Somebody sent this to me the other day, and I have been rolling it around in my head for a while now.
I wish that Jillette had picked language that was a little less inflammatory, but his underlying premise seems rock solid. At least in my mind.
So my religious visitors I have a question, do any of you find fault with this logic?
Oh, and please no name calling. I really am interested in what people think about this observation.
Jillette is spot on.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific method:
-Ask a Question
-Do Background Research
-Construct a Hypothesis
-Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
-Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
-Communicate Your Results
Religion/Faith:
-Believe
Ok, Gryphen; am trying to decipher exactly what that quote meant. But, if religions were wiped out, God would still exist to those who believe in him. Can't speak for other religions, but in christianity, God's plan was a solid one - to send his only-begotten Son to save mankind to take our sins on Himself in our place. So that men could live in an eternal perfect place, without tears, hate, war, regret, sinfulness.
ReplyDeleteAnother component of the christian teaching that can't be bartered with, with hypothetical what-ifs is the actual presence of the Holy Spirit to man to help him hold up til the end. Some denominations have been experiencing the Acts 2 experience of the early church. It's referred to in christian circles as "revival". It is a real intimate presence of God between ordinary people from all creeds, race, all circumstances, etc. and they know that they know that what they experienced is real. The joy they experience is beyond the joy one feels here on earth. It's a supernatural experience with the Creator, who isn't some "force" but a living entity who loves, more love than we experience here on earth, and is compassionate and forgiving and patient.
However, this experience is holy and is not something that I am willing to say any more about here.
So just giving you one point of view, a heads up on why religious activity is not salvation. Religion can come or leave, no churches need to be built, but the Spirit of the Living God who lives in believers hearts is the author and finisher of our faith. So there you have it! You heard it here first. LOL
Penn's right.
ReplyDeleteBut it won't matter.
As I've said before:
religious nuts won't listen - otherwise we'd have no religious nuts.
If you're an atheist or agnostic, this makes perfect sense, especially if you've ever done any reading on the history of religious beliefs, like say, "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. Religions never stay the same through the ages - they evolve just like biological forms do.
ReplyDeleteBut if you're a believer of one of the Abrahamic faiths, you believe that God has communicated his truths to mankind, and would do so again, exactly the same message. They don't see their religion as having changed, but rather, matured.
Agree with Jillette.
ReplyDeleteO/T
Here is a fun quiz.
"Civic Literacy Exam"
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.
Here is the link if anyone is interested in taking it.
http://tinyurl.com/4kjvuhj
What inflammatory language?
ReplyDeleteIt IS impossible to refute.
He said it truthfully and beautifully!
The statement comes from a guy whose political philosophy lies to the right of Ron Paul, sooooo...
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised he hasn't been pilloried by the evangelicals yet.
-----------------
Technically a religion isn't dependent on a god. Look at the religion of St. Sarah.
Just kidding.
--------------
Sorry, Gryphen, I didn't read the part where you were asking for logic from your (organized?) RELIGIOUS visitors. Oops.
I agree with you that Jillette's tone is not helpful. His understanding of religion is also very superficial.
ReplyDeleteOne way of looking at religion is that each culture did in effect "start from scratch" and come up with their own variant. But the import of religion is not a matter of theory: it's a matter of of practice.
From the pragmatic perspective, the meaning of religion doesn't lie in its "truth claims" but in the effects it has on the experience and behavior of a particular believer. Those effects may be malign, but they also may be harmless or even benign.
Your tagline emphasizes that quality of character is not determined by religion, and I agree completely. But some people believe that religion helps them, and I don't see any point in denying them that consolation if they are not hurting anyone else in the process.
Learn to think before you learn to believe, or you'll soon believe you don't have to think at all.
ReplyDelete6:19 has said it well. I agree in the distinction made.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between organized religion and the existence of God. Religion is man-made and therefore Jillette is correct that many aspects would be different if we had to start over from scratch. However (and this is a Calvinist POV), just because your personal experience has convinced you that God does not exist does not mean that there is no God.
ReplyDeleteI was raised by an intense Christian Scientist - it has taken well over 50 years to extract my mind and my life from that thought pattern.
ReplyDeleteI started in science over 36 years ago, and I cannot describe to you the relief I felt studying something that demanded rigorous examination and proof.
I read Jillette's book, God No, which, while simply easy to read, is succinct; a real delight. I recommend it, but more importantly, a statement he made recently on a show resonates: if I can raise my children to be moral, without putting into them the fear of hell or a false promise of heaven, then that is success.
I know that is a paraphrase, but it is very meaningful.
Science is always fact. By definition.
ReplyDeleteEverything else is just opinion.
Humans created gods because of fear--fear of the elements, fear of the unexpected, fear of death. The Denial of Death by Becker explains this. It's depressing but probably true--spiritualism is a fabric of the human mind. I do believe in Love, and if that is God, then I'm all for it. A god who sends nonbelievers to everlasting torment, not so much.
ReplyDeleteIf any written history of anything were wiped out would it still be true? Yes.
ReplyDeleteJust because somebodies proof or story of something disappears doesn't mean the truth does to.
Not saying that I believe any religion knows the "truth" though anyways.
6:35: I think what the quote means is that if no one told believers what they should believe, there would be no belief.
ReplyDeleteBut I disagree. I think humans will always seek some kind of mystical understanding of their existence. The mythical religious stories exist in all cultures, which leads me to believe that there will always be people who seek a "religious" understanding of their existence, regardless of what form that takes.
For some people, science's inability (thus far) to explain the unexplainable (a child's death, what happens after death, etc.) leads to a mythical explanation.
For me, I decided a while back that I'm fine with not knowing certain things, and the explanations given to us by religion (it's God's will, you must simply have faith, pray harder, accept his plan for you) don't make sense, especially when the bottom line is that things that have already happened are unfixable. All we can do is accept. Same for the future.
I just get to the bottom line of "accept what is" more quickly these days, without all the angst in between. Some things are unknowable.
I don't disagree with him about religion.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with him about there being no god.
We don't KNOW whether there is a god or not. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't.
That's my problem with atheists. To me they are just the flip side of theists. It's still a belief system. Neither side knows.
Nothing about that makes any sense, 6:35.
ReplyDeleteWonder if the attendance at their Vegas show will suffer as a result of this statement. He probably has enough money that he doesn't care.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that you and/or others avail themselves of the link poted in the comments on the Hitchens post. Go to the Munk Debates website and watch Mr. Hitchens debate on religion.
ReplyDeleteIt is free, in memory of Hitchens.
gods are supernatural
ReplyDeletescience is of the natural
god-induced euphoria is a physical reaction to the belief of an unprovable existence
when it comes to human-defended gods - it all boils down to money and power - always has, always will
blanket rejection of science and the learning of science is immature and reckless
@6:35 -you are spot on. Well said!
ReplyDeleteMy two cents: everyone usually agrees with the concept of "no atheists in a foxhole."
ReplyDeleteThat leads me to conclude there is an unnamed sense from within, that is able to detect the presence of a God--despite all the contrary "logic" one tries to use to think scientifically.
I suspect its the individual who imagines his own baggage to have that spirit carry around...some see God as a tree, or the Sun...others require an elaborate magician with a top hat and cape, waving a magic wand to cause the universe to appear, to massive applause, instead of having Nature do its thing over millions of years.
