we're talking about). Hence, the little hooha.
Okay, fine. Christians are not supposed to say that since that would be "disrespectful" to their god. But whatever does it mean that the others can say it?
Taken to worst of conclusions, it could very well mean: "They can disrespect god since they are going to hell anyway." Of course, I seriously doubted the teacher meant it that way so let's see the alternative reasons.
I'm thinking of religious pluralism or relativism. Vaguely, it means that all religions are equally valid. For some people, it may simply mean that my god (of my religion) takes care of me and your god (of your religion) take cares of you. People with polytheistic tendencies (perhaps, the chinese) would be more emphathetic to such an idea.
But unfortunately, religions typically claim that each is the one true path and thus make pluralism/relativism look like bullshit.
What other reasons might there be?
Sometimes, believers find it difficult to abandon the idea of god not because they haven't doubted their religion but because they are afraid of losing god himself.
The following is quoted from the RichardDawkins.net forums where a believer explains her stanceFor me, however, this has always been about the relationship- which I think I mentioned before. A lot of bad things have happened to me over the course of my life and God has always been the one person who was there with me through it. Sometimes literally the only one. And so to talk with you about Him possibly being fake is a horribly terrifying thought to me. I just don't think a lot of atheists understand how scary it is for people to walk away from something like this, because at least in my case, it means possibly losing my best friend. I could care less if my family looks down on me for questioning my faith and hating me if I walk from it. I have never cared what people think. It's about losing Him.
The link to the original post is here but it requires you to be a member in order to view this part of the forum.
This is an example of misattribution. Just because god isn't real doesn't mean that the feelings aren't real. But they were misattributed. There isn't any god to give you strength, it is you and your inner strength.
The inner strength that was stolen by religion. The idea of god constructed by religious beliefs were attributed certain abilities which, in some cases, is your own.
I found the following reply very "profound-ish"If God doesn't exist, nothing changes. Nothing will be taken away. The universe will continue to be exactly as it is now - all that will change if you stop believing is how you think about it.
If there is no god, you won't be losing a friend, you'll be realising that he's actually you.
Yes, the relationship with god is actually the you that was lost.
But of course, don't take this comment so far as to thinking that you are actually god. There are other properties which are decorations that were put up by the believers in the past.
Ah... the Judgement Day Short story. A nice read I must say.
In the story, god was made much more sophisticated than what the believers seem to usually espouse. God was "judging" on the basis whether believers are believing for the "right" reasons. What are the right reasons? Only god knows.
For the believers, it seems almost as if god is extremely concerned whether people believe in him. God seems to be less sophisticated than the one seen in the short story.
God, it seems, is more concerned with mundane issues and is very vain. "Yer want to go to heaven? Just believe in me. If yer don't, yer can go to hell."
Create shitty creations and send them to hell for being shitty. Surefire way to roast most of humanity. That sure seems like a good idea, eh?
Any argument, even the "free will" argument, doesn't work. God is morally bankrupt.
Take this analogy: An engineer designs a building. After 3 years, the building collapses due a structural failure resulting in the death of 200+ people. It was investigated and found that it was due to error on the engineer's part.
God, on the other hand, is an engineer who KNEW the building will collapse and what is the error he is going to commit but commits the error anyways.
Hardly "moral" material.
