A Few Thoughts and Explanations
December 31, 2008
I had planned to shutter this blog shortly after the end of this year. The day after the election, with so many of my friends depressed by the outcome, I announced that I would be publicly declaring my conversion to Christianity. Like me, many of them could barely drag themselves out of bed, read the newspaper or turn on the television. I hoped that it would cheer them to see The Raving Atheist go out on a faith-filled note, and encourage them to rise to the challenges posed by the incoming administration. I anticipating closing the blog with a few wrap-up posts, and then returning full-steam to the pro-life efforts that eventually brought me to this good place in my life.
The blog was essentially moribund due to an abandonment of fourteen months. I expected perhaps a dozen goodbye (or good riddance) comments on the conversion post. I did not bother to remove the Basic Assumptions or other trappings of godlessness because it seemed to me that would be like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic. The accompanying picture was selected by downloading the first suitably-sized result arising from a Google Image search for “Christ + Children.” I did not screen it for historical or political correctness because I assumed that the thought behind it would count enough for the handful of readers who would see it.
The deluge of comments and e-mails has persuaded me that some purpose might be served by an extended run of The Raving Theist. I have also been convinced, particularly by Jennifer of Conversion Diary, that sharing the story of my coming to faith might serve some beneficial purpose. It will be a maudlin, rickety, hole-filled, unconvincing narrative, in that respect not much different from the lives we lead in or out of the faith. For now, however, I will address (as time permits) some of the issues that have arisen more persistently in the comments, supplying additional observations where necessary.
(1) Yes, my conversion is real and sincere and heartfelt. It is not a mean atheist hoax or prank. At first I was offended that anyone could suspect me of such monstrous cruelty, but I realize that most people don’t know me well enough to understand how my character would so absolutely preclude such a charade. And having written my share of skeptical posts about the conversion of other atheists, I understand how impossible it would be for anyone who has perused my archives to conclude that I am anything more than fraud.
(2) Notably, there appears to be absolute certainty on both sides of hoax hypothesis. On the religious side the divide is not so significant: the believers who are convinced of my sincerity see my faith as a natural surrender to the truth, while those who think I am faking see it as consistent with the moral character or nastiness of many atheists, or at least those of my (former) ilk. Among the atheists, the divide is a little harder to explain. Those who believe it is a prank simply “know” that no one who has ever achieved their understanding of atheist concepts could ever possibly embrace the opposite conclusion. To them, the fakery is as obvious as that of a person who once believed that 1 + 1 = 2 suddenly renouncing that view in favor of the 1 + 1 = 3 conclusion. So one would think that every hardcore atheist would disbelieve my conversion. Nevertheless, two of the most militant internet atheists, PZ Myers of Pharyngula and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon are fully convinced of my sincerity and predicted my conversion long ago. What the opposing atheists sides conclude as to each others’ sincerity regarding my sincerity I do not know.
(3) The atheists have justifiably pointed out that I have not supported my new thesis with anything more than a picture and an oath. As noted above, I will in time supply my reasons. I did not do so at first because the announcement was intended as consolation rather than argumentation. Furthermore, the calls for a full and immediate explanation of my beliefs and their justifications are unreasonable. I spent years on the exposition of my atheist views, and as I have noted, atheists disbelieve for a wide variety of reasons, and not all subscribe to the same rationales. I will pontificate at my leisure, in between silly headlines.
(4) Most of your demands for explanations are not so sincere, anyway. I will give you your fun nonetheless.
(5) Some of you are “sad” that I have abandoned my “principles.” What this means I am not sure. I know that when religious people tell you they are “sad,” you say that it is unreasonable to expect you to change yours beliefs to make them happy. So your atheist tears will not move me. Also, I do not know what principles you are referring to. If you are talking about my moral positions, you will have to be more specific about what I have abandoned.
(6) Various believers have expressed concern over the nastiness and obscenities directed at me. I don’t care. I did the same for years (albeit usually with a point somewhere) and am in no position to complain. And if I wanted to, I could out-nasty and out-swear any of them. I have lost my atheism, not my vocabulary. But I don’t want to. I do not even use the D-word anymore unless I am quoting somebody.
(7) I am not deleting the archives or atheist links. There is good mixed in with the bad, and lessons to be learned even from the bad. I will rearrange things so as to feature the links to religious blogs first. I have already added a bunch from those who commented and e-mailed me (click on “links” on the front page and scroll down to the bottom to “Theist Blogs”) If I have missed your blog please e-mail me (either ravingatheist-at-gmail.com or ravingtheist-at-gmail.com is fine).
(8) I believe in God, in the divinity of Jesus Christ our Savior, and that He was born and died for our sins so that we may have eternal life. God bless you all and Happy New Year!
Comments
214 Responses to “A Few Thoughts and Explanations”
December 31st, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Oh, excellent. Excellent.
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Hey, RT. Brian Flemming here. I left a message on your voice mail, but I don’t know if that’s your number any more, since it’s been a while. So what’s up with you these days? Anything new going on?
I’ve always been grateful for your contribution to “The God Who Wasn’t There” DVD. The thoughts you express on the audio track are passionate, well reasoned and often quite funny. Many viewers call that interview a highlight of the DVD.
So how about we do another audio interview? I’m guessing your position has changed on a few of the issues we talked about, and I’d be very curious to get your new take on them. I could turn the interview into an MP3 and make it available for free.
Give me a call or email, I’d love to catch up. Oh, and Happy New Year to you, too!
Best,
Brian
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
TRT, I have to confess that I was (as a Catholic) initially suspect regarding the truth of your conversion… I thought I’d recalled you claiming a “conversion” a few years ago here, and thought it was more of the same. I was certainly pleasantly surprised to find out that I was mistaken.
All the same, do I get to keep the Godidiot Award of the Week which you graciously bestowed upon me nearly six years ago? I remember it fondly.
I do have to say, I’m not *shocked* by your conversion… I always regarded you as someone who was willing to actually have a conversation (i.e. both talk & listen), and given that I think it’s eminently reasonable to be a Christian, there was always a possibility there.
I look forward to reading your conversion story… I told someone today that atheists’ conversions are among the most intellectually-interesting for me… I”m always interested in how the intellectual objections are resolved.