Hard to say who is correct...but good luck NOT praying to your own personal deity, when you are careening off a cliff due to a blown tire, or staring down an angry black bear.
I'm not religious, but Penn is right about the science and simply can't prove his other hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same trap all atheists fall into: Science does not preclude the existence of God.
Period.
In fact, it may just be the vocabulary we use to describe what God created.
If you think this "logic is rock solid", all that means is that you're looking for justification of atheism and are willing to believe, ON FAITH, that you can somehow disprove the existence of God via human logic.
Penn doesn't KNOW religion wouldn't come back exactly the same way because it's something he CAN'T know unless his fantasy scenario played out for real.
Yes, it makes "rational" sense, but faith isn't about rationality and by definition it's NOT about something that can ever be proven.
Again, I'm not religious, but just like I don't pretend I know who or what or if there's a God, I also don't pretend I know there ISN'T one. 'Cause that's still faith either way you slice it, my friend.
I am certainly not a proponent of formal religion, having escaped that hypocrisy years ago. However, I do consider myself a spiritual person, whatever that may be, and I think there are forces around us that cannot be explained by science.
ReplyDeleteI agree with him that science would evolve in much the same way, although perhaps in a different timeline. However, I would also point out that there is a certain 'magic' in the great arts and they would never be recreated in exactly the same way again. We would most certainly have wonderful music and paintings and sculpture and dance, but I know that Michelangelo's 'David' or Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' or Mozart's 'Requiem' would not exist exactly as they are. Perhaps they are a function of time and circumstance, but I feel there is something greater than coincidence involved in the creation of the truly inspired works of art.
I am a Christian, but I do agree with this to a point. The exact tenants of any religion is written by man, and translated by men. Most religious followers then take this as a literal fact (I take a more broad view of the Bible). Science is based on people testing, and re-testing things so that everyone gets the same result, and if changed by translation, it will be caught by another test.
ReplyDeleteThere is no war between faith in what we cannot see, smell, feel, hear while we are alive IF you read enough quantum physics ( light is BOTH a particle and a wave !) and astrophysics ( dark matter, dark energy.)
ReplyDeleteMy chemistry 101 professor and I discussed one quantum theory that at least 11 diminsions exist.
I HATE all religions because most followers are unenlightened and shallow.
I personally am Taoist and there again, if you read, The Tao of Physics" by Fritoj Kapra, you will see there is NO war between physics and the philosophy that is Taoist/Buddhist.
Some VERY credible "near death experiences" by very credible people i.e. not some farmer out in his back 40 seeing UFOs---tend to support the state of "enlightenemnt" that buddhist monks strive for WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH QUANTUM PHYSICS, AND it seems researchers into "NDE's" are starting to realize that our brain hinders us from "seeing" with expanded consciousness i.e. the "mind" may be in the brain, but "consciousness" is not bound to our physicaity.
I could go on for pages and pages .
I agree with Christopher Hitchens' viewe of "religions." I do not think that when we did our consciusness disappears similar to being under anethesia in a no dream state.
I "FEEL" our consciousness survives our physical death. No way to know anything for sure till we get there.
I have had quite a few very strange experiencies and synchronicities in my life that I dont tell anyone about cuz there is no way to argue either way so I let others think, feel what they want.
Another good book. "Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Mind and Matter." Forget the author's name but he is a quantum physcist.
I know and agree with Hitchens on religion and god as some big daddy in the sky/authority figure but I am not really sure even he did not believe in there being some form of consciousness after physical death.
I have felt since I was about 10 that heaven and hell did not exist and virtue was it's own reward. I "feel" we all go to a place of love. I just dont think it is ruled by anyone with a personality:)
I sort of agree with this but I think he is mistakenly equating god with religion. I think that people tend to think of god as an old white man with a beard sitting in the clouds. I think of god more as an electrical life force. I think the big problem is the anthropomorphizing of the life force. Religion depends on there being an old white man sitting in the clouds passing judgement and ordering people to do horrific things to the earth and other people to demonstrate their belief in him. Religion has it all wrong. It is more like if you stick your hand in fire, it hurts and damages you, so don't do that.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing. Ok, 2.
ReplyDeleteFirst: I dont go to Penn Jellitte for my theology, opinions or even to debate with. He may be a nice guy, I dont know or care, but he is too shallow for my thinking.
I ALL of us go to love when we die. I cannot imagine any "God" of any type of construction being less than totally forgivving.
People who are truly ugly live their own hell here in this live.
Having said that I sure hope I never see the people that society calls my parents in whatever/wherever we go upon physical death. Mom was a very cruel maligenant narcissist and dad was a violet sob who beat me with fists when I was 7 to 16. I no victim of the holocaust should ever have to put up with Hitler.
Hopefully ALL our consciousness' are raised to where the pain caused by others is no longer divisive.
The logic is simple. The truth is there. In a nutshell. The difference between fact and fiction. Penn Jillette can be quite vulgar at times but his book "God, No" from which this quote was taken is well reasoned. He, like virtually all of us, was raised in a Christian home and went to church and received his indoctrination. Difference was he was a thinking man and if you are, you realize that religious belief is completely and utterly illogical.
ReplyDeleteCanada Gal
7:13 What Penn is saying is that if all religious beliefs were wiped out, new mythical beliefs would be created. Because, as another commenter stated, there is a human need to find a way to deal with our fears. But the myths could be radically different from what they are now. There is no guarantee of consistency because they are created in the minds of fearful man. I think Penn Jillette made wonderful points in his book and it's definitely worth a read.
ReplyDeletei dont care what people believe and its pointless to argue it. i just dont want people telling me what to do based on their beliefs. this is my problem with religionists. i want everyone to mind their own business. keep your nose out of my panties, out of my vagina, out of my uterus, out of my bedroom and kitchen and swimming pool. rules for the common good; yes. rules that keep you from fucking with me; yes. rules that keep you from fucking up the planet; yes. but rules that tell me what i can do with my body in private, and everything in and of my body; no.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually very interesting....I've got two quick responses.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I just watched the NOVA special again about Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board, about Intelligent Design, so I'm thinking on that again....As far as "Darwinian Evolution" goes, even if Darwin had never been born, the work of Charles Lyell and Thomas Malthus put biology on the road to those conclusions. In fact right BEFORE Darwin published On the Origin of Species, Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist working in the Malayan Archipelago, had reached the same conclusions that Darwin did, from Darwin's work in the Galapagos.....
Or even if Darwin did "invent" evolution, "evolution" would have been discovered by Gregor Mendel or James Watson even....
But Jillette is absolutely right: if Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Einstein never been born, we'd still have the same understanding of the solar system, the laws of motion, and relativity.
And if whoever wrote the scrolls from the Bronze Age that make up the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran had never been born, we'd have religions with wholly different metaphors and dogma.
On the other hand, the model for reaching enlightenment developed by the Gautama Buddha is similar to other, independently developed methods for self-actualization. I would dispute, though, that is "religion" in the sense of an anthropomorphic "god" character...but Buddhism is certainly more "spiritual" than Newton's Principles of Natural Mathematic Philosophy.
