Subject: Re: Music, religion, etc.
From: Robbie (shok@netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2000 - 01:15:27 EST
<< I don't see how you can compare the "more" here to anything. More
problems than what? Does postulating a God with no other
characteristics cause more problems with accounting for the existence of
the universe than theories we now possess? No, not so long as you are
only seeking an origin for this vast effect we witness on a daily
basis. Unanswered questions such as, "what is this God like?" does not
bear on the "God-thesis" as an account for the existence of matter. It
is a reasonable question, but not one we can leave unanswered without
violating our initial thesis. >>
You can leave it unanswered without violating your initial thesis
because the thesis doesn't contradict itself, but that doesn't make it
reasonable. My "Magic-thesis" of email delivery doesn't contradict
itself either. But the thesis is unreasonable because it requires that
Magic exists and we have no reason to believe that it does (and to my
estimation, no reason to believe that it does is reason enough to
assume, until further notice anyway, that it doesn't.)
Postulating that the Universe was brought into existence by a deity
requires the existence of said deity, and the added complexity that this
entails can't be overlooked for convenience. The "God-thesis"
accounting for the existence of matter is not one single iota more
reasonable than the "Magic-thesis" accounting for the arrival of email.
You must explain the nature of Magic for the "Magic-thesis" to hold any
water just like you must explain the nature of God for the "God-thesis"
to do likewise.
(But I believe you can use "Magic" as shorthand for the technical
explanation of email delivery, just like you can use "God" as shorthand
for the natural explanation of the existence of matter (which may not
even be very clear yet). This is why I contend that Atheists ranging
from myself in conversation to Carl Sagan in Contact to Einstein in
interviews may invoke the name of God or use religious rhetoric and
symbology without contradicting themselves or being irrational. Poetic
license, friend. And in this sense, I suppose you could even say that I
believe in and am in awe of God, but this sense is not compatible with
man's traditional anthropomorphic projection of a personal God and an
afterlife.)
The best solution I have ever encountered regarding the "First Event"
was, ironically, provided by a priest or cardinal or somesuch ages ago.
I don't remember who it was, but when asked by a skeptic what God was
doing for the countless ages before he created the Universe, the man
said, quite simply, that the question is meaningless, because when God
created the Universe, he also created Time.
To revise this a bit, space and time are essentially - according to
modern physics - the Same Thing. There was no Before the Universe,
because the beginning of Space was also the beginning of Time. This is
impossible to truly conceive because our brains are hard-wired for
time-spatial memory, but it seems reasonable that when there is no
time, there needn't be a finger to pull the trigger because there is no
moment for it to be pulled in anyway.
But regarding how you and I are approaching each other, I think we're
running into a wall that is very frequently run into in these sorts of
discussions. Maybe this will help explain it:
The Theist says of the Atheist: He Believes that there is no God.
The Atheist says of himself: I Do Not believe that there is a god.
Despite how a particular atheist or a particular theist uses words to
express their belief or non-belief, the particular selection of words
above, I believe, best displays the two radically different outlooks.
Do you see the difference? It's very subtle, but it makes all the
difference in the world.
The theist perceives Atheism as a Belief. The atheist perceives it as
the absense of one. A Belief in non-existence and a Non-Belief in
existence are *not* the same thing. I feel that you are projecting the
former on me, when I harbor the latter.
You seem to feel (as the Theist) that we have two options: believe there
Is a god or believe there Is Not a god. Neither option is provable and
both are reasonably baseless assumptions. You have, for reasons that
are unique to every Theist, chosen to side with the God-Belief instead
of the No-God-Belief.
I have chosen to abandon the whole deal altogether. Because I have no
means of discerning God-Belief as the Truth, I see no reason to side
with it. It's not that I harbor a belief that there Is No God. It's
that I don't harbor a belief that there is. So I sit without belief,
not just with an opposing one. You may then tell me that I'm not really
an Atheist, that I'm actually agnostic, but what it comes down to is
that I really just abhor that term. I'll get to that in a moment.