Happy New Year, TRT!
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Very happy to hear you are sticking around.
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
(8)Amen!! Happy New Year, TRT!!
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
This is a comment over at PZs:
‘
I suspect that we will see with him what we see with most such “conversions”–a marked reduction in meaningful questioning.
It’s generally a kind of entry “into the fold,” acquiescing to the group’s “answers” and giving up doubts, questions, and well, intellectualism. And I think it’s satisfying to some people.
And he’s probably getting up in years…
Glen D’
How long did it take to bring up the age thing? I knew it. They are all busy convincing themselves that he has lost his mind, or that he was a Christian from the beginning and this conversion is just a big trick.
It has been said that we are not rational creatures, we are rationalising creatures. Watch it in action at PZs.
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
I don’t know how anyone can classify it as rational or irrational as none of us has heard the story yet.
December 31st, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Obviously, RT’s disclosure of a working Godometer would silence any claims of irrationality.
December 31st, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Hi,
Thank you for the headlines. They are really funny. I do selfishly hope that you will continue to blog, as I would very much like to enjoy your wonderful sense of humour.
I’m in the ‘natural surrender to the truth’ group. You were becoming more thoughtful and considerate of others. You have been willing to live in accordance with the good, and it was obvious that truth mattered to you.
When someone chooses that what is good, they can not be far from the creator of all that is good. When someone loves truth, they will be loved by the Author of truth. And, whatever is done to help ‘the least of my brethern’ is accounted as done to Love Incarnate.
I’ll look forward to reading your posts.
God bless,
Trudy
December 31st, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Your point about nonplused atheists is well taken, but I think you’re not acknowledging that atheists, like everyone, are quite aware of human fault and foible. People will fall afoul of their own beliefs at every turn, it seems. That’s why genuine adherence to almost any belief is almost automatically given a kind of reverence. It’s my opinion that all types of people purport allegiance to various beliefs for all manner of reasons without any genuine commitment to them. Why might someone do this kind of thing? For a number of reasons. A few: They may simply have been raised in it and feel comfortable in it. They may find it practically useful in financial and social terms. They may even be playing devil’s advocate in a half-belief state. They may find the implications of the alternative viscerally despicable but be at a loss to refute it. IOW they may sacrifice their loyalty to the truth to gain a worldview they find more pleasing. I find this ALL THE TIME in Christian writings. “If we actually believed this way then ____” you fill in the blank. “It’s actually wrong to hate faggots.” “Abortion — at least early term– is okay” “Intermarriage is advisable”
We often get, on both sides, claims that interest in the atheist/theist argument somehow implies waffling or doubt. Those who are solidly committed to a belief are really not interested in outside objection, not because they are totally secure in it but because they are totally SATISFIED, that is, psychologically and worldly serviced by their belief. These are the people who build walls and ramparts against any opposing argument; they will not engage in discourse, they will not listen.
All the above is understandable. What ISN’T understandable to the atheist witnessing a conversion, is how a fellow can reconcile the quite materialistic knickknacks of Christianity to any kind of sane previous judgment. How is it that Jesus came back to life? Flew to heaven. How, exactly, do you make sense of the cosmic theomachy that must necessarily be going on above our head RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT? –that the existence of a demon named Satan informs us, in any way, about our reality? And so on.
In other words, you’ve got your work cut out. Maybe you should reconsider shutting down.
December 31st, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
RT, when I came to read these news about you some days ago - following a link on the Curt Jester’s blog - I didn’t know I would be so impressed.
Three points for my thank you:
first, many of your previous posts are really intriguing, many amusing, so I have something more worthwhile reading for this holiday;
second, from your blog I came to know some great persons, and I mean Mrs. Ashli and Mrs. Dawn Eden: enchanté, really!
third, it’s Christmas, folks! there’s a risk of you meeting God in this life!
I was an atheist too; my conversion happened 25 years ago, the 19th of December 1983, at about 10:20 pm. I join my celebration with your joy.
Merry Christmas and Happy (really) new year!
December 31st, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Hey Raving,
First, a hearty thank you is due - not only for the Raving Atheist refrigerator magnet you sent me years ago, but also for your original blog, which allowed me to find firm ground and understanding friends when I gave up Judaism all those years ago.
I’m somewhat of a atypical atheist, in that I am not bothered by other people’s religion, as long as it doesn’t actively intrude on the worldview of their fellow humans, and one doesn’t attempt to bolster their position with lies and misdirection. Which brings me to a question (and possibly a topic for a future entry to your new blog): What is your take on spreading the Good News? A central tenet of your newfound faith is proselytization. Do you see yourself in an active role, sharing your conversion story with the non-religious, in an effort to bring them to Christianity?
I am inclined to side with those who posted above that you never really were an atheist. For me, anyway, it’s hard to accept such an ancient ritualistic tradition as a foundation for my life, especially now that I can view religion objectively. As I’ve said before, it’s hard to believe in Oz once you’ve had a peek behind the curtain.
Good luck, and keep writing. Your humor makes me laugh - especially the new headlines. Oh, one other question: I assumed, possibly in error, that since you’re a New York Lawyer, you were a Jew. Can you share with us, in a future post, a bit about your upbringing? It may help to put this change of heart in perspective.
December 31st, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
BBub– you left out at least one other plausible explanation for RT’s conversion. He came to believe that the claims of Christianity are true.
You wrote: What ISN’T understandable to the atheist witnessing a conversion, is how a fellow can reconcile the quite materialistic knickknacks of Christianity to any kind of sane previous judgment. How is it that Jesus came back to life? Flew to heaven.
Do you have a comprehensive explanation of the universe? If not, how do you ground your assumption that the material world is all there is? Science does not do that. Its assumptions are grounded in methodological naturalism. That is, it recognizes that it doesn’t know if there is a supernatural realm. Therefore, it leaves truth claims that reference the supernatural out of its reckoning. It does not, however, say that those claims are false. They are simply outside its purview.