There's also Jung's concept of the Collective Unconscious. For example, if Plato/Socrates had not developed the concept of The Cave (in the Republic), would someone else have come up with that model?
If Dostoevsky hadn't written The Brothers Karamozov, would someone else have written the concepts in the chapters on "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor"?
"Civic Literacy Exam"
ReplyDeleteAre you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better?"
Yes. 87.9%
I find it interesting when anyone thinks they have a lock on the "truth". Good luck with that.
ReplyDelete@7:14 --you're pretty much in line with me.
ReplyDeleteJillette is confusing dogma with the existence of God/gods. You could wipe out every trace of religion, but deism could be reconstructed just as easily as science.
Many atheists today actually practice a version of faith themselves--they wouldn't be able to demonstrate Quantum Mechanics themselves (Could Jillette?), but they read it in a book, and they have faith in the book's authors.
Science is still filled with a lot of big question marks regarding physics and the origin of the universe. To state that there is no god is in itself a leap of faith!
Regarding the comment of Anonymous @ 7:14PM”
ReplyDelete“...We don’t KNOW whether there is a god or not. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn’t. That’s my problem with atheists. To me they are just the flip side of theists. It’s still a belief system. Neither side knows.”
Christopher Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” And his statement is especially true for believers! Atheists can state that there is no god, and they can do so without having to prove it, since it is not possible to prove a negative. Believers that claim that there is a god must produce evidence for their claim since their claim is a positive statement of existence, which must be provable to be valid.
As far as atheists being the flip side of theists, that’s bunk. As someone has said, “Atheism is a religion like ‘off’ is a TV channel!” or “Calling atheism ‘just another religion,’ is like saying ‘not collecting stamps is a hobby!’ ”
This Presbyterian finds no fault for anything Jillette said. We'd have a whole new crop of silly superstition based religions, but ultimately we'd come to the EXACT SAME scientific conclusions - including evolution.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
ReplyDeleteExactly.
Flip sides of the same coin.
I do not see anything profound in the statement. Yes, religions are created by man to express unprovable beliefs, but the fact that religions are created by man does not refute there is a god or gods. I have no idea what god is or if there is one.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing:
ReplyDeleteHitchens' god is logic. I worship logic as well and that is one reason love this guy so much.
BUT---
When you get down to the basics of quantum phsics ( and there are many books out for lay people, of which I am one) many things are found that ARE NOT LOGICAL, YET, THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN BY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF OUR MODERN TECHNOLOGY.
We utilize quantum theory daily with our technology yet scientist are still looking for TOE (Theory Of Everything) which hopefully will connect MACRO physics ( our daily world) with MICRO physics ( quantum physics.)
Another fun thought. What IS energy, really? Einstein said E=MC 2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.) Ok, so what is mass? In quantum physics we find anti-matter, dark matter, dark energy etc. Particles that come into existence from nothingness, last for an infintesimal small time and then pop back out of existence (CERN Particle Laboratories)
We are still looking for a boson nicknamed "the god particle" and even then don't know if it will the smallest "piece of matter" there is.
The physical world and the other dimensions and levels of consciousness are NOT separate, we live in a seamless existence and non-existence ( where there is not even the duality of existence v. non-existence)but our realatively primitive brains are not yet equipped to "realize" that which we cannot phsyically touch.
There is far too much mystery in every day life --even here in our physical world-- to deny that there is more than we normally sense. OH THE STORIES I COULD TELL :)
BUT, you don't need organized religion to be a good person, to have ethics and even the Dali Lama has a book out on ethics that would apply to ALL religions.
I am 100% with Hitchens that more evil is committed in the name of religion that anything else.
Like Hitch said, "I dont care what you think. I care HOW you thing."
Be honest with yourself and use critical thinking skills.
Perhaps this is off point, but, I've always thought the fatal flaw in the "you can only be saved if you believe in Jesus Christ" argument is--what about the people on the planets on the other side of the universe? How are they supposed to have heard of this guy? This has, from a very early age, been proof enough for me that such a belief has to be completely wrong, even amongst people on this planet.
ReplyDeleteScientific laws would of course be discovered anywhere in the universe that scientists exist.
Spirituality, I suppose I can assume--would also arise anywhere that there are curious intelligent minds. Perhaps each planet evolves to a point where they have their own enlightened beings that they consider to be the exemplars of their various religions, all with the same rules and rigid beliefs as our religions here have. I think beings on planets will evolve past this, however, when we evolve further into spirituality rather than religions per se, to the point that we all know that we are all One; Everything is God. But maybe that's just because I believe in a God-force that is Love, because that makes the most sense to me.
I feel God and science go hand in hand. When I visited Yellowstone this past summer, I listened to talks by rangers on how the geysers, volcanoes, mountains, and lakes were formed out there. I don't remember the exact details but God puts the right mechanisms in place for it to happen.
ReplyDeleteI get annoyed when someone says "God created that". How did he create a mountain? That's where the science comes in.
As much as I've enjoyed your political views, I'm not terribly interested in your religious views or lack thereof or the religious views of others. I don't like politicians forcing their religious views on America or anyone else to do it, pro or con.
ReplyDeleteHe has one faulty premise. He says religion can't be re-created exactly the same. What does he base that on? How does he know that for sure? How does he prove it? He can't. He is taking it on faith. People who believe in a god also take it on faith. Just because science can't prove there is a God, that doesn't mean he/she doesn't exist. It was many centuries before science "proved" DNA existed. Did it just come into existence, or was it there all the time?
ReplyDeleteAlso, bear in mind that many things "proved" by science were later disproven.
You know, there's an awful lot of religions out there, and they all have a different god or gods supposedely heading them.
ReplyDeleteI mention that because it makes it hard to refute, or not, Penn's statement if you don't know which god he's talking about. Heck, there's hundreds of those gods out there to choose from.
Clearly, though, there is strong, jolting evidence that Thor, the Norse god of thunder, does indeed exist. I've heard the awesome boom of his power and might myself...many times.
I have no opinion until FIRST OF ALL - .......................................................................................................................define god. THEN we can talk.
ReplyDelete-Colleen
@ 6:47 - the pee-ers were harping about their scores the other day - not one above the 70's. (One even credited it's "good" score (actually an average "C," to college courses.
ReplyDeleteTOld some of my progressive lib friends about it. Not one of us scored below a 90.
Yes, libs are smarter than 'baggers and pee'ers.
The Denial of Death by Becker explains this. It's depressing but probably true--spiritualism is a fabric of the human mind. I do believe in Love, and if that is God, then I'm all for it. A god who sends nonbelievers to everlasting torment, not so much.
ReplyDelete7:10 PM
=================
Love Becker. Too bad he isn't more widely known and read.
@ 7:49 - yes, but atheist "belief" is faith based on probability - there is much less evidence FOR the existence of god than against, and we seem to be moving more in that direction as science moves more and more
ReplyDeleteinexplicable" stuff to the 'explained" column.
My two cents: everyone usually agrees with the concept of "no atheists in a foxhole."
ReplyDelete=========================
No, everyone doesn't. Hasty generalization on your part= logical fallacy.
