Before I begin, I must confirm what a Do-Decade is. It is twelve years. Similar to a dodecagon or dodecahedron, d0deca- means twelve.
Now that that's out of the way, I'll begin. Take a step back in time to 1998. The world was different then. No terrorist threats (at least to my knowledge), no Xbox vs PS3. Not even the PS2. Computers were rather basic in comparison to how they are now. And, of course, the threat of the Y2K bug. Being very young at this time, I got numourous rumours about how and why the Y2K bug was so scary. The most prominent was that all the computers would shut down, simultaneously launching all nuclear weapons, destroying all life on the planet! Strangely, I wasn't scared. I don't think I was old enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Still, with multiple levels of panic, I didn't know what was what.
Then came the inevitable money making schemes. Vast amounts of Y2K merchandise came out. I still own a few Millenium bugs, the little toy game which came out alongside a plethora of other items, made to get rich off of the hype. The funny thing was, those toys came with little bits of information about Y2K. The most important of which lowered my tension 3 months before everyone else.
I'll bet that even now, few people realise the problem wasn't New Year's Day 2000. It was the nineth of September, Nineteen Ninety Nine, or 9/9/99. On some of the older computers this would translate to 9999, the year in which they were set to shut down. At risk computers were either disabled or repaired, and when September 10 came around, I was relieved, though I seemed to be the only one. And even though I told people we were safe, no-one believed me. Who would've guessed.
And now come back to the present. What do have now? No Twin Towers. No national security. No trust in strangers. Online wars between consoles. And: 2012. "Oh, look honey, another end of the world. Get the camera, it may be the last one we'll see for a couple years."
We're getting in fast now aren't we. Already there's a blockbuster movie about it, and several documentries. I suspect within the next 12 months, there'll be toys, games, books and even scams relating to the newest end of the world. One thing I can't wait for is getting a "I survived 2012" T-shirt. I'm not going to quote apparent evidences for the destruction that is 2012, because it does not make sense. I will quote a couple I heard: Nostradamus' prediction (not the first by the way), and the end to the incan calendar. I wouldn't care to trust ancient civilisations predictions. What do they know that we don't? But I ramble.
I will start the scams. I am so certain that 2012 will not end the world I am willing to bet on it. If you are willing to bet against me, e-mail me to make your wager. I'll bet anything, because I won't lose. Give me your best shot.
(Psst. I don't expect anyone to take me up on this, no-one is that silly, right?)
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Another Vulture
I was sparked into feeling intellectual today, and as such followed my own advice and googled "Proof of God". What I found was this. I'm going to pick it to pieces, though it won't be as well done as my last vulturing. I'm typing this as I'm reading it, where-as my last one took weeks of preparation. I apologise for my low insight in advance.
PART ONE:
The first point: Earth. Apparently, earth is too perfect to be true. It's exactly the right size, so the gas that stays is just the right mixture to support us, while others float off into space. This isn't true, Venus is the same size as Earth, and it's atmosphere is uninhabitable. It's worse then New York. Being any smaller or larger would change the size of the atmosphere, potentially losing lighter particles or gaining heavier ones. The effect this would have on life's evolution could potentially be dramatic. If nothing else, the differing gravitational pull would change bone-density and muscle strength.
Despite what the website says, Earth is not in the absolute perfect distance from the sun. It resides within the habitable zone, which is the distance from the sun where life as we know it can exist. Basically this means that within this zone, liquid water can remain on the planets surface. Earth could be anywhere between 0.725 and 3.0 Astronomical Units. An Astronomical Unit is approximately 149,597,870 km, which is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. So Earth could be about 41139414 km closer to the sun, or about 299141740 km further away. Don't know about you, but that's a huge distance to me. More than the exact distance of 1Au suggested.
The Earth doesn't keep a perfectly circular orbit. At some times of the year it is closer, at others it is further away. It's closest at during the time of Northern winter, or southern summer, and furthest away during the opposite season, thus defeating another part of point 1.
I'll leave the last point alone, as I have no research available to refute it. All I can say is, if the distance, or size, were changed, the effect on the tides would be dramatic. Not enough to cancel life entirely, just enough to change the outcome up to this point.
Point two: Water. It's shape and polarisation mean it's God's work, designed solely to permit life on Earth. Sorry creationist, that's not the case.
It's true that all life needs water. It's not true that being mostly made of water keeps our body a perfect temperature. Our temperature is kept constant though a series of internal chemical reactions, most of which don't require water.