It’s funny but your whole post is the typical atheist’s argument which is grounded in naturalism. Essentially, it is an argument from ignorance. As such, it demonstrates nicely the typical mode of thinking of the materialist. Science doesn’t have what y’all consider compelling evidence of the supernatural, so therefore the supernatural doesn’t exist. Of course, such a stance is founded on a logical fallacy but it is yours to take, if you so wish.
Of course, I could have saved a lot of my time and yours, if had simply quoted St. Augustine. “[N]o one believes anything, unless he has first thought that it is to be believed. . . . if faith is not thought through, it is not faith.”
December 31st, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
Lily,
If you read your quote of me you’ll see that I’m actually objecting to the Christian tendency to materialize myth. It’s not enough for them to savor the metaphoric significance of virgin birth (which, I’ve been told, my be an artifact of mistranslation). No, the Virgin must have been real and material, the cross must be, the wounds. Catholics must daily reaffirm to themselves a body hanging there on the cross. Some Christians are satisfied with an ephemeral ghostly resurrection, others have Jesus chowing down on junk food. Satan’s machinations are real, our worldly fallen nature is real because there was once a material paradise on Earth, and on and on. _I_ am not an absolute materialist regarding explication of consciousness. I keep an open mind. I acknowledge the merits of notions like Platonic Ideals, etc. In many ways YOU are more of a materialist than I.
December 31st, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Well, I will happily admit to appreciating the material world. The platonic strain in Christian thought comes from the encounter with Greek philosophy. The Hebrews were unabashedly people who ate, drank, and err… more with gusto.
There are no Christians who don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc. That is the definition of “Christian”. A metaphoric resurrection (and all the rest) have no value. There are lots of myths out there to choose from and lots of legal and illegal ways to dream up even more spectacular ones. We Christians are concerned with what is real.
December 31st, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
TRT, well, you had us guessing for quite a while there! I honestly thought this was some kind of bet you made with a Christian friend or associate. Something like:
1. Pretent to convert
2. Gauge the reactions from different social groups
3. Later announce it was a stunt
4. See what those who insulted you because of (1) have to say
5. See who your friends really are!
BTW, Mr. Flemming, good to see you here. Can’t wait for your super-secret project. And HNY!
December 31st, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
There are no Christians who don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ,
That’s not true; some think it was purely spiritual.
December 31st, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Some think the Ascension was spiritual as well. That’s the backup plan if the Talpiot tomb turns out to be legit. The goalposts have legs.
January 1st, 2009 @ 12:12 am
I’m not going to cast aspersions for your change of beliefs. What you believe is your business and your right. But I am intensely curious about the how and the why of your shift, and I look forward to reading about your change of heart here.
January 1st, 2009 @ 12:15 am
well, TRA, i’m in the #5 team, but not because of any loss of “principles”, but because i lost YOU. now you belong to a team i do not respect, and i don’t in great part thanks to you.
and i thank you for that from the bottom of my heart.
thanks to you my atheism got a head, and legs.
thanks to you i came to understand religious hipocrisy when i saw it, when i was too naive or misinformed (or afraid) to look before.
thanks to you i got the arguments i needed to defend my non-belief, sometimes with very good results.
thanks to you i had many, many laughs, and not all at he expense of the religious.
thanks to you i could like myself in my disbelief, and not think of myself as some monster- like we are all told at some point or another that we are.
thanks to you i’m here, moderating a forum of people i respect, have met, and truly appreciate.
thanks for this strange, uncommon and unreasonable sadness…
and goodbye…
January 1st, 2009 @ 1:08 am
As a former atheist and current Catholic convert, I empathize. It’s a difficult road and I’ve lost friends. But I have Jesus, and I have the joy of embracing God’s love and mercy, and that more than makes up for it.
I empathize with your atheist (former) friends, too. I know it’s confusing and upsetting to them. I had a friend or two who went from atheist to Christian while I was still an atheist and it was really bizarre to me. I understand it, now.
I look forward to your conversion story.
January 1st, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Once upon a time I was an agno-atheist and not very good at it, if there is a goal to aspire to in it. I had problems, and thinking didn’t really solve them. Formal logic certainly didn’t. I am beginning to suspect your conversion story may be very similar to mine and I am curious to learn more. I hope the bitter disappointment of your past readers will become less and that they find contentment where they can. Why not? I choose faith today for myself and realize I’m not very good at it, either. But so far my faith hasn’t required that I be that good at it, just that I try. I got tired of being the boss a long time ago, if you know what I mean.
January 1st, 2009 @ 5:36 am
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=AVbdGCRUhNY
January 1st, 2009 @ 6:20 am
‘All the above is understandable. What ISN’T understandable to the atheist witnessing a conversion, is how a fellow can reconcile the quite materialistic knickknacks of Christianity to any kind of sane previous judgment. How is it that Jesus came back to life? Flew to heaven. How, exactly, do you make sense of the cosmic theomachy that must necessarily be going on above our head RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT? –that the existence of a demon named Satan informs us, in any way, about our reality? And so on.
In other words, you’ve got your work cut out. Maybe you should reconsider shutting down.’
- Beelzebub
I get so tired of hearing stuff like this. Christians have been thinking about these things for 2000 years. How many of the great theologians have you actually read? There have been some stunning minds that have applied themselves to understanding such things.
You give the impression that Christians are vacuous creatures who never actually think through the outrageous implications of their beliefs.
I get tired because as soon as you convince one Atheist that you have actually thought things through intelligently, another one pops up slinging the same ‘Christians are mindless’ jibe. I suppose this is what the patience bit is for.
January 1st, 2009 @ 6:30 am
‘I am inclined to side with those who posted above that you never really were an atheist.’
- Tenspace
Ah, the ‘no true atheist conversion’ idea.
‘….especially now that I can view religion objectively.’
- Tenspace
And by inference, no one who is still religious can view religion objectively.
Who has confirmed that your view of religion is objective? Yourself. What you actually mean to say is that you have simply given up believing and now disbelieve. But you would rather arrogantly inflate this by adding the ‘objective’ label.
And you talk about having an OZ moment and seeing behind the curtain - what exactly does that mean? When exactly did that happen? Again, you have lost your belief and simply wish to add some narrative to lend more weight to what has happened.
You no longer believe - you do not now have a infallible view of reality where religion is concerned.