I fully believe in God.I have had very personal experiences that just reinforced my belief.I find no problem in believing in a "Higher Power" and in Science. Science is something that speaks to my brain,whereas God is something that speak to my heart.It's very easy to have both in my world. Religion has been bastardized and become so twisted since it's inception,that I am pretty sure there you won't find God anywhere in it.I don't believe in the whole Virgin Birth/son of God thing either.We are born with freedom of choice,and the intelligence to pick what is right for us.I raised my sons to respect the difference between right and wrong,without the influence of religion.They both know I believe in God,and what they will or won't believe is entirely their choice to make,not mine.
ReplyDeleteI'm not religious, find no fault with the logic, but also am sceptical regarding the assumed reconstructive function of 'science'. No one wants to admit to the culturally structured search for information/knowledge/data that we call science. But our perceptions/experiences of the universe are culturally structured, like it or not.
ReplyDeleteThe logic doesn't seem airtight to me.
ReplyDeleteIf all of science were wiped out, what's to guarantee that the names/method of organization would still be the same on the 2nd go around? Sure, it might be the same content, but people could end up looking at things differently, or discovering things in a different order. "Science" is made up of so many different components that one discovery made before another (evolution vs. physics vs. math vs. astronomy) in a 'second world' could change everything. And when there's multiple levels of construction in this second world and each 'new' discoverer slightly tweaks the names he chose, or the way she organizes it (like in biology), it seems the collective result wouldn't be the EXACT same thing.
As for the religious part, that seems a little weak on the 'what is God (if He exists) capable of?' part. Why wouldn't He be able to send down the exact same message in the exact same way? For that matter, Muslims believe the same message was sent down to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but in the case of Judaism and Christianity, changed by humans later. So arguably, wouldn't that core belief of one God get sent down again? And if it was sent again, the same content but wrapped in a slightly different outer covering... how is that different from science being wrapped in different terminology the 2nd time around?
ALL organized religion is built on myth, slogans and fear.
ReplyDeleteGo back and research it century after century...myth... Fairy tales made up to shape a civilization in many cases where no leadership existed - and in many cases not needed. Study the history of the American Indian... That should tell you all you'll ever need to know about spirituality.
For those who are unaware of how "God" became God, might want to read this book: http://www.evolutionofgod.net/
ReplyDeleteI was introduced to this information during a comparative religion class when I was in college, and it changed everything about how I view the idea of deities.
"Civic Literacy Exam"
ReplyDelete84.85 %
Good recommendation, Gryph! I'm reading that book right now. Have abt 35 pages to go. It's amazing! Many, many aha moments.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of O/T a bit
ReplyDeleteI would really like to have all Repub candidates and President Obama take this test LIVE on national TV, and see how they score
http://tinyurl.com/4kjvuhj
My bet is that Bachmann couldn't get over 40%
In fact, why in hell don't we have a serious "technical interview", like many techie jobs have, for Presidential candidates?
Something like a Super SAT!
If you think you are ready to be President, you damn well better get a passing score, or you can't run.
I bet $arah Palin wouldn't get more than a 30% score on that test linked to above
Anonymous @ 6:47PM,
ReplyDeleteI am a college drop-out house-wife who has not studied civics since leaving high school in 1982.
I got just under 79% on the civics quiz.
I realized that half our population were pretty ignorant..............but how in the heck could the college educators only get 55%?
Yes, religion is just an enormous "Telephone Game".
ReplyDeleteYou'd get a different result every time you played it.
I love Jillette. I am trying to be more like him and come out of the closet as an atheist. It's not always easy though. After homosexuals, we are the last minority that it is "acceptable" to discriminate against.
But maybe we aren't as few in number as everyone thinks?
Anonymous @ 7:46PM said:
ReplyDeleteMy two cents: everyone usually agrees with the concept of "no atheists in a foxhole."
____________________________________
Actually, no, "everyone" does not agree with the concept of "no atheists in a foxhole".
Atheists pretty much believe that they know themselves, and know that they would not throw an entire lifetime of belief out the window because they are frightened.
My mother keeps telling me that "I should just believe in God, because what if I'm wrong, then I will be Saved". I keep telling her that you can't force yourself to believe something "just in case". It either makes sense or it doesn't, and you can't suddenly believe something nonsensical out of expediency.
I believe God created all that falls under what he calls science. That means Jillette simply sets up an artificial dichotomy here, for me.
ReplyDelete(The prejudice against all religions is just prejudice. He is guilty of it and quite a few posters here are guilty of it. Don't lump us all together, thank you very much, unless you can claim to have knowledge of all religious practice.)
God created matter. God created science. It amuses me that people think our very existence is random, that the origins of our universe are completely arbitrary and just happened at one moment in time, out of the blue (how/why was "the blue" created, anyway?).
I'm sure that has some people going nuts, but sorry, that's how I see things.
People worry too much about God. Just live life as you see fit; that's about the best that any of us can do.
Anon @ 8:47
ReplyDeleteI like your last two analogies - spot on. Religionists seem to find comfort in the idea that being atheist somehow involves the same dogmatism as theism, and it simply doesn't. I don't believe in the existence of a god that in any way conforms to the Christian model, therefore by their own definition I'm atheist. The implication in the minds of Christians seems to be that I would dogmatically cling to the belief that there is no god when confronted w/ evidence to the contrary, just as they cling to the belief that there is a god in the absence of any evidence to support it, which is entirely illogical.
I see several references to innately knowing there is a god. That was the foundation of Gnosticism, but I'd like to hear a rational explanation of how you get from gnosis to believing in discount cruises in the belly of a fish? Don't you kind of innately also recognize BS?
This is a fabulous conversation that would be even better if we were gathered together around a fireplace while enjoying some adult beverages.
ReplyDelete"DobieTracker" and "Sarah Palin has a serpent’s heart" came close to expressing my current understanding, although DT is way ahead of me in science knowledge. I suspect that science is at about the grade-school level, with more to discover than we can imagine. Science studies the laws of creation so there is ultimately no conflict between it and the true creator or creative process. As it gets closer to truth, most religious systems--more about control, comfort, and justification to take over real estate--will be relegated to myth. Deism and Buddhism may well conform to scientific findings and remain.
I'm comfortable living with my experience in the unknown with the ethic of love.
I love the axiom, "There is no religion higher than Truth." Having said that, I believe in a Higher Power or Force, like "Use the Force, Luke." I just don't make it into our image -- like an old man on a cloud who lets some children starve while helping X-tian kids win the big football game. And, like Carl Jung and many leading Philosophers, I believe the only real power in the universe is Love/Truth. All evil is just the absence of that -- like darkness is NOT a force, it's just the absence of Light.
ReplyDeleteI've studied many religions, but will never pigeonhole myself by joining one. And I keep questioning, instead of thinking I know all the answers. That's why Philosophy has always appealed to me. I find that most religions are tied to superstitions, like not eating meat on Friday, wearing Magic underwear, etc. I think we'd be much better off as a species if we all believed there was 'One Planet, One Life, and One Human Family.'
Peace, All. Great, thoughtful comments.
Agree. It's a simple truth. Everything/anything else boils down to superstition.
ReplyDeleteALL of religion is superstition - no matter how you slice it.
Human 'brokers' (preachers, priests, lamas, shamans, heavenly guides, whatever) = pay-to-play pathway to God.
NOT neccessary for a relationship with a spiritual deity. NOT NEEDED for enlightenment. NOT REQUIRED to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Each of us has it in ourselves - and the right to it - all the time. We do NOT need permission from a spiritual broker.