Water is not a universal solvent. If it were, it would mix with oils, grease and other non-polar chemicals. As it is, most polar chemicals, and very few organic non-polar chemicals with mix with water, and the rest wont. This is a very important biological point, as phospholipids contain a polar and a non-polar end, causing micelles and lipid bilayers, aka cell membranes. If water were a universal solvent, life could not exist.
Water has little to do with the transport of food throughout the body. It has pH7, most of the time, but that is of little help to life, as most blood is slightly basic, meaning too much water causes death. It's surface tension has little to do with being brought out of the ground and up a tree, there are specific proteins designed to let water go up, but not back down. It's part of the beauty of evolution.
Liquids freeze from wherever the temperature is coldest. It only seems like it freezes from the top because ice is less dense than water, so it floats. As for water recycling... I don't know. I have no knowledge of weather, and won't claim to here.
Point three: The human brain. This isn't a point for or against, but an explanation of the sheer awesomeness of the brain. I like it.
Point four: The eye. First off, this isn't an argument for God, but against evolution. Second, it's a bad argument. A mutation occurs that allows a cell to sense photons, now you can see night and day. Another causes more to be created. You get a sense of the time of day. These curve, allowing basic sight. With 3 mutations, a basic eye is formed. Irreducible complexity is a silly argument, given the time evolution has had to work. As for not understanding the original eye, I just pointed out how the most basic eye could work. Other mutations could give it more defense, or more acuity, but that means little over the very basic photon sensing cell eye.
PART TWO:
This is an argument for initial state planning, or a first cause. This is a silly argument. Whether or not the Big Bang was caused by anything other then quantum mechanics is irrelevant in this argument. If it was, there are a plethora of possible explanations that don't need God. If not, then God wasn't needed anyway.
PART THREE:
Physical laws exist therefore so must God. No. In random environments/situations, like the random generation of numbers, patterns WILL occur. This isn't a perhaps/maybe/sometimes type deal. They WILL occur. If they didn't, the simple fact that there is no pattern is a pattern. It's inescapable. A random universe is compatible with spontaneous order, despite the claims of theists like this one.
PART FOUR:
Of course, the Atheist's riddle. I will not disprove this here. It has been effectively debunked here. Alternatively you could google Atheist's riddle, and clicking the first link. It's the same thing.
PART FIVE:
A stab at atheists. The writer even claims he was an atheist at one point. Whether or not this is true, he isn't now, and shows no evidence of having been one. He doesn't fully research his points, and uses logical fallacies without care. His biggest mistake, as far as I can see, is that he assumes that disproving scientific theory automatically proves God. Sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. Now he's a misleading liar. I say liar, because he says he used to argue against God, which is clearly false, judging by his prior points, and the amount of research evident. Can anyone say copypasta?
PART SIX:
Oh Christ, another argument for the divinity of Christ. Jesus was a magician, performing magic tricks that pale in comparison to the tricks of modern street performers. He did claim to be God, but so did LOTS of people in his time. Which vaguely leads to my next point: There's no real evidence for Jesus' existence. Jesus is mention in scripture, the bible and several books written by Christians, sometimes hundreds of years after he died.
If I had the time and patience I would research every single point of this tripe, and pick it to it's bones, then bury them... I have respect for the dead. As it stands I have metaphorically found the carcass, taken a finger and left the rest to the birds.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
PART ONE:
The first point: Earth. Apparently, earth is too perfect to be true. It's exactly the right size, so the gas that stays is just the right mixture to support us, while others float off into space. This isn't true, Venus is the same size as Earth, and it's atmosphere is uninhabitable. It's worse then New York. Being any smaller or larger would change the size of the atmosphere, potentially losing lighter particles or gaining heavier ones. The effect this would have on life's evolution could potentially be dramatic. If nothing else, the differing gravitational pull would change bone-density and muscle strength.
Despite what the website says, Earth is not in the absolute perfect distance from the sun. It resides within the habitable zone, which is the distance from the sun where life as we know it can exist. Basically this means that within this zone, liquid water can remain on the planets surface. Earth could be anywhere between 0.725 and 3.0 Astronomical Units. An Astronomical Unit is approximately 149,597,870 km, which is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. So Earth could be about 41139414 km closer to the sun, or about 299141740 km further away. Don't know about you, but that's a huge distance to me. More than the exact distance of 1Au suggested.
The Earth doesn't keep a perfectly circular orbit. At some times of the year it is closer, at others it is further away. It's closest at during the time of Northern winter, or southern summer, and furthest away during the opposite season, thus defeating another part of point 1.
I'll leave the last point alone, as I have no research available to refute it. All I can say is, if the distance, or size, were changed, the effect on the tides would be dramatic. Not enough to cancel life entirely, just enough to change the outcome up to this point.