January 1st, 2009 @ 6:55 am
You give the impression that Christians are vacuous creatures who never actually think through the outrageous implications of their beliefs.
I notice you cleverly omitted an answer. Actually I’d rather hear it from the horse’s mouth. When you decide to hold forth, give me a ring. I can’t very well have a roe with Augustine now can I?
Tired of it? Of course you’re tired of it. You’d probably like to shut me up, too bad I’m out of crossbow range.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:07 am
I guess that’s spelled “row,” sorry — argument IOW.
Give me a reasonable transition from any kind of sane atheist view and believing in virgin birth. In fact, lets have a laundry list of factoids RT has now bought into:
– virgin birth
– reanimation
– heaven and alternative spatial reality, hell
– demons and angels
– transsubstantiation (just for fun)
– the idea that sin, guilt and responsibility can be abated by blood sacrifice (what exactly does that mean, why, what possible sense is there in worldly actions gratifying an all powerful entity)
The list is in fact endless, the utter nonsense this character has now seemingly embraced.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:09 am
‘If you read your quote of me you’ll see that I’m actually objecting to the Christian tendency to materialize myth.’
- Beelzebub
Object away, the overwhelming majority of Christians through history have come to the conclusion that the gospel accounts are reliable historical accounts of real events. We can argue the accuracy, translation etc. forever. You can accept your Bart Ehrmans and others who don’t believe and try to destroy the efficacy of scriptures, but I and many others simply believe it is what it is, as astonishing as it appears. The gospels are reliable and cohesive as far as I am concerned, and they marry up with every experience I have had in my Christian journey.
‘It’s not enough for them to savor the metaphoric significance of virgin birth (which, I’ve been told, may be an artifact of mistranslation).’
- Beelzebub
The mistranslation applies to the Old Testament as far as I can tell. The virgin birth is not related to us with just a single word. It is part of the narrative, that Joseph was going to quietly split from Mary etc… Disbelieve that story if you wish, but it doesn’t hinge on one word. I’m sure you can find many scholars to back you up and say this event never happened, just as you can find people who can ‘prove’ that Jesus never actually existed, or that if he did he was never crucified but got married and had kids.
‘…others have Jesus chowing down on junk food.)
- Beelzebub
A typical atheist ploy. Use of language to ridicule biblical events. How they love their ‘sky daddies’ etc. I always thought it said something about the strength of an argument when you have to resort to such tactics. Yes, of course it is very easy to find the image of Jesus sitting to chow down on a Big Mac.
‘our worldly fallen nature is real because…’
- Beelzebub
The Biblical understanding of human nature offers me the best explanation of why I am like I am. When Paul says, ‘I do that which I do not want to do, and I do not do that which I want to do’ and he talks about a rebellious nature, and a struggle between the new man and the old, then he is talking about my struggles and life experience in a way that no one else does. It certainly is more on the money than many of the evolutionary pop psych unprovable just-so stories that the scientific establishment uses to explain much of human behavior.
‘In many ways YOU are more of a materialist than I.’
- Beelzebub
Only if you completely misunderstand the nature of materialism.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:17 am
‘Some think the Ascension was spiritual as well. That’s the backup plan if the Talpiot tomb turns out to be legit. The goalposts have legs.’
- Beelzebub
This claim is disputed by many archaeologists and theologians, as well as language and biblical scholars.
- Wikipedia
Just another in a long line of finds that are supposedly going to disprove Christianity.
And as for ’some’ think the ascension was real. Correct, if by ’some’ you mean 99.9% of Christians throughout history.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:35 am
‘The Biblical understanding of human nature offers me the best explanation of why I am like I am. ‘
James, all religions have years to craft a good story. You can’t exect Christianity to be completely incongruous to human nature; it wouldn’t have survived as long as it has if it was. The reason why Christians often have “powerful” arguments from scripture is because the entire narrative was crafted by clever ‘pop’ psychologists (otherwise known as prophets or philosophers) of the day and has itself gone through an evolutionary literary sieve. The story would not have survived, captivated humanity, served as a springboard of oppression for so long if it was completely lame. But the butt of the joke is you James. You’ve bought this stitched together chicanery hook line and sinker. So a first century poet has captured something in your mind/heart that resonates with you. So what? Shakespeare has done the same, and perhaps if he made otherworldly claims you’d follow him too? Please, James, grow up.
‘Only if you completely misunderstand the nature of materialism.’
I guess my point went over my head. Why does that not surprise me.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:36 am
I mean your head. Too many “spirits.” I’m in Hawaii and it’s still yesterday.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:42 am
Anyway, James, listen to the beat poetry I linked before. It says it one “hell” of a lot better than I can. Hey if you can refer me to theologists I can refer you to Tim Minchin.
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Beelzebub,
Saying that ALL Christians do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus is like saying that some atheists believe in God.
By definition, an atheist does not believe in God.
By definition, a Christian believes that Jesus died, resurrected and rose.
Hence the creed. duh.
Anyone can claim anything. This has no bearing on reality. If you are aware of people claiming to be Christians, but not believing in the physicality of the Resurrection, then you are being duped. If I told you that I know lots of atheists that are practicing Catholics, I’m sure you’d have the same reaction. It’s simply not possible.
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:19 am
It’s a tedious point anyway. I’m quite willing to concede it since it only bolsters my claim that Christians are tied to materialistic explanations when it’s quite imaginable (to me) that spiritual ones would suffice. This is exactly the point that seems to have escaped James.
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:32 am
Beelzebub,
Now if we could only get you to concede a few other points…
I think what you’re missing is that, at least in the Catholic Faith, the relationship between the material and the immaterial is key.
In the beginning was the word…immaterial.
And the word was made flesh…material.
All of our sacraments are outward signs, physical expressions, of something taking place on a spiritual level.
The Old Testament, the law.
The New Testament, the spirit of the law.
That’s the whole point of our Faith. Finding a way to reconcile the material with spiritual.
Theology of the Body does a great job of doing just this.
Animals are of the purely physical world. Angels, demons and God, are of the purely spiritual world. Humans have a foot in both. It is the becoming one of us, God the spirit taking on a physical form, that allows us access to that spiritual realm.