_Equanimity_ - a state of mental or emotional stability or composure arising from a deep awareness and acceptance of the present moment.
Hindu - equanimity is the concept of balance and centeredness which endures through all possible changes in circumstances.
Equanimity does not mean sitting around inactive while things are happening, or escaping from the world, or suppressing one's feelings.
Equanimity is operating from the state of supreme watchfulness without an iota of attachment or aversion.
A mind of equanimity is an original pure mind free from all suppression, fear, dullness and ignorance.
Buddhism - equanimity is one the "four immeasurables":
Neither a thought nor an emotion, it is rather the steady conscious realisation of reality's transience. It is the ground for wisdom and freedom and the protector of compassion and love.
While some may think of equanimity as dry neutrality or cool aloofness, mature equanimity produces a radiance and warmth of being. The Buddha described a mind filled with equanimity as "abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill-will."
Guru Tugginmypudha: "Good distraction frees us from emotional pain. Bad distraction gives you a mouth full of whizz.
I totally agree - I have always felt that the when science and religion get to the top of the mountain they will find that the same answer - but science will get there without the fear based beliefs and guilt trips etc associated with organized religion.
ReplyDelete@6:47: Woohoo! This is my score: You answered 28 out of 33 correctly — 84.85 %
ReplyDeleteAnd I only had 2 yrs of college. And--I didn't look up one answer--it was all from memory.
Keep learning, people--this 70 yr old still does. It's what really keeps you going.
P.S. And yes, I'm an atheist.
ReplyDeleteDobie Tracker expressed hate for followers of all religions, writing that most of them are shallow and unenlightened. I'm sure there was some hyperbole there.
ReplyDeleteConsider a few things, please, Dobie, like the number of Nobel-laureate physicists, anatomists, and mathematicians who believe in God. Or the Catholic monk Gregor Mendel who did ground-breaking work in genetics, and the Belgian priest Lemaitre who first proposed the Big Bang Theory--not to mention all the learned Jesuits, Benedictines, etc., who teach at some of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning on the planet.
A Google search will provide examples of accomplished scientists in many fields, philosophers, researchers, and physicians who have faith in a God of one description or another.
Martin Nowak is a Harvard professor of mathematics and biology who has written and lectured on evolution and Christianity. He's a practicing Catholic who sees no conflict between science and religious faith.
So there you have examples of people who are about as far from unenlightened and shallow as one could imagine, and they steadfastly maintain faith in God.
An earlier commenter noted that Jillette's treatment of the topic is superficial. The man is an entertainer, and although he's no doubt a reasonably bright guy, he's not likely to impress many critical thinkers with his "logic." He's shooting from the hip, without having devoted serious reading and study to the topic he's opining on.
If you want to see how it can be refuted, Gryphen, you have a wide range of choices, from the Nobel laureates and modern academics mentioned above, all the way back to philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Francis Bacon, Spinoza, and so on.
This is a topic which has been diligently studied, discussed, and written about by scholars of many faiths and of no faith, literally for centuries.
The most glaring error Jillette makes is setting up a straw man argument, putting religion at one end of a polarity and science at the other, and never the twain shall meet. That's a false premise.
It's more realistic to think of a continuum with the most extreme fundamentalist members of a religion--say, snake-handlers who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God--at one end, and scientists like Richard Dawkins who will not admit even the remote possibility of any supernatural agency in the universe whatsoever. Near the middle of the continuum are the reasonable people who respect science and also believe in the existence--or at the least the possibility of the existence--of a mystical power behind all the science.
Another flaw in Jillette's thinking: he doesn't understand archetypes and the collective unconscious or racial memories or whatever faculty it is that has resulted in human beings scattered all over the earth, throughout the eons, developing similar themes in their spirituality. They occur over and over--rituals marking life passages; tales of floods destroying the earth to purify it; sacrificial death, rebirth, and resurrection; the use of archetypal symbols like circles and crosses, candles, chanting, drumming, bells, incense and smudge sticks; the ritual significance attached to the changing of the seasons, the stars, sun, and moon. So if all religion were wiped out without trace, it would be "reinvented" because these archetypes and the need for rituals marking significant life events, as well as the stories of sacrifice and redemption, are part of who we are.
"if I can raise my children to be moral, without putting into them the fear of hell or a false promise of heaven, then that is success."
ReplyDeleteI did it. I was raised and educated in the catholic school system, even though I ceased to believe in god when aged 9. I asked a simple but powerful question of my religious teacher and she sent me straight away to the principal's office (who called my parents and the parish priest.)
What did I ask? I asked 'If there were no men, would god exist?' The FACT that it freaked the whole establishment out so badly told me I had hit a hot button issue they could not explain. I knew then, as I know now when the reaction is way worse than the question indicates, that there was something hidden in all the crap I was being taught. The crap was that is WAS ALL MADE UP BULLSHIT.
I knew then that I could not believe anymore, I made a vow to not buy into the crap nor pass it on to any of my offspring. I did not and my daughter is the most straight laced, moral person I know. She was raised on science and knowledge, has a moral compass far stronger than any of her religiously raised peers, and is the one who volunteers her time to help others while those same religious peers are getting blasted on alcohol and drugs.
Received 90.91% on the quiz. A big "thank you" to my teachers.
ReplyDeleteWhere DID people get the idea of God in the first place then???? IF someone thought of him before, someone will think of HIM again.
ReplyDeleteGo read decartes.
There is currently a "scientific" theory that a God gene has been discovered. (I'm linking to the Wiki as this provides one of the more concise explanations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
ReplyDeleteHumans are born with a need to organize and categorize, teenager's bedrooms notwithstanding. Because we need to make "sense" of life, we look for causes, correlations, etc to develop explanations.
Faith (as it refers to trust) first shows up in infancy as our primal needs are either met or not met. We develop faith/trust that our caregivers will feed and comfort us, and as our baby worlds expand, we assign those same learned values to others we encounter.
Faith is said to be the evidence of things unseen. A very wise teacher once explained to my obnoxious teenage self how faith & science can coexist: consider the wind. We can see evidence of the wind, but never the wind itself. Yet everyone accepts/believes/has faith that wind exists.
@Anon 6:19--you forgot to add Results Must Be Replicable
Gryphen: it's almost 4 am and i need sleep so only read last epilogue of your book.
ReplyDeleteOk, to buddhism and taoism are more a philosophy than a religion but did not appear these philosophies of "enlightenment" were even concidered much less as they correlate with quantum physics.
Last though for now: I have never been able to "debate" the existence of god with anyone until they give me a specific definition of what THEY mean by god as otherwise I can only them them what I think and what I think has never been close to what they think god is/isn't.
Ummmmm. Taco salad. Boy would that be good right about now.
Logic? Try this notion on for size: if one defines God as "the source of all existence," then it logically follows that God does not exist.