Point two: Water. It's shape and polarisation mean it's God's work, designed solely to permit life on Earth. Sorry creationist, that's not the case.
It's true that all life needs water. It's not true that being mostly made of water keeps our body a perfect temperature. Our temperature is kept constant though a series of internal chemical reactions, most of which don't require water.
Water is not a universal solvent. If it were, it would mix with oils, grease and other non-polar chemicals. As it is, most polar chemicals, and very few organic non-polar chemicals with mix with water, and the rest wont. This is a very important biological point, as phospholipids contain a polar and a non-polar end, causing micelles and lipid bilayers, aka cell membranes. If water were a universal solvent, life could not exist.
Water has little to do with the transport of food throughout the body. It has pH7, most of the time, but that is of little help to life, as most blood is slightly basic, meaning too much water causes death. It's surface tension has little to do with being brought out of the ground and up a tree, there are specific proteins designed to let water go up, but not back down. It's part of the beauty of evolution.
Liquids freeze from wherever the temperature is coldest. It only seems like it freezes from the top because ice is less dense than water, so it floats. As for water recycling... I don't know. I have no knowledge of weather, and won't claim to here.
Point three: The human brain. This isn't a point for or against, but an explanation of the sheer awesomeness of the brain. I like it.
Point four: The eye. First off, this isn't an argument for God, but against evolution. Second, it's a bad argument. A mutation occurs that allows a cell to sense photons, now you can see night and day. Another causes more to be created. You get a sense of the time of day. These curve, allowing basic sight. With 3 mutations, a basic eye is formed. Irreducible complexity is a silly argument, given the time evolution has had to work. As for not understanding the original eye, I just pointed out how the most basic eye could work. Other mutations could give it more defense, or more acuity, but that means little over the very basic photon sensing cell eye.
PART TWO:
This is an argument for initial state planning, or a first cause. This is a silly argument. Whether or not the Big Bang was caused by anything other then quantum mechanics is irrelevant in this argument. If it was, there are a plethora of possible explanations that don't need God. If not, then God wasn't needed anyway.
PART THREE:
Physical laws exist therefore so must God. No. In random environments/situations, like the random generation of numbers, patterns WILL occur. This isn't a perhaps/maybe/sometimes type deal. They WILL occur. If they didn't, the simple fact that there is no pattern is a pattern. It's inescapable. A random universe is compatible with spontaneous order, despite the claims of theists like this one.
PART FOUR:
Of course, the Atheist's riddle. I will not disprove this here. It has been effectively debunked here. Alternatively you could google Atheist's riddle, and clicking the first link. It's the same thing.
PART FIVE:
A stab at atheists. The writer even claims he was an atheist at one point. Whether or not this is true, he isn't now, and shows no evidence of having been one. He doesn't fully research his points, and uses logical fallacies without care. His biggest mistake, as far as I can see, is that he assumes that disproving scientific theory automatically proves God. Sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. Now he's a misleading liar. I say liar, because he says he used to argue against God, which is clearly false, judging by his prior points, and the amount of research evident. Can anyone say copypasta?
PART SIX:
Oh Christ, another argument for the divinity of Christ. Jesus was a magician, performing magic tricks that pale in comparison to the tricks of modern street performers. He did claim to be God, but so did LOTS of people in his time. Which vaguely leads to my next point: There's no real evidence for Jesus' existence. Jesus is mention in scripture, the bible and several books written by Christians, sometimes hundreds of years after he died.
If I had the time and patience I would research every single point of this tripe, and pick it to it's bones, then bury them... I have respect for the dead. As it stands I have metaphorically found the carcass, taken a finger and left the rest to the birds.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Do it yourself!
Hopefully, I've inspired some of you to want to get out there and start reffuting the stupid claims of ignorant people. However, chances are, you don't know how to begin. I'll give you a quick tutorial.
First, many of the links on this page can lead to sites that are begging for refuting, don't be afraid to click.
Second, if they don't help, google it. Try to stick to a topic you understand well, like I have done in sticking to biology, and out of cosmology. If you don't feel learned enough on a subject, research it. The last thing you want to do is argue from ignorance.
Third, by now you have a site that you feel is just talking nonsense. Read into it, separating the truth from the lies. If it's all lies, that makes things easier.
Forth, begin your argument. Generally, I find it best to quickly get to the heart of the subject by saying the site your refuting. There are other ideas about this, some like a long-winded intro, where they can build suspense. Others feel a joke is necessary. Do what feels right, though be wary of falling into the boredom trap.