We do not deny the material. We just put it in it’s proper place. You however deny the spiritual.
I know you think we are insane. But think about this. We accept that there is a physical as well as a spiritual world. If we were to deny the material world, claim that it doesn’t, exist, then you would have a point in calling us crazy.
But from our perspective, it is you that are missing the boat. You deny the spiritual world. We accept both, you only accept one. To us, that seems irrational. To us, it is you that is close minded. We look at things through a different lens. It’s like those “magic” pictures. Someone that is unable to see the “hidden” image, might feel as though we are trying to pull something over on them. But the second picture is there. It’s just as real as the primary image. You just have to know how to look at it.
But being able or unable to see, has nothing to do with the reality of it.
January 1st, 2009 @ 9:31 am
I’m not sure, exactly, what Beelzebub is supposed to concede you, mk, but your argument is airtight. Like Bigfoot and leprachauns, a conveniently hidden away, nonmaterial world that is accessible only to devout Roman Catholics is not something one can disprove. Certainly not to the devout Roman Catholic.
January 1st, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Irreligious,
It was said tongue in cheek…hence the wink.
First of all, no one is asking you to disprove anything. I’m not having a crisis of faith, and am certainly not look for arguments against my faith.
I am simply answering B’s assertion. We are indeed materialists. We are human and have bodies. It is the marriage of the spiritual and the material that is at issue.
B states that the spiritual should be enough. Why the need for the material manifestations…I answered, because WE are physical. The whole point is the connection between the two.
We are not physical creatures trying to become spiritual ones. We will never become angels. Saints, maybe. But we cannot become what we are not, and we are not purely spiritual beings.
We are fully spiritual and fully physical. Unlike other creatures that are purely one or the other.
Therefore, it only makes sense that God would approach us in a physical as well as a spiritual manner. Both of our natures need to be addressed.
In the beginning it was not so. In the beginning, both natures were in perfect harmony. It was only after the fall that the two became enemies.
From that point on, we have been trying to get back to the beginning.
You laugh at our “invisible fairy tale world”…
Tell me. Why does a person, blind from birth, accept the truth that others can see? They have nothing to base this acceptance on other than the word of those that claim there is something called color in the world. They have not seen it for themselves. They have never seen a sunset, or a tulip or an artichoke. And yet, they take our word for it that “sight” exists.
They cannot disprove that we see. Our argument is airtight, to use your words.
Can you imagine a blog where blind folks get together and talk about how nuts the rest of the population is…claiming to do something so ridiculous as use their facial orbs to “see” things???
I cannot prove to you my God exists through reason any more than I can explain that my mother exists in the same manner. However, if you were to meet her, you would know it.
We do not know “about” God. We know the man Himself. We cannot prove Him to you, but we can introduce you to Him. Until you stop thinking with your brain and start thinking with your mind, you will never understand Him. He’s not a puzzle to be solved. He’s not a trick to be exposed. He’s a person, to be in a relationship with.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:06 am
‘But the butt of the joke is you James. You’ve bought this stitched together chicanery hook line and sinker.’
- Beelzebub
Well here’s an impasse then. I think the joke is on you. You have bought into this relatively modern delusion that we are simply chemicals with no spiritual element at all. You have bought into the delusion that mind can arise unaided from mud. You have probably bought into all the popular evolution just-so stories. You have probably sucked up a big dose of Freud and so on.
The bible calls these things hollow and deceptive philosophies. It warns us not to be taken captive by them. You are a captive.
I could also say grow up Beez. But I won’t because I don’t think you are a child - you are just a captive to the godless spirit of this age.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:07 am
mk, the flaw in your blind argument is that the blind person can still detect the object using another sense. They can verify the desk by touching it. If you had a friend that could mind read, you could verify her ability by asking her subject if she had ascertained their thoughts correctly even though you yourself can not mindread.
You tell me that you can “feel” God. Ok, let’s start with a definition. If by God, you mean dust bunny, then maybe I’m a theist too, and I just didn’t know it! Once you’ve established a definition for God, we can test your claims, even though we cannot feel it. For instance we can do a brain scan and you can indicate to use when you are feeling him/her.
As for the blind hanging out on websites laughing at us, they probably do. The deaf think the hearing are pretty hilarious.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:09 am
‘It’s a tedious point anyway. I’m quite willing to concede it since it only bolsters my claim that Christians are tied to materialistic explanations when it’s quite imaginable (to me) that spiritual ones would suffice. This is exactly the point that seems to have escaped James.’
- Beelzebub
Okay you have obviously made up your mind that I’m stupid. I understood your point very well - although I don’t really see what purpose it serves.
As for the definition of materialism - okay I was being a bit of a pedant.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:12 am
James, a book is not proof. Every religion has a book or books and anyone can write a book. If I write a scrap of paper that there is a dragon in my garage, does that make it true?
I think the weakness of every theistic religion is the insistence on claiming its “truth.” Rather than spinning, just say “I don’t know the truth. No one does, but living as though this is the truth makes my life better.” Drop the Santa routine and steal a page from Zen.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:17 am
‘
I’m not sure, exactly, what Beelzebub is supposed to concede you, mk, but your argument is airtight. Like Bigfoot and leprachauns, a conveniently hidden away, nonmaterial world that is accessible only to devout Roman Catholics is not something one can disprove. Certainly not to the devout Roman Catholic.’
- Irreligious
Conveniently hidden away. By its very nature it is immaterial - how would you expect the immaterial to show itself.
The author of the immaterial and material has done what I consider to be a good job of showing Himself and given us a very good understanding of the immaterial. Good enough for me and billions of others.
As for only accessible to devout Roman Catholics - no. It is open to anyone who is willing to put their pride aside and meet with their Creator. Not so difficult.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:21 am
James, how does the immaterial affect the material without being material? In other words, how can Casper hold a glass of water and still pass through a door?
If the immaterial could affect the material we would be able to measure it.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:22 am
‘Once you’ve established a definition for God, we can test your claims, even though we cannot feel it. For instance we can do a brain scan and you can indicate to use when you are feeling him/her.’