I just read a short story about a christian and an atheist on judgement day. I learnt about the story from Unreasonable Faith where the full story is posted at The Atheist Blogger and the story was initially posted here. At the head of the queue we find a young Christian, wearing an expression of awe and joy. Behind him, an atheist, looking slightly astonished, examining a leaf she has picked from a nearby bush, trying to decide if it is real or not. Heaven, she thinks, should be whiter, with more dry ice swirling about; not look like a Welsh hillside on a hot day. The Christian steps forward for judgment. “Hello Martin”. God’s voice is calm and gentle as He speaks. “Erm.. Hello. Lord”. Martin’s voice is nervous, as a dozen emotions fight for room in his mind at once. “This is it. This is where I decide what shall happen to you, Martin. In life, you were a Christian”. It was a statement, not a question. “I was, Lord. I still am. I have been all my life. I have dedicated myself to your service.” “Tell me, Martin. Why were you a Christian? Why did you believe in me?” “Why? Well… Because you are God! I’ve always believed in you.” “That is not what I want to know. Why did you believe?” “Because I knew it was true. You were always there for me. You helped me through the bad times. You answered my prayers. You gave me the strength and courage to get through life. I could feel your presence with me all the time.” “No.” “Pardon, Lord?” “I said no, Martin. I have never helped you. You seemed to be doing perfectly alright by yourself. I heard your prayers, but never answered a single one. Your belief in me definitely helped you on occasion, but I have never intervened in your life. Certainly, you gave me credit for all the good times, but they were your own doing, not mine. You did not feel my presence, because it cannot be felt. The only actual proof you have that I exist at all is here and now. Again, tell me why you believed.” “I.. I had faith, Lord. Since I was a child I have been to church, prayed and sang every Sunday. My faith in you never wavered. Even when my mother died, I had faith that it was your will, that it was a blessing from you that she passed peacefully. I was raised to believe in you, and as I grew I read the Bible for myself, and learnt of your miracles, and all the saints and martyrs, and the good done in your name. I read the works of great philosophers and they merely strengthened my faith. I knew it was true. ” “No, Martin. Your mother died of natural causes, and she died peacefully because of the actions of the hospital. I watched and saw, but that is all. As for the rest - the saints, martyrs and philosophers had similar reasons for their belief in me, just as dictators and murderers have had. People have done great good and great harm in my name, and in the names of a thousand false gods. The Bible was written about me, not by me, and was written by people who had similar reasons as you for their belief, just as a thousand other Holy Books have been written about the false gods, or different versions of myself. I ask for the third and final time. Why did you believe in me?” Martin looked shocked and ashen, but pulled himself together. His Lord was testing him, and he had lived his entire life for this moment. “I believed because I could feel in my heart it was true. You sent your son to die for us, and I gladly accepted Him as my saviour. I.. I just knew it was true, and now that I see you, my faith has been vindicated. I no longer need to believe - I can see for myself the truth and majesty of my religion.” Quietly, God spoke again. “Martin, you have impressed me”. He paused. “But… not enough. You believe because you were taught to believe. You believe because you mistakenly attribute to me anything positive that has happened in your life, and discount anything negative. You believe because it is comforting to believe, and because you are frightened of the consequences of my not existing. You believe because… you believe. I’m sorry, Martin, but there is no place for you here.” God gestured briefly with his fingers, and Martin vanished. His shadow lingered where he had stood, fading rapidly to nothingness. The atheist, somewhat shaken by what she had just seen, stepped forward. “Hello Eve. I like that name.” “Ah. Hello, God. Thanks”, said Eve, not entirely sure how to address a being she had, until now, considered fictional. “Yes, you may call me God. Eve, in life you were an atheist. You doubted my existence, even objecting to the very concept”. Again, a statement, not a question. “Yes, I did. Clearly, I was mistaken.” “Clearly. Tell me, are you still an atheist?” “I suppose not. I’m not a Christian, Jew or anything else. I guess I’d have to be called an involuntary theist. Ah ha ha”, Eve laughed nervously, hoping the very real and solid-looking deity before her had a good sense of humour. “Mmm… Tell me, Eve. Why did you not believe in me?”