Fifth, frame your argument. Don't just say everything wrong with the site. organise your thoughts, flowing almost seamlessly from one point to the next. That is the hardest part.
Finally, finish your argument with a brief conclusion. I suck at these, but I feel that a good witicism about the offending site is a great way to finish, leaving readers on a high note. If done well, not only will readers be in a good mood, they'll also feel annoyed at the refuted site, and others like it, prompting them into action. This is success in my books.
Post your newly finished artwork in whatever style you like; blog, forum, youtube, facebook... the list goes on. So now you know, don't just sit there, click the links, or go google some ignorance.
Until next time
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
First, many of the links on this page can lead to sites that are begging for refuting, don't be afraid to click.
Second, if they don't help, google it. Try to stick to a topic you understand well, like I have done in sticking to biology, and out of cosmology. If you don't feel learned enough on a subject, research it. The last thing you want to do is argue from ignorance.
Third, by now you have a site that you feel is just talking nonsense. Read into it, separating the truth from the lies. If it's all lies, that makes things easier.
Forth, begin your argument. Generally, I find it best to quickly get to the heart of the subject by saying the site your refuting. There are other ideas about this, some like a long-winded intro, where they can build suspense. Others feel a joke is necessary. Do what feels right, though be wary of falling into the boredom trap.
Fifth, frame your argument. Don't just say everything wrong with the site. organise your thoughts, flowing almost seamlessly from one point to the next. That is the hardest part.
Finally, finish your argument with a brief conclusion. I suck at these, but I feel that a good witicism about the offending site is a great way to finish, leaving readers on a high note. If done well, not only will readers be in a good mood, they'll also feel annoyed at the refuted site, and others like it, prompting them into action. This is success in my books.
Post your newly finished artwork in whatever style you like; blog, forum, youtube, facebook... the list goes on. So now you know, don't just sit there, click the links, or go google some ignorance.
Until next time
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Empiricism
Today, I'll be speaking on the subject of Empiricsm. Despite the fact that I see and hear it all the time on the internet, it seems as though very few people are actually aware of what Empiricism actually is. Be prepared for alot of big words...
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Or so says wikipedia. Effectively that means what you sense through any of your five senses is empirical knowledge. By applying simple reasoning, we can draw conclusions about the world using this knowledge. These conclusions, or hypotheses, can then be tested through the experimental method. The experimental method is the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment designed to disprove a hypothesis. *Phew* That's a mouthful. It means that scientists control as much of the experiment as they can. Such things as temperature, humidity, salinity (saltiness) or any number of other things. They do this to understand how certain things react in certain situations.
I believe an example is suitable here. Scientists discover life on another planet. As you might expect, they are very excited. The first thing they do is examine it's environment, taking samples and testing them in their natural state. After doing this, they have a fairly good idea of how this new species lives. They come up with a hypothesis about it's life cycle. Having a new hypothesis, they design an experiment. They take a sample of the life form, and put it into an artificial enivronment where they can control the climate, and food supply. They then set about trying to disprove thier hypothesis.
That's right, I said disprove. All well designed experiments are created to destroy a hypothesis. It's when the hypothesis survives the rigors of multiple experiments that we consider it worthy of being part of a Theory. Anyway... back to the example. After testing the life form six was from sunday, they have a strong concept of it's entire life. By thoroughly checking the place it was found, they find even more life. While they experiment on this new life form, they then start to form hypotheses on the ecosystem of the planet. The more information that can be determined without experimenting, the more hypotheses need to be tested, and the more knowledge about the planet is gained.
This is but one example of empirical and experimental evidence working together to add to the wealth of knowledge humans already have. So there you have it, a VERY brief explaination of empiricism. Hopefully now there'll be fewer mistakes flying about the internet.
Until next time:
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Or so says wikipedia. Effectively that means what you sense through any of your five senses is empirical knowledge. By applying simple reasoning, we can draw conclusions about the world using this knowledge. These conclusions, or hypotheses, can then be tested through the experimental method. The experimental method is the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment designed to disprove a hypothesis. *Phew* That's a mouthful. It means that scientists control as much of the experiment as they can. Such things as temperature, humidity, salinity (saltiness) or any number of other things. They do this to understand how certain things react in certain situations.
I believe an example is suitable here. Scientists discover life on another planet. As you might expect, they are very excited. The first thing they do is examine it's environment, taking samples and testing them in their natural state. After doing this, they have a fairly good idea of how this new species lives. They come up with a hypothesis about it's life cycle. Having a new hypothesis, they design an experiment. They take a sample of the life form, and put it into an artificial enivronment where they can control the climate, and food supply. They then set about trying to disprove thier hypothesis.