- Irreligious
You have already been beaten to this. ‘The Spiritual Brain’ recounts studies looking at the brain states of Carmelite Nuns when they are communining with God. Their brain state correlates to nothing else. It is unique in human experience.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Link please
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:29 am
From Bio-Medicine
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Brain-scan-of-nuns-finds-no-single-God-spot-in-the-brain–Universit-de-Montral-study-finds-3320-1/
“A new study at the Universit de Montral has concluded that there is no single God spot in the brain. In other words, mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions and systems normally implicated in a variety of functions (self-consciousness, emotion, body representation). The study published in the current issue of Neuroscience Letters was conducted by Dr. Mario Beauregard from the Department of Psychology at the Universit de Montral and his student Vincent Paquette.”
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:30 am
‘I think the weakness of every theistic religion is the insistence on claiming its “truth.” Rather than spinning, just say “I don’t know the truth. No one does, but living as though this is the truth makes my life better.” Drop the Santa routine and steal a page from Zen.’
- UVJ
What do you think doubt is about. What do you think faith is about? What about hope?
Christianity is littered with doubt - if we had certainty, we would not need to hope and would not need faith.
It’s just that the Atheist view of things is weak and won’t consider any evidence that does not fit in with its base assumptions.
If my faith was simply based upon a book then I could see your point. But it is based on a whole range of experience and historical evidence (that you discount).
I am better disposed to other religions than to anyone who is duped into believing that we arrived hear by accident. The wonder of the brain - its incredible, breath-taking complexity - an random occurence. I’m with Flew on this one - there is an overwhelming argument for design.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:32 am
whoops - ‘here by accident’.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:34 am
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiritual-Brain-Neuroscientists-Case-Existence/dp/0060858834/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230824008&sr=8-1
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:37 am
James said: “I’m with Flew on this one - there is an overwhelming argument for design.”
Dude, the cloud doesn’t know it looks like Elvis, that’s information YOU bring to the table. Seeing Mary in toast or beauty and wonder in the landscape is from inside you.
That isn’t to say that I don’t find being a life form on a random rock flying through space amazing, its just that my need for meaning isn’t in such overdrive that I have ascribe the whole thing to a Ghostly Charlton Heston.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Link for UVJ.
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/09/part-one-neuroscience-as-if-your-mind.html
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:43 am
UVB - maybe you should read Flew’s book before you start to talk about clouds and Elvis.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Only if you are willing to read Dennet’s “Consciousness Explained.”
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:50 am
UVB.
I say the creator of this universe who exists outside of time. Responsible for the madness that is the quantum world, the outrageous complexity of the brain and the mind-blowing genome.
You say ghostly Charlton Heston.
Again with the ridicule to help your position.
January 1st, 2009 @ 10:58 am
I’m sorry James. It is my nature to tease and play the coyote. I’m trying to get you to give me a definition for God.
And what I got from your last post is that “God” is an entity that made us by manipulating the material world but remains undetectable.
And to that I would point out that you cannot manipulate the material world without being detected.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:03 am
UVJ - I have read most of Dennets writing - same for Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.
Really I was referring to your Clouds/Elvis thing and wondering whether it has anything to do with the incredible design found within the genome that was one of the things that caused Flew to change his position.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Don’t know why I keep saying UVB.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:08 am
I’m new to this blog so I’m sure my perspective is bound to be different from those of you who have been following it for years.
I’m going to bypass all the arguing and suppositions, etc. and simply say: Heaven is rejoicing at one more soul redeemed for all of eternity.
Welcome to the fold!
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:11 am
‘And to that I would point out that you cannot manipulate the material world without being detected.’
- UVJ
No worries with the teasing - you’ve been very civil to me - as has Irreligious and Beelzebub - it’s not unnoticed and is appreciated. I know how emotive these conversations can be.
‘And to that I would point out that you cannot manipulate the material world without being detected.’
- UVJ
Where’s the rule book that you pulled this from?
I believe that God is able to stack the cards in the first place to get to where we are. It’s possible that He doesn’t need to intervene in the actual workings of the universe. But when he does, it is certainly detectable - water into wine etc. My mate had manky wrist and I saw it straighten up during prayer for healing. I believe that was God manipulating the material world and being detected.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:15 am
No worries. My spelling is horrendous, so I have no room to criticize.
In any case, I have not read Flew, but for me the small number of models replicated in plant and animals, right down to the fact that the double helix always twists the same way, is the trump card for evolution.
And how did it start? I don’t know, but even though postulating is fun, I would never “own” any one idea because it would close me off to others.
Give any five year old a box of crayons and you will get a more varied selection of life forms than we have on this planet. Instead every animal is some variation of a tube/worm, and every plant is a variation of a grass blade, AND, we must kill to live.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:17 am
I have to leave James. You are fun to talk to and will be back tomorrow.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:27 am
USVJ,
First off, I don’t recall saying that I could “feel” God. I did say, however, that we could know Him.
Second, the derision in your tone is palpable, and I have to wonder why. I have not accused you of anything, poked fun at you, insulted you or attacked. Probably because I do not in any way feel threatened by your beliefs. Can you say the same?
Thirdly, you misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say that a blind person believes in tulips because the sighted tell them they exist. I said the blind person believes in “sight”, the ABILITY to SEE. This is a very different thing.
Fourthly, I cannot define God anymore than I can define love, peace or justice. To even attempt to do so, would be an exercise in futility. I cannot define you. I cannot define me. How could I possibly define God.
Fifthly, as I said, if you are looking for “proof” you are misunderstanding the entire concept. I can no more prove God than I can define Him.
Do you always demand proof that people exist? When introduced to someone at a party, do you demand proof that there is actually someone there? I assume you trust your senses. You can see him, you can hear him, therefore he must be. God, being a spiritual being is not testable by these methods. He cannot be felt with our hands, seen with our eyes, heard with our ears, tasted with our tongues or smelled with our noses.
And yet, through the incarnation, we were able to see Him, hear Him, etc.
But by becoming human, he also became subject to natural law. He died. As we all do. Yes, He came back and yes He lives again, but His time here on earth was limited the way yours and mine our. There were people that saw Him with their eyes. There were people who heard Him with their ears. We have their testimony, just as we have testimony that Napoleon existed.