ReplyDeleteComparing religion and science as Jillette is doing in this statement, is a completely erroneous comparison. A more apt comparison is one between science and, apropos to Jillette, magic. In that case, science will win out every time as it should. It’s simply the difference between a magician appearing to conjure a rabbit out of an empty hat, and the "scientific" explanation of how he/she actually did it. When it comes to religion as in science, truth is truth, and if there is truth in religion (which I believe there is), then Jillette is wrong. The truth will always out sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteSo much of what we believe scientifically about the world arises from our perceptions of it and from measurements that are distorted by the simple act of measurement itself. Suppose that everything were truly wiped out as Jillette suggests, and that beings of human-level intelligence re-evolved out of the primordial slime into creatures who could perceive sound but not light. Would they eventually rediscover Special Relativity? Most likely they would be as limited by their perceptions as we are by ours, and neither they nor we would ever realize what a narrow, biased, perception-centric view of the universe(s) we really have. We can only study that which we can in some way perceive, and don’t fool yourselves into thinking that sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste are all we need to get a complete conception of what’s really going on around us.
We as humans perceive time as a one-way linear progression from the past to the present to the future with no ability to travel in any direction but what we call “forward.” Current physics teaches that the speed of light is an absolute maximum, and that as we accelerate to approach the speed of light, time slows down and ultimately stops, and that mass increases until it becomes infinite. But, what if there is a realm on the other side of the lightspeed barrier which our notions of time render us unable to perceive? A place where everything always travels faster than the speed of light, where time and mass, and causality are not at all what we perceive in the world we now inhabit; where the concept of time has no meaning and therefore, anyone or anything can be in two (or an infinite number of) places at once. Where the phrase “at once” itself has no meaning, where any “time” is “all time” always. How different is this from the concept of God, with no beginning or end or limits that those of us who believe in God have?
I enjoy reading this blog when it is a forum to call out the right wing on its hypocrisy, its callousness towards the poor and the sick, its scapegoating of minorities and LGBT people for all the ills of society for which the greed and worship of money by the right wing itself is mostly responsible. I also think of this blog as a useful place to exchange ideas on how to counter this right wing bullshit and move this country forward to a place I think we all dream of it becoming and being.
It saddens me as a progressive that because of the actions of some RIGHT WING religious zealots, the progressivism on this blog sometimes seems intolerant for ALL people of faith and paints us as a bunch of poor deluded idiots dwelling in our anti-intellectual, anti-science caves, still mesmerized by the magical fire that warms us at night but with no idea or acknowledgement of the science behind it. As a progressive who believes in scientific AND spiritual truth, I believe everyone should be free to believe as he/she wishes and that those beliefs should be respected and preferably not mocked by anyone who claims to share progressive/liberal ideals. I don’t mock atheists or attempt to deny them the right to believe as they choose. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is about as progressive as it gets, IMHO.
Even though I'm an atheist, I can't stomach the arrogant Penn Jillette.
ReplyDeleteWell, technically, we have no idea what really started the world and what changes it. We have some science, but science changes daily.
ReplyDeleteAnon@7:14, although people often say that Atheism is a belief that there is no god, the word itself means lack of belief in god or gods. I have tried to explain my point of view with these simple words but nobody gets it. I don't have to defend my position because I don't have any beliefs to defend. It is all irrelevant to me because the concept of believing in god is just weird from my perspective, and the concept of worshipping god has always creeped me out. If you want to believe in some invisible entity who supposedly created you, fine, whatever. But what's with the creepy worship? Why do humans always go there?
ReplyDeleteIt's not a testable hypothesis so, like a belief in God it is neither provable nor refutable however appealing it may be. I think Aesop pointed out something similar and concluded that it is easy to propose solutions which can't be implemented. (Belling the Cat).
ReplyDeleteCivics quiz: 100%
ReplyDeleteBut since I respect spirituality and the capacity of God to be manifested in human beings, I am obviously an ignorant fool.
Took the quiz @6:47pm. Scored 81.82 percent while on my first cup of coffee.
ReplyDeleteSarah P what was your score? Didn't take it yet? You may need a dictionary for some of those terms..
Jaye
To someone who seeks reality, side-stepping all societal, religious, cultural concepts to see what's real, there remains only mystery.
ReplyDeleteThe first comment here, Anonymous 6:19 p.m., has it spot-on: the scientific method is to pose the question, research, etc., but religion skips all inquiry, logic and reasoning and insists "Believe".
Faith in the unproven and unproveable is indeed blind to any argument, hence the waste of time trying have an intelligent dialogue with a person of faith...one always ends up finally butting up against the surety of the other's faith that brooks no argument.
I think that in part this statement has been tested. If we look at the Egyptians and Mayans we can see they did approach science from a completely different belief system and their science was quite different from ours as well as their religion. Their science was based off the movement of the sun, the moon, and the stars and it is accuarate in a way we can not produce. Their religion is not something we can relate to either as part of the basis is that Egyptians are eternal. Some of their science has the same fundemental science like pythagorean triangle (in which Pathagoras derived from studying the pyramids). In fact we never really rediscovered it, rather we studied the Egyptians and incorporated it parts of their science into our culture. So I think religion and science are two different points of view of the exact same thing. Both are ways to explain away the unexplainable and to create a way of explanation that becomes belief.
ReplyDeleteAnon 6;35
ReplyDeleteThat joyful experience or dormtion or whatever you are speaking of, is not specific to religion or a god experience. If you let yourself, you can experience listening to music that excites you, or watching a beuatiful ballet...or some people experience it by seeing Sarah Palin. I think music and the arts do it for me now that i have concluded religion is just a control mechanism.
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
I am beginning to believe that most of the human mind potential is untapped. Maybe the various "saviors" over the years were actually trying to enlighten and free our minds, but vertain ruling powers of the time didn't want us to be enlightened, hence fera based religions were developed.
ReplyDeleteFits in with my we are some alien kids science fair experiment. Can we realize we are a great human race with powers untapped or are we going to continue to be prisoners/slaves of fear and mediocrity?
Wonder if the kid will just call off the experiment.
Civic Literacy Test--81.82%
ReplyDeletea god that created the universe and this planet is a god of bonding - hydrogen bonding, covalent bonding, van der Waals forces, etc.
ReplyDeletethe way to understand this gift of the universe to mankind is to study the science of the creation, including microbiology, physics, chemistry, and math.
so which church teaches these topics in mass?
faith is not an end-all-be-all answer to living on this planet.
"Civic Literacy Exam"
ReplyDeleteAre you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better?"
Yes. 93.94
The results of the 2000+ responses in the study should be quite revealing to all of us seeking to choose knowledgeable leaders for civic responsibilities. I would hope that a standardized measure of aptitude in civics would be a "wake-up call" to those who score in the lower ranges. But my experience tells me that often human nature leads us to deny or justify our weaknesses or to simply attack the methodology used to quantify our performance. Thanks to anonymous for the link.
On the religion/faith question, I guess I am agnostic. Since faith is something we "believe" in the absence of "proof", it's not really related to science.
I don't have all of the answers, although I do seek enlightenment and am open to ideas and opinions of others who are thoughtful and intellectually curious. Intolerance to critical thinking is a danger sign that I wish I had recognized at an early age. Having been raised in a Christian Family in a Southern Baptist community, it has been a struggle to let go of the fears and norms used by the sect to control the minds and behavior of myself and others. Understanding that many others have been subjected to the same "propaganda" gives me compassion for those who are afraid to think outside the boundaries of their religious community.
Good discussion here. Thanks to those willing to discuss such a personal matter in an open, respectful, non-judgmental manner.