That's right, I said disprove. All well designed experiments are created to destroy a hypothesis. It's when the hypothesis survives the rigors of multiple experiments that we consider it worthy of being part of a Theory. Anyway... back to the example. After testing the life form six was from sunday, they have a strong concept of it's entire life. By thoroughly checking the place it was found, they find even more life. While they experiment on this new life form, they then start to form hypotheses on the ecosystem of the planet. The more information that can be determined without experimenting, the more hypotheses need to be tested, and the more knowledge about the planet is gained.
This is but one example of empirical and experimental evidence working together to add to the wealth of knowledge humans already have. So there you have it, a VERY brief explaination of empiricism. Hopefully now there'll be fewer mistakes flying about the internet.
Until next time:
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Vulturing Catholic Education
I have been browsing the web, looking for data for a new post I'll be loading when it is finished, and I happened upon this article:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0012.html
After reading it, I was filled with an odd feeling. It was similar to uncontrollable rage, deepest pity, and absolute mirth. These feelings kind of mixed into a grim resolve, as I decided to pick this thing to pieces, destroying it's apparent arguments, and humiliating the writer by showing his stupidity. That is what this post is about. I'll do it sentence by sentence, if when necessary, but by the end, you should be able to understand the problems presented.
Religious believers are accustomed to being accused as perpetrators of intolerance and violence, and there is enough truth to such charges to take them to heart.
This is relatively accurate. Believers ARE constantly accused of intolerance and violence, so there's no reason to doubt that some take it to heart. There is definitly enough examples.
At the same time, it should be recognized that what is called religious strife is usually only partly that. The "religious wars" of the 16th and 17th centuries were at least as much about politics - with, for example, Catholic France supporting German Protestants in order to weaken the Catholic German emperor.
This is also true, in the same way that a book is only partly paper. Most of the things described as religious strife have strong ties to religion, and are therefore tagged as such. Using the word "partly" is a neat trick, designed to make the religious ties seem less important. These wars were based soundly in religion, with other reasons coming in a distant second. The war in question was between Protestants and Catholics in Bohemia, which elevated into a war between many European nations using germany as a battlefield.
Today it would be extremely simplistic to think that religion is all that fuels the strife in Northern Ireland or the Middle East.
Once again they point out that religion is not the only factor in current violence. The problem is that while there may be other reasons, the MAIN reason is religion. Cathloicism and Protestantism are different enough to cause violence, as are Islam and Judaism, despite their similarities.
However, religion does possess a peculiar potentiality for "extremism," because it has to do with extreme things. We might be able to compromise a boundary dispute, for example, but how can we compromise the will of God?
This brings up a well known problem of religion. Extremists always do stupid things to appease God. This argument of course fails to point out that if you add the element of god to a boudary dispute, no compromise can be made, no matter how extreme the people involved are.
Critics cluck their tongues and note the contradiction whereby religion, which is supposed to be based on love, has the potential to turn into strife and hatred.
Obvious and over-used, but still viable.
Critics do not note the close parallel to the family, where love can so easily turn into hate.
First of all, I'd hate to live in that guy's family. Second, while most religions cause intolerance and hate despite their message of love, very few families hate each other, or kill each other for simply being in another family. The "parallel" is rather crooked, and not particularly parallel.
But the dangers of strife and fanaticism come from the very nature of religion itself, which deals with ultimate things.
This is true, religious fanatics are far too common to be considered as deriving from a fringe element of religion. Many believers say that religion deals with ultimate things, though this is really only partly true. Not all religions claim to deal with ultimate things, such as Bhuddism, which has the lowest violent fanaticism of all the religions I've studied... Although, I have no clue how a violent buddhist fanatic would act. (insert joke here)
In a sense people ought to be more ready to fight over religious dogma than over disputed territory, because religious dogma has to do with the highest and most important truths. (It requires some kind of divine revelation to teach us that we should not kill one another over religious dogma.)
This is a contradictory sentence. People should be more willing to fight over religious dogma, but divine revelation tells us not to kill. Also, religious dogma only deals with the most important truths to the believer. For people such as myself, what God says couldn't be less important. And, because I don't believe in an afterlife, listening to what He says seems kind of trivial. Before I go further, I'd like to point out that common sense morals such as don't kill and don't steal DO apply to me, They just have nothing to do with God.
The terrorism which manifested itself on September 11 has of course started a whole new round of alarmed warnings about the dangers of religious fanaticism, with some secularists professing to see no significant difference between Osama bin Laden on the one hand and the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the pro-life movement on the other.