And in the Catholic Church we are still able to experience Him through our senses, in a mystical way. We taste Him in the Eucharist, we hear Him through Scripture, we see Him in each other…
If you continue to hold the spiritual realm subject to physical law, you will not get very far. If you are thoroughly satisfied with your beliefs, then why the need to defend them? Why come on a blog and attack my beliefs? Are you trying to convince me of something or yourself? Do you want me to understand what you believe, or do you simply want me to stop believing what I believe? Is my faith a threat that must be removed? Will you only be happy if you are validated by the rest of the world holding your views? What are your motives? I’m honestly curious.
Because it seems clear from your tone, that you are not interested in honest discourse. Rather you seem to want to shatter our world, in order to solidify your own.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:38 am
USVJ,
And to that I would point out that you cannot manipulate the material world without being detected.
And you would be right. But some detectives are better at detecting than others.
The clues are all there. The evidence is all there. Rarely does a detective walk in to a murder scene and find a note with all the facts laid out for him. If he is any good at his job, he will find a small thing here, a tidbit there, and draw conclusions from the evidence.
There is infinite amounts of material evidence that God exists. Take any approved appartion…not Mary on a taco, but a bonafide apparition, approved by the church. Zeitun Egypt, Kibeho Rwanda, Fatima Portugal, La Salette France…look at the incorruptibles, Eucharistic miracles…flashy yes, but evidence just the same.
January 1st, 2009 @ 11:55 am
I think that continuing the blog will help codify and organize your thoughts. I’m not sure if maudlin is a bad thing for conversion stories, either. It’s an emotional, joyous and very human event in your life. Being maudlin is OK. After all, you’re an emotional human. Imperfections are OK.
Thanks again for writing what you have. I’m late to the party, but I’ve enjoyed the last couple of posts.
January 1st, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Happy New Year,
I look forward to reading your wit and lessons learned. As a life long Catholic, I have had many struggles and actually shopped at other faiths. There were even times I questioned if all this was simply a way to control the masses in the middle ages (i.e. Karl Marx), but I have always returned to the church and the faith. I still go through dark periods where I don’t feel connected to God and my faith. Reading blogs from someone that can articulate what they are going through, someone such as yourself, helps even though we are at very different places in our respective journeys. I would second the advice you received from the conversion blog and I am glad that you will continue to post. Anything you can add to the discussion that is intelligent, funny, sarcastic, but most importantly real will effect everyone who reads it in one way or another. I for one will appreciate your continued writings.
Happy New Year and good luck with any resolutions, I have many to start cracking on, right after college football……
January 1st, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
One thing that contributed to my less than full certainty of your sincerity was the embedded messages (”no secret messages here” and “FOS ha” I saw w/my own eyes; the 1st I only read abt.) Also, my question about the 1st message never made it past moderation. That said, nothing in any of the messages explicitly denied your sincerity.
January 1st, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Congratulations on your conversion, and happy new year.
January 1st, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
God bless you, RT!
January 1st, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
You’re all fucking IDIOTS. Christians, for obvious reasons (zombie worship, gullibility and stupidity being but 3) some atheists for not seeing that this is obviously a hoax. You is really too dumb for words
January 1st, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Douchemaster,
And a Happy New Year to you too…:-)
January 1st, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
thanks mk, you too. The year will be best for those who can tell the difference between fiction and reality. For godidiots it will just be more of the same fuzzy headed shambling.
January 1st, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
I hope that TRT doesn’t mind us using his comments section for arguing!
Douchemaster, I thought this was a ‘Poe’ but it seems that it isn’t. TRT can modify his worldview as he pleases.
About the Antony Flew thing… is anyone here aware of the dishonesty that went on around him? Basically he was, in my judgement, hijacked by evangelicals and his declining mental state was exploited. I haven’t read his book because I don’t think he wrote it in the first place (I’m a deist anyway - kind of).
Beelzebub #27, those things are the least important things to look at when determining whether the Gospels are reliable or not. You can’t reject miracles out of hand (a priori is maybe a better term?) and therefore ignore the rest of the story. Rather, IMHO, we should examine the Gospels as a whole. If the natural claims are cleared, then we can start talking about miracles.
But, if I may further avail myself of TRT’s comment space to posit a POV, the Gospels do not pass muster as biography or history. And, besides, they are too inconsistent with each other, they contradict too much for comfort and their provenance is unreliable. And when you bring in the Epistles it gets even more interesting.
January 1st, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Dear Raving Theist,
I’m a Catholic and a regular reader of Dawn Eden’s “Dawn Patrol” as well as other Catholic sites. It was Dawn who alerted her readers to your conversion, and so I was convinced of your sincerity from the first, but because of Dawn.
My compliments on a superbly written post. The attitude you express toward your former fellow atheists suggests to me that God has blessed you with an abundance of fortitude. I am so grateful for this blessing of yours; it is truly an inspiration.
May God continue to bless you richly. Please remember us in your prayers, as I will you in mine. Thank you, and Happy New Year!
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Dawn Eden is a cocksucking spaz and her blog is shit. I just thought you should know that.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Pikeman,
I agree with you that the gospels are not an historical source. But they never claimed to be. The letters (epistles) of St Paul, are just that. Letters. We can read letters from the civil war and glean historical insights, but we wouldn’t use them as historical fact.
While the scripture can be helpful in piecing together an historical overview, it was never meant to be a textbook.
Christologist,
Why don’t you tell us how you really feel? Why hold back…lol.
Good heavens, there is a lot of anger on your side. Not exactly a great recommendation for the atheistic point of view. Have a cup of tea. You’ll feel better!
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
RT–pontificate at your leisure. I, for one, will wait.
And welcome. Isn’t the view lovely from here?
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
Amazing how many people confuse “disbelief” with “lack of belief”. I’m looking at you, James.
What makes your god right and all the others wrong? I won’t go into the Jesus>Vishnu>Ahura Mazda>FSM argument, I’m sure you’ve heard it all before.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Not directed at me, but from mk’s comment:
‘Do you always demand proof that people exist? When introduced to someone at a party, do you demand proof that there is actually someone there?’
If they’re invisible, yes.