(if you find time, go read this:
http://www.atheists.org/drive.thru/atheism.html )
<< But I don't see why we're arguing on these grounds. We should only
believe something because it is true. >>
But we cannot know that the "God-thesis" is true. We can't know that it
isn't, so it may seem that belief or non-belief is pretty arbitrary.
But non-belief requires one less baseless assumption. (note that when I
refer to non-belief in existence, I am not saying belief in
non-existence, as that IS another baseless assumption)
And like I've said before, if I believe in everything that I can't
disprove, I'll believe in every bullshit story I ever hear.
<< You can't rationally argue from your own experience to someone
else's. If you can, so can others, and those who have had the
experience can then doubt your sincerity. >>
Clearly, if a person says they experienced something and I say they
didn't, it becomes a "did not," "did so," "did not," "did so" sort of
silliness. But I can doubt others' beliefs and I can do so rationally.
There have been devoutly religious people for ages who have bore the
wounds of Stigmata. When worked into a spiritual frenzy, they bleed
from the places Christ bled from during crucifixion. Much like the
snake-handlers and strichnine(sp?)-drinkers who, when worked into a
spiritual frenzy, can survive exposure to deadly poisons. Some cases
have been eventually shown to be hoaxes; others have not. Many cases,
in fact, have been very well documented. There is no doubt that some
people sincerely start to bleed while worshiping and others drink poison
and are bitten by venomous snakes to no personal harm. They say that it
is the power of God. I say that it is much more probably just the power
of their trance-like mental states, since giving the credit to God
requires that he exists, which stipulation incites loads and loads of
unnecessary and ununanswerable questions.
And my doubt of their beliefs holds considerably well, since there is
evidence that contradicts their beliefs but is consistent with mine.
The Romans drove nails through the wrists of those who were crucified,
not the palms as most people believe. But there is nary a Stigmata who
does not bleed through the palms. Why is that, if the bleeding comes
from God, and not their own ill-informed minds? According to biblical
accounts, Jesus was speared in the side while on the cross. No account
records which side. Yet, some of those who bleed during their intense
worshipping bleed from the left side, others from the right, some from
neither. And interestingly, those who bleed from one side or the other,
without fail, have paintings or other representations of the crucifixion
in their homes or places of worship that illustrate Jesus being speared
in the side that corresponds to their own bleeding. Why is that, if the
bleeding comes from God, and not their own ill-informed minds?
They have a sincere belief. I think their belief is not entirely
reasonable, and I doubt their belief. No one knows the specifics of the
mechanism in the human mind that allows their amazing feats, but this
ignorance is not reason enough to place responsibility in the
supernatural.
<< It's more responsible to say you're an agnostic... >>
I really, really dislike that term. Mostly because it strikes me as
being a cop out. In my experience, people who have called themselves
agnostic always meet my defintion of Atheist (having no belief in some
deity or after-life) but don't use the term for fear of persecution.
Agnostic is softer and gentler. Agnostics are almost always
closet-Atheists.
If I say The Force is real and I'm going to start construction of my
lightsaber tomorrow, I'm not being reasonable.
If I say that is ridiculous, and if you don't prove to me that The Force
is real, I'll just assume that it isn't, then I'm being rational.
If I say that since it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence
of The Force, I withdraw from this discussion, then I am being agnostic.
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've
been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was
intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it
assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one
was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God
doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't
want to waste my time."
-Isaac Asimov
from http://www.atheists.org/drive.thru/faqs.html :
" Atheism is the accepted life style of Atheists. Let's look at the
word Atheism. This is a word of Greek or Latin derivation
and, if you know your grammar, and we presume that you do,
an "a" or an "in" used before any word simply takes away the
thrust of that word. For instance, the word "independent"
simply means "free from dependency." Also, the word
"Atheism" simply means "free from theism," The word
"agnostic" simply means free from gnostic, or knowledge....
Therefore, Atheism is freedom from theism, freedom from
religion. An Atheist is a person who lives his life free from
entanglement with religious ideas, only that and nothing more.
Whatever the monkey on your back is, we are all free from
that. We are free from all theistic ideas whether they are
christian, hindu, islamic, jew, voodoo, or taoistic. "
-robbie
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-sanity is relative+-+-+-+-+-+-+| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:05 EST