I have never heard of Rev. Jerry Falwell, which I suppose is a geographic problem. As far as I can tell from my brief reading on the man, he said and did very stupid things, but had redeeming qualities, such as defending civil rights for GLBT people. I can't say one way or the other whether there is an appropriate comparison to Osama bin Laden.
Thus, we are warned, the extirpation of all forms of religious intensity is what we must do to achieve social peace.
While this may work, it isn't true. Some religious intensity is in a good area, like helping others. Religion is not neccessary for this, but that doesn't change the point.
In this secularist world, merely saying that one disapproves of homosexuality, for example, is equated with bombing the World Trade Center.
No. Saying one disapproves of homosexuality is excercising ones right to free speech. Inciting violence, or attempting to cause hardship for homosexuals with your words can be equated with the bombing of the WTC, if only loosley.
We can all agree on the need to end the kind of religion which does issue in violence and hatred.
Yes. Which is to say ALL religion.
But as the secularists point out, all real religion has that potential, in the same way that deep love between a man and a woman has the potential of leading to murderous jealousy.
I think the tendency for religion to turn violent is a little higher then the deep love between two people leading to murder.
Thus many secularists in effect now call for an end to religion completely, something they have been predicting for a long time but which so far has not happened.
We've been calling for it? I think we've been saying that it should not have a role in government, or education. I'm an evangelical atheist secularist, and I still think it is well within your rights to have a church, and believe in an invisible flying zombie jew. Not all secularists wish for all religion to be destroyed. As for the prediction, the internet is quickly disproving all the pathetic attempts religion has at proving it's right. It's only a matter of time before the willfully ignorant are forced to take notice.
Why is there religion at all, of any kind?
Why indeed.
Ultimately the only satisfactory answer is that it enlightens people about the meaning of life, of how they should live their lives.
Or, before science progressed things scared people, like lightning, and they could only explain it with deities. These became more prominent, eventually forming groups, known as churches, where people learned about it, and taught it to others. Eventually, these organisations became so powerful they were able to control most of the population. Dark ages anyone? Slowly, but surely, they have been declining in power as science enlightens the areas they would wish to keep in the dark. (Space, orbits, evolution)
Religion is what gives meaning to human existence.
Human existence gives meaning to human existence. Meaning is subjective, we decide upon the meaning of our own existence.
Therefore, it follows, to abandon religion would mean abandoning all hope of meaning — to which the secularist nods and says, “Precisely!”
No. Abandoning religion would mean abandoning all hope of being told we have meaning, and forcing people to decide on their own. It would devastate willful ignorance, though not totally destroying it.
The secularist position, which has a long history, is that the religious search for meaning is an illusion but that, even when successful, it is a bad thing, because man should not be encouraged to think about ultimate realities.
What? Get your facts straight. The search for meaning IS meaningless, not because it's an illusion, but because we create our own meaning, subjectively. If it's successful for some, wonderful, there are a few who find the religious meaning of life similar to their own. The problem is when those who feel differently are guilted, bullied, or brainwashed into believing the religious meaning of life.
American Pragmatism is perhaps the clearest example of this tendency.
Do go on, good sir.
It argues that we can choose moral positions, and orient ourselves in life, not by asking what is true or false but simply on the basis of what seems to work.
EXACTLY! This is how morals are usually formed. It has work up to now, despite what a theist says.
We might claim, for example, that all men have worth and dignity but, if someone asks why this is so, we are not required to answer. It just is.
The claim that all men have worth and dignity is a relativly new concept, born out of compassion and the plight of others. It wasn't always accepted. The ancient Egyptions didn't believe it, and slavery was common. But it worked for them, just look at what they accomplished, the great pyramids. Nowadays, we've got this idea of equality, and what has that got us? To the moon and back. It allowed people of all sexes and races to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.
Although they seldom admit it, these secularists really are calling upon the human race to amputate itself spiritually, to suppress, quite consciously, the religious hungers which have been part of human existence since the beginning of time.
Those "hungers" are really the desire to explain the world, which in older times was the province of religion, but is being replaced by science. We don't want them supressed, just applied to a more effective model, the scientific model of explanation.
They call on us deliberately to wall ourselves up within the empirical limits of our world and resolutely to ignore everything which does not fit.
Except when empiricism is not quite enough and we must resort to experimentation and logical deduction.
Whatever else might be said about such a view of existence, it is immeasurably drabber and shallower than what men have thought was real for these thousands of years.