Yes, Gryphen, I find faut with Penn Jillette's logic.
ReplyDeleteReligion is a superficial organization by and for humans. It is corrupt, and does harm.
Faith is also observable: Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. And that faith/belief affected all of Abraham's decisions.
God is not within the range of normal human perception.
Things that are different are not the same.
Science is fueled by belief.
ReplyDeleteMany things exist and proof of their existence is only yet to come.
If I only say "it" does not exist that does not prove "it" does not. That is why true scientist knows that the unknown is not disproved by it's unknownness. Why else would there be science. So the argument for science only justifies belief which justifies all belief as a reality more solid than any type of search for the truth. It is our stimulus. Much exists no matter and not dependent on present knowledge thus giving Science and God equal and non-opposing existence.
PZ Myers has been running an ongoing series of posts from "just folks" explaining Why I Am An Atheist.
ReplyDeletehttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
I've found these posts to be informative, touching, and inspiring.
As to that "God is Love" thing, Myers has this to say this morning:
"Another one that infuriates me is the smug theist who wants to prove that I actually have faith in something, and the one thing they always choose is “love”. It’s invisible, isn’t it, just like god, so if you can believe in love, you must believe in god. Nope, sorry: I see evidence of love every day, and I can show it to you — and I don’t accept the existence of love that doesn’t demonstrate itself."
Jillette makes a compelling argument for sure. I long ago gave up trying to read or understand the bible. Did people really talk like that??
ReplyDeleteI don't have the answers - nobody does. However, I do believe there is a power greater then ourselves and maybe "religion" is a vehicle that people use to connect with that power - whatever it is.
If religion was wiped out with no record of its existence, including the bible, we'd still be left with the ultimate question - How did all of this begin?
Science and evolution can explain alot but the big bang theory only leaves me with that same question.
What created the first sign of life as we know it?
I've had personal experiences that I find difficult to explain without a belief in a higher power.
I don't believe in the heaven and hell concept taught by many religions. If the "god" they've taught me about is supposed to be a loving god, then how could he send sinners to a life of eternal hell? And how do we know he is a "he"...
My beliefs are based on various things that have resonated with me throughout the years from different religous teachings and other sources. However, I would never take the position that I or anyone else on this planet holds the key or the truth to what is or isn't.
That's why it's so offensive when politicians try to use religion to further their cause. To me that suggests the ultimate egotistical mindset - they're right and others are wrong.
That's why we have seperation of church and state. I'm especially offended by those idiots that campaign on the "god told me to do this" bullshit. Really? Well, god told me you're an asshole and not to vote for you.
Religous beliefs are not exact science and have no place in govt to determine the rights of any citizen for any reason.
Great subject here Gryphen - I've learned a lot from others posting here today - really intelligent and thoughtful posts. thanks!
I think the problem comes when human beings consider themselves the center of the universe, instead of the other way round. While this is can be true of the atheist as well, it becomes most troubling and abusive when people of faith seek to commandeer the power of the Almighty, or Creator, or God for themselves. Even worse, yoke this to politics as a way of seeking even more power over their fellow humans.
ReplyDeleteI have no trouble with those who do not believe, I get the rationale, and I think you either have a capacity/appetite for faith or you don't. You certainly don't need it to be a good human being nor does it provide any special protection against doing evil. But as a thinking person, I do wonder sometimes how the hungry, curious, creative mind deals with that ineffable sense that surrounds me every day, the sense of something Other, the mystery at the heart of it and the sense that Love has a greater dimension to it than mere survival, happiness or pleasure. No, I don't think all will someday be explained away by science, I love science as well but to me science celebrates this, supports and reveals the great scope of Creation, not dismisses it.
Yes, I was brought up in a church and I teach Sunday School. Lots of Sunday mornings I really think I do have better things to do than drag my sorry bones down to the church basement with the kids. That lasts about ten minutes, and is easily cured by contemplating all I have been given, the gift of life, the experience of love, of forgiveness the sense of wholeness I feel as a small part of something larger. It's not just love, it is respect for this as much as anything else.
I have tried to rationalize my way out of faith. Problem is, I just have it, can't shake and it is as tangible a part of me as my own two hands. I simply do not feel that all knowledge can be adequately contained and expressed in words and books alone (and I also am an avid reader, have been all my life.
I admired and enjoyed Hitchens immensely, but I honestly thought he really had some serious weaknesses in his arguments, especially when he devolved into petulance. I felt this blinded him and that he in the end really did not proffer a convincing, rational, object deconstruction of faith to the standard he achieved with other topics. Religion maybe, but not faith.
MicMac
Before "christians" refute the stand taken by "nonbelievers" I have to ask how you feel about this:
ReplyDeleteHitler was an evil man, undeniably because of all the deaths and torture he orchestrated.
Everyday innocent children and others are killed by "bad" people.
Our country is in chaos due to actions by unscrupulous, greedy money mongers.
Past world leaders have caused terrible harm, torture and death to innocent citizens.
You, christians, want me to worship and praise these responsible for these disasters?
I didn't think so.
So, what about the god you worship, give your money to, raise your offspring to dedicate their lives to who you say reigns over all on earth?
I ask why is he allowing innocent children to die by the millions of starvation?
Why does he permit torture and death to women and children in so many countries?
Why does he allow the powerful catholic church to harm so many young boys and do nothing about it?
You christians want to tell me Satan causes all these horrible events?
Yet you want me to believe your god is an all powerful being who created the universe?
If the evil that continues under the eye of god, everyday, to millions, is either outside the power of god, or he doesn't care/love them enough to keep them safe then why are you dedicating your being, your assets, energy and thoughts to an entity who allows such horrors to continue?
Mothers and fathers as parents are expected to love and protect as well as provide for their charges. Is the god you openly worship exempt from these rules? If so, then why did he supposedly write the ten commandments to direct his followers?
Think about it. I have no intention of worshipping Hitler or any of those despots that do hurtful things to others, nor do I think there is a god that is exempted from providing a loving, safe environment if you reside on a planet you claim he fashioned.
And to invest my money, time, love and respect in a god who allows such ghastly occurrences to innocent victims, worldwide around the clock, is unthinkable.
Blaming the devil for impotence on the part of your god just doesn't fly. It is a story out of a book, written long ago.
You may not like the messenger but might find some helpful knowledge in a message that sets you thinking about "blind faith" and its source.
I am an agnostic, not an atheist, as I do not know enough about the "unkown" to make judgements. However, studying the biblical writings opens up the opportunity for questioning the source, the lack of facts, the lack of written history scripted at the time the incidents took place.
So what, you'll never convince the believer otherwise, they are immune to reason and proud of it.
ReplyDelete4:08 AM
ReplyDeleteVery well said. I concur.
I got 75.76% on that Civics test aka 25/33.
ReplyDeleteThere IS an Almighty God. Thank you Jesus.
ReplyDeleteJillette's premise is supported by history. If he were wrong, we would now have, and only ever had, one sole religion.
ReplyDeleteEvery civilisation has come up with their own nonsense - and before anyone says it's all a reflection on one, true god - explain how that fits Buddhism, or polytheism, or Dreamtime...
I used to get asked the same questions as Anon. 8:53 - and I have absolutely no answers.