. God’s voice was kind and gentle once more. “At one point I did. I was raised as a Christian, and often went to church, and prayed every night before bed. When I was feeling down I would read the Bible. The act of reading it seemed to comfort me, even though the words themselves didn’t seem much help. I think, like Martin, I believed because I believed.” “And then you lost your faith? You decided I did not exist, and you knew better than those around you? You knew better than your pastor and family?” The voice was losing its kindly edge a little. “That is one way of looking at it, yes. What I believed did not seem to fit with other things I knew. The Bible clearly could not be literally true, word for word. I knew from biology and paleontology that humans had evolved like all other life, and were not special creations. How life or the universe began, I still don’t know, but could not just merely accept ‘God did it’ as an explanation. I learned about other religions, and how they all claimed a monopoly on truth, happiness and morality. I saw the good done in your name, but I also saw the oppression, genocide and wars. I saw that if people were in need, it was up to us to deal with it, not to rely on heavenly aid.”. Eve felt a little braver, but was expecting the traditional thunderbolt any moment. The people behind her, now at the head of the queue, were slowly moving backwards, trying not to draw attention to themselves. “Yet here you are, before your God, on the final Day of Judgment. Why should I allow you in - a heretic, a disbeliever, an infidel - when your predecessor, devout and faithful, full of love for me, was consigned to Oblivion? Tell me why. Justify your entry to my Paradise.” Eve straightened up, looking God in the face. “Why should you let me in? Because I am better person than you.” If Eve had looked round, she would have seen the entire line of souls, perfectly still and wide-eyed, staring at her in shock. “What did you say?”, enquired God. His voice, though barely audible, caused tremors in the mountain. Surprised at still being alive, her mouth dry, Eve continued. “I said, because I am a better person. You have shown it yourself already. You told Martin that you watched as his mother became ill and died. You destroyed him for believing for no good reason, when his whole life had been shaped by that belief. Your preachers on Earth encourage unquestioning faith, yet you do not tell us whether that is what you want. You give people no rational basis for belief, and then when they make up their own that is not good enough for you. You listen to our prayers, yet do not answer, leaving people to rationalise events for themselves. People kill and slaughter over trivial differences in doctrine, and you look on. In the churches and temples raised in your glory, children are mentally and physically abused - in your so-called House! All over the world, throughout history, people have murdered each other for believing the wrong thing about God, for believing in the wrong God, or for not believing in any God. The poorest and most helpless people are relentlessly targeted, being told to give what little they have now, for the promise of eternal bliss later. When a person is at his lowest ebb, that is when the smiling missionaries appear, knowing that his life will probably get better naturally and they can give you the credit. In your name, the ends justify the means as long as souls are saved”. Eve paused for breath, and continued. “And you? All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing? You just sit here and you watch it all… Any person in this line, had they your power, would show greater compassion and morality. You may be God, but you are far from Godliness.” God smiled. “Are you finished? Good. Eve, you have impressed me”. He paused. Eve held her breath, shoulders tensing. “You have impressed me a great deal. You may have believed in me for all the wrong reasons, but you disbelieved for the right reasons. You led a good life, and used the intelligence I give to everybody in the correct way. Even though you came to a conclusion about me that was hopelessly wrong, you came to it in a way that cannot be faulted. You may pass into paradise, Eve, with my blessing.” Eve did not step forward. Instead, she spoke once more. “No, I will not”. “No? You refuse Heaven? You defy my will?” The smile had left God’s face again. “Do you think I would want to spend one more minute, let alone eternity, in your company? You allow people to suffer, sometimes for their entire lives, for no purpose, and then judge them on their reaction. You hide yourself from the world and allow your creations to persecute each other over differing interpretations of the lack of evidence. You see all the pain and ignorance caused in your name, and just sit there as this queue grows daily? And then you have the audacity to punish good people for believing in you ‘for the wrong reasons’?” “Eve. Enough of this. The gates to Paradise are open to you. Be silent now, and enter.” “No. If it is a choice between oblivion and an eternity with a monster like you, I gladly choose oblivion. I ask only one thing, before you destroy me.” “And what is that?” asked God, getting impatient. “That, if you can, you look me in the eyes as you do it.” Shortly afterwards, the next person in the queue stepped towards the top of the mountain, and Judgment.
Here it is:The line seemed to stretch back forever. Hundreds of millions of souls, waiting patiently for their turn before the throne. The date… Well, the day is Judgment Day, so you won’t find it on any calendar. The queue of people winds its way down the mountain, through the valley and off into the far distance. Everybody in the queue can see the final destination at the mountain peak. A hundred miles away, they can see it perfectly clearly. And they wait, moving forward a couple of steps at a time. Towards God, and the Decision.
This is way too long for a single post, I think. I will leave my comments to my next entry.