I'll agree with this. Science is much drabber and boring then the magic and demons of religion. It's even more shallow, limiting itself to reality, unlike the Powerful GOD outside the universe. What men thought was real for 3,000 years is horribly out of date, and needs to be refreshed. We are constantly working to relieve humanity of ignorance, though articles like this really set us back.
There we go. Sentence by sentence. I realised how long this was going to be, so I dodn't get into the origins of morals, or explanation of emiricism and the scientific method. I do apologise if I insulted any Buuhdists with my joke, there was no offence intended.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0012.html
After reading it, I was filled with an odd feeling. It was similar to uncontrollable rage, deepest pity, and absolute mirth. These feelings kind of mixed into a grim resolve, as I decided to pick this thing to pieces, destroying it's apparent arguments, and humiliating the writer by showing his stupidity. That is what this post is about. I'll do it sentence by sentence, if when necessary, but by the end, you should be able to understand the problems presented.
Religious believers are accustomed to being accused as perpetrators of intolerance and violence, and there is enough truth to such charges to take them to heart.
This is relatively accurate. Believers ARE constantly accused of intolerance and violence, so there's no reason to doubt that some take it to heart. There is definitly enough examples.
At the same time, it should be recognized that what is called religious strife is usually only partly that. The "religious wars" of the 16th and 17th centuries were at least as much about politics - with, for example, Catholic France supporting German Protestants in order to weaken the Catholic German emperor.
This is also true, in the same way that a book is only partly paper. Most of the things described as religious strife have strong ties to religion, and are therefore tagged as such. Using the word "partly" is a neat trick, designed to make the religious ties seem less important. These wars were based soundly in religion, with other reasons coming in a distant second. The war in question was between Protestants and Catholics in Bohemia, which elevated into a war between many European nations using germany as a battlefield.
Today it would be extremely simplistic to think that religion is all that fuels the strife in Northern Ireland or the Middle East.
Once again they point out that religion is not the only factor in current violence. The problem is that while there may be other reasons, the MAIN reason is religion. Cathloicism and Protestantism are different enough to cause violence, as are Islam and Judaism, despite their similarities.
However, religion does possess a peculiar potentiality for "extremism," because it has to do with extreme things. We might be able to compromise a boundary dispute, for example, but how can we compromise the will of God?
This brings up a well known problem of religion. Extremists always do stupid things to appease God. This argument of course fails to point out that if you add the element of god to a boudary dispute, no compromise can be made, no matter how extreme the people involved are.
Critics cluck their tongues and note the contradiction whereby religion, which is supposed to be based on love, has the potential to turn into strife and hatred.
Obvious and over-used, but still viable.
Critics do not note the close parallel to the family, where love can so easily turn into hate.
First of all, I'd hate to live in that guy's family. Second, while most religions cause intolerance and hate despite their message of love, very few families hate each other, or kill each other for simply being in another family. The "parallel" is rather crooked, and not particularly parallel.
But the dangers of strife and fanaticism come from the very nature of religion itself, which deals with ultimate things.
This is true, religious fanatics are far too common to be considered as deriving from a fringe element of religion. Many believers say that religion deals with ultimate things, though this is really only partly true. Not all religions claim to deal with ultimate things, such as Bhuddism, which has the lowest violent fanaticism of all the religions I've studied... Although, I have no clue how a violent buddhist fanatic would act. (insert joke here)
In a sense people ought to be more ready to fight over religious dogma than over disputed territory, because religious dogma has to do with the highest and most important truths. (It requires some kind of divine revelation to teach us that we should not kill one another over religious dogma.)
This is a contradictory sentence. People should be more willing to fight over religious dogma, but divine revelation tells us not to kill. Also, religious dogma only deals with the most important truths to the believer. For people such as myself, what God says couldn't be less important. And, because I don't believe in an afterlife, listening to what He says seems kind of trivial. Before I go further, I'd like to point out that common sense morals such as don't kill and don't steal DO apply to me, They just have nothing to do with God.
The terrorism which manifested itself on September 11 has of course started a whole new round of alarmed warnings about the dangers of religious fanaticism, with some secularists professing to see no significant difference between Osama bin Laden on the one hand and the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the pro-life movement on the other.
I have never heard of Rev. Jerry Falwell, which I suppose is a geographic problem. As far as I can tell from my brief reading on the man, he said and did very stupid things, but had redeeming qualities, such as defending civil rights for GLBT people. I can't say one way or the other whether there is an appropriate comparison to Osama bin Laden.
Thus, we are warned, the extirpation of all forms of religious intensity is what we must do to achieve social peace.