ReplyDeleteThe question of why does God allow children, innocents to suffer, wars, Hitler, injustice and not do anything about it. How can a person just give up everything and worship a God who allows it? Those kind of injustices that happen to these kids and people who grow up and feel anxiety, loss, loneliness, despondency and hopelessness are a collection of ones who seek out God, a god that says "Cast all your cares unto Him, for He cares for you". Unfortunately, injustices did happen to me, as well as others, and we read that God promised that even though our mothers and fathers forsook us, He would never forsake us. It's unfair for some agnostics to find fault with people who are on the receiving end of the evil. It's those who are victims of the receiving end who feel the wrath of name-calling as ignorant because they believe by faith, and something not seen.
Maybe I'm less evolved than others, or less able to handle evil. That's why I needed God, I'm not ashamed of it though. Yes, I am weak.
As to why God allows injustice, I understand it this way. God asks one to choose him - that means treating others like they would be treated. Some refuse, but don't always suffer the consequences in this life.
I don't like the idea of hell. There's a lot in the bible that boggles my mind and leaves me questioning still, but at the end of the day, I've seen people touched by God's love and they are usually those who the hypocrites would stone. The self-righteous christians who would throw stones and not see the beam in their own eye.
Am still processing - it's long sometimes.
I agree with him. If all the churches and holy books didn't exist, whatever man makes to replace them, would have little or no resemblence to what's in place now.
ReplyDeleteI never understood the throught process that equates "atheism" with "immorality, that's one leap of faith I wouldn't make against believers (pun intended). As long as no one's hurt, it doesn't bother me what people believe, I do know, however, that some of the most destructive acts of inhumanity have been condoned by a lot of organized religious zealots.
Mr. Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteMr. Jillette may well be a very skilled magician but his statement suggests an unrefined view of language and our relations therewith. Both "God" and "Science" are words which refer to (in one conception) a supreme being- another word begging further clarification- and to a means of observing, measuring, modeling and predicting natural world phenomena, respectively.
One could invert Mr. Jillette's statement- There is no science. If every trace of every scientific discipline were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again- and it would, in my view, have exactly the same truth value as his view on "God". If the statement "there is no God" is true simply because no sentient beings have thoughts thereof (but might again in the future) so too is the statement "there is no Science" true.
Obscured by his use of the pejorative "nonsense" is, I believe, a simple truth. He admits that some future sentient being might well feel the need to contemplate "God", if not in the same words or from the same perspective, but in some words, and from some perspective. So too, I believe, could "Science" be reconstituted, equally not in the same words or from the same perspective. Thus, it seems to me, Mr. Jillette takes a Platonic perspective on both "God" and "Science"- which one might rephrase (without the pejorative): Sentient beings existing in an ordered universe may well find themselves eventually thinking about words whose referents recall our "God" and "Science"-and I wouldn't argue with that. Moreover that different language and perspective might prove more useful than those used today.
You might be interested to read David Bohm's Qualitative Infinity of Nature, which argues, crudely paraphrased, the science of mechanism (i.e. what we call Science) is based on language which as Heisenberg et alios have demonstrated, is a self-limiting endeavor, but nonetheless, most useful. There are likely an infinite set of qualitative perspectives on which one could base a "Science".
I suspect, if you keep studying science, you will find the definitive quality thereof many find so attractive more elusive than it seems (which discovery might, as in my case, inspire even further study and contemplation). There are great mysteries behind both words.
regards,
Dave Lewis
ps before you dismiss the above view of the non-permanence of science as nonsense, consider these words from a renowned atheist, Bertrand Russell: Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations might also be of interest.
I do disagree with the logic because it is based on the assumption that there is no higher power. If you assume a higher power then logic would suggest that the higher power would once again reveal Him/Herself in some way.
ReplyDeleteAnd just because it wouldn't be exactly the same doesn't mean that it wouldn't still be true. As a Christian I think that we humans can't fully understand the nature of God. I think we only get glimpses of Him. So if all religions were wiped out and He revealed himself again, it might a slightly different glimpse of a whole truth.
I will admit that people who go around insisting that they are right and that others are wrong, regardless of their belief system, are not helpful. How is an atheist basically calling Christians stupid any different than a Christian saying that an atheist is going to hell? My view on discussing beliefs is that unless someone else brings it up, you keep your mouth shut.
Well if it helps anyone to know, it's true that Penn can't stomach me (a Pennsylvanian, by the way, like his well-known partner Teller) but that only stands to reason since I am in fact a Muslim: I declare There is no god but God, and Mohammed is the Prophet of God. Go not by dead scripture but by every living word which proceeds from the mouth of God i.e. study Nature.
ReplyDeleteDobieTracker here:
ReplyDeleteIn response to:
a god that created the universe and this planet is a god of bonding - hydrogen bonding, covalent bonding, van der Waals forces, etc.
the way to understand this gift of the universe to mankind is to study the science of the creation, including microbiology, physics, chemistry, and math.
so which church teaches these topics in mass?
faith is not an end-all-be-all answer to living on this planet.
I agree. Don'tknow the author of the following but have always liked it.
"If you want to know the artist, study his works." I was a biochem major trying to get into veterinary medicine and feel basic science couses should be reguired in any study of theology/comparative religions.
I have thought about this argument since you posted it. Last night I think I hit on what was bothering me about it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a case of circular thinking. I believe he starts with his conclusion that there is no god.
He then switches his argument to religion is false. If it were gone something else would be there.
Then he switches to science and says that is true no matter what . . .
Conclusion is there is no god.
So he may think he's being logical but he isn't. I'm not saying there is a god or higher power but this argument is false. Starting with your conclusion and then doing a convoluted logic problem does not make for a good argument.
His argument is flawed. He makes two assumptions that he does not test and presents them as absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteFirst, he assumes that, if science were wiped out, it would be exactly replaced. But that is not only a speculative statement, it is quite likely false. Science is, as it always has been, in a fluid state of progression and growth. It is incomplete, with more discoveries to come. It is also incorrect, as new discoveries will refute old discoveries and replace current theories.
Therefore, if we wipe out science and start from scratch, the scientific journey that we take will certainly differ from the one we are on now. The order of discoveries will differ. The order of corrected flaws will differ. The state of science will never match up precisely to the state of science in today's snapshot.
Second, he assumes that, if religion were wiped out, then it wouldn't be exactly replaced. At first glance, it sounds supportable. However, he is leaning on his earlier statement that there is no God. If there was, in fact, a god, then his claims about replacing religion can't be taken as absolutely true, and one can make the argument that a God would ensure that religion is correctly replaced.
The fundamental problem I have with atheism is the idea that the end all and be all to life rests in the human as the highest possible life form. And that life itself is only defined by the scientific principles relevant to OUR existence on Earth as flora and fauna.
ReplyDeleteHow men of science can believe in evolution yet think that there is no higher life form than man in this vast universe makes no sense to me.
Atheism in itself is not the absence of a belief system. It is a belief in the absence of deity. But it is still a belief system which is cherished, adhered to and sometimes just as dogmatic as the most fundamental of religions.
Mimi
A dissection of this argument can be found at: http://stfuatheists.blogspot.com/2011/12/immoral-minority-okay-am-i-wrong-or-is.html
ReplyDelete