While this may work, it isn't true. Some religious intensity is in a good area, like helping others. Religion is not neccessary for this, but that doesn't change the point.
In this secularist world, merely saying that one disapproves of homosexuality, for example, is equated with bombing the World Trade Center.
No. Saying one disapproves of homosexuality is excercising ones right to free speech. Inciting violence, or attempting to cause hardship for homosexuals with your words can be equated with the bombing of the WTC, if only loosley.
We can all agree on the need to end the kind of religion which does issue in violence and hatred.
Yes. Which is to say ALL religion.
But as the secularists point out, all real religion has that potential, in the same way that deep love between a man and a woman has the potential of leading to murderous jealousy.
I think the tendency for religion to turn violent is a little higher then the deep love between two people leading to murder.
Thus many secularists in effect now call for an end to religion completely, something they have been predicting for a long time but which so far has not happened.
We've been calling for it? I think we've been saying that it should not have a role in government, or education. I'm an evangelical atheist secularist, and I still think it is well within your rights to have a church, and believe in an invisible flying zombie jew. Not all secularists wish for all religion to be destroyed. As for the prediction, the internet is quickly disproving all the pathetic attempts religion has at proving it's right. It's only a matter of time before the willfully ignorant are forced to take notice.
Why is there religion at all, of any kind?
Why indeed.
Ultimately the only satisfactory answer is that it enlightens people about the meaning of life, of how they should live their lives.
Or, before science progressed things scared people, like lightning, and they could only explain it with deities. These became more prominent, eventually forming groups, known as churches, where people learned about it, and taught it to others. Eventually, these organisations became so powerful they were able to control most of the population. Dark ages anyone? Slowly, but surely, they have been declining in power as science enlightens the areas they would wish to keep in the dark. (Space, orbits, evolution)
Religion is what gives meaning to human existence.
Human existence gives meaning to human existence. Meaning is subjective, we decide upon the meaning of our own existence.
Therefore, it follows, to abandon religion would mean abandoning all hope of meaning — to which the secularist nods and says, “Precisely!”
No. Abandoning religion would mean abandoning all hope of being told we have meaning, and forcing people to decide on their own. It would devastate willful ignorance, though not totally destroying it.
The secularist position, which has a long history, is that the religious search for meaning is an illusion but that, even when successful, it is a bad thing, because man should not be encouraged to think about ultimate realities.
What? Get your facts straight. The search for meaning IS meaningless, not because it's an illusion, but because we create our own meaning, subjectively. If it's successful for some, wonderful, there are a few who find the religious meaning of life similar to their own. The problem is when those who feel differently are guilted, bullied, or brainwashed into believing the religious meaning of life.
American Pragmatism is perhaps the clearest example of this tendency.
Do go on, good sir.
It argues that we can choose moral positions, and orient ourselves in life, not by asking what is true or false but simply on the basis of what seems to work.
EXACTLY! This is how morals are usually formed. It has work up to now, despite what a theist says.
We might claim, for example, that all men have worth and dignity but, if someone asks why this is so, we are not required to answer. It just is.
The claim that all men have worth and dignity is a relativly new concept, born out of compassion and the plight of others. It wasn't always accepted. The ancient Egyptions didn't believe it, and slavery was common. But it worked for them, just look at what they accomplished, the great pyramids. Nowadays, we've got this idea of equality, and what has that got us? To the moon and back. It allowed people of all sexes and races to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.
Although they seldom admit it, these secularists really are calling upon the human race to amputate itself spiritually, to suppress, quite consciously, the religious hungers which have been part of human existence since the beginning of time.
Those "hungers" are really the desire to explain the world, which in older times was the province of religion, but is being replaced by science. We don't want them supressed, just applied to a more effective model, the scientific model of explanation.
They call on us deliberately to wall ourselves up within the empirical limits of our world and resolutely to ignore everything which does not fit.
Except when empiricism is not quite enough and we must resort to experimentation and logical deduction.
Whatever else might be said about such a view of existence, it is immeasurably drabber and shallower than what men have thought was real for these thousands of years.
I'll agree with this. Science is much drabber and boring then the magic and demons of religion. It's even more shallow, limiting itself to reality, unlike the Powerful GOD outside the universe. What men thought was real for 3,000 years is horribly out of date, and needs to be refreshed. We are constantly working to relieve humanity of ignorance, though articles like this really set us back.
There we go. Sentence by sentence. I realised how long this was going to be, so I dodn't get into the origins of morals, or explanation of emiricism and the scientific method. I do apologise if I insulted any Buuhdists with my joke, there was no offence intended.
Until next time,
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)