‘And yet, through the incarnation, we were able to see Him, hear Him, etc.’
If by “we” you mean contemporaneous humans, yes, that was reported.
‘We have their testimony, just as we have testimony that Napoleon existed.’
The problem is one of volume of documented history and the problematic fact that there is only one or two contemporaneous — and extremely brief, as in sentences — accounts of Jesus’s life and actions. As you know the Biblical NT account was written, at earliest, a generation after his death. There is also the fact that Napoleon left his wake a rash of civil projects, not to mention the devastation of his conquest. Above and beyond all that, Napoleon didn’t, in fact, walk on water or raise people from the dead. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence to be rightfully believed.
‘We taste Him in the Eucharist, we hear Him through Scripture, we see Him in each other’
Uh…how? Through gritty, salty mouth-feel? Hear him in some kind of ethereal refrain? See him in each other as a halo glow? Now, you’re about to dismiss this as mockery, but that just kicks the ball more firmly into your court because I’ve done nothing more than pose matter-of-fact questions. This is precisely what frustrates atheists most. The fact of the matter is you do none of the things above in any real sense that you can express to us or even yourself. This time you’re about to dismiss my statements as denying your spiritual experience, but I’m not talking about your spiritual experience, I’m asking how you know you’re not duping yourself.
It’s GOT to be very comforting to know that as a last resort, when the questions get too tough, you can always hide behind the “mockery” charge.
‘If you are thoroughly satisfied with your beliefs, then why the need to defend them? Why come on a blog and attack my beliefs? Are you trying to convince me of something or yourself? Do you want me to understand what you believe, or do you simply want me to stop believing what I believe? Is my faith a threat that must be removed?’
I can only speak for myself of course, but for me it boils down to the last choice offered. Not that I’m ready to persecute you, your person. If all believers were peaceful retirees, satisfied with ecumenical spiritual contemplation then there’d be quite a bit less motivation hold the whole lot suspect of possible dangerous delusion. There’s simply no way to know on the surface just how crazy a believer is. James, for instance, seemed a fairly reasonable chap before dropping the ‘just-so’ anti-evolution casuistry. Now he’s got me wondering how far his anti-scientism extends.
And it’s not like the struggle can be left to self-regulation, for if there’s one thing that’s been proven it’s that religion is loathe to self-criticism, even inter-faith — probably because they know that if that particular fire is lit the whole charade will auto-ignite and burn to the ground in short order.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
oops, sorry, that’s going to take quite a bit of parsing. I guess I should use the markup tools in the compose box.
January 1st, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
JS said,
[i]I say the creator of this universe who exists outside of time. Responsible for the madness that is the quantum world, the outrageous complexity of the brain and the mind-blowing genome.[/i]
James, you define time without resorting to causality?
I am constantly amazed by the fact that theists can be awe-inspired by the writings of long-dead nomads and tribalists, yet they accept things like consciousness and quantum theory as creations of a god created by those ancients. To me, reality is much more vibrant, much more awe-inspiring than the scratching of ancient historians.
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Pikeman, Mk– Of course the Gospels are historical source documents and historians have their methods for teasing out what is reliable and what is not in ancient documents. That is a well-established discipline. Good thing too because most of what we know about the ancient world, we know from one or two documents, usually written centuries after the fact. On the score of number of manuscripts originating in different places; their quality, the huge number of citations from them in other ancient documents and nearness to the events narrated, Christianity is the best sourced event (not quite the right word but whatever) of the ancient world.
The Gospels do not contradict each other in any meaningful way. I always have to smile when people make that claim. They simply do not understand how to read ancient texts. The material was written for specific audiences in different places and each writer picked and chose what he wanted to emphasize for his particular audience in accordance with the conventions of Hellenistic historical biography. One of the conventions which would be unacceptable to moderns is the ordering of material thematically rather than chronologically. There is a lot more to it than this but I am not the one to recreate badly what many scholars have done well. Anyone who wants to know if the Gospels are reliable can find excellent sources of information on the web. Then, of course, there is that old fashioned institution… the library!
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
mk wrote:
“We do not know “about” God. We know the man Himself. We cannot prove Him to you, but we can introduce you to Him. Until you stop thinking with your brain and start thinking with your mind, you will never understand Him. He’s not a puzzle to be solved. He’s not a trick to be exposed. He’s a person, to be in a relationship with.”
I am intrigued that you say you cannot prove your god to me, yet you can introduce me to him. Initially, that confused me. On its face, it sounds like a contradiction.
However, I think the answer to the puzzle may lie in your admonition that I use my mind instead of my brain, a curious phrase, indeed.
I have no other way interpreting that but as you instructing me to abandon my reasoning in exchange for yours as the means to know your god. I would think that it’s pretty obvious that we would be on the same page if we did, indeed, share a brain (or a mind). But we don’t.
Otherwise, you certainly have not offered me any compelling reason to jettison my own reasoning for yours. What you are asking (?) of me is something that, no doubt, you would find quite absurd if a Muslim or some other nonChristian theist had approached you in the same way.
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Tenspace wrote: “I am constantly amazed by the fact that theists can be awe-inspired by the writings of long-dead nomads and tribalists, yet they accept things like consciousness and quantum theory as creations of a god created by those ancients”
Tenspace, your formulation mischaracterizes what most of us believe, or else falls short of expressing adequately what you think we believe. We believe quantum theory is a man-made construct (in constradistinction to the quanta themselves, of course), and, like all scientific theories, it is a man-made model that attempts to describe and explain some aspect of reality.
We believe the quanta were created not by a god created by the ancients, but by a God who created them, the ancients, the quanta, elephants, Woody Allen, the ocean depths, President-Elect Obama’s left toe, and indeed, everything else that ever has or ever will exist.
January 1st, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
James Stephenson wrote:
“Conveniently hidden away. By its very nature it is immaterial - how would you expect the immaterial to show itself.”
What I meant that assertions of the spiritual realm tend to be convenient for those making claims about its existence. Obviously, no demands can be placed on you to offer physical evidence for something that in the physical realm we inhabit is literally nothing. Any argument you make about it wins by default.
James Stephenson wrote:
“The author of the immaterial and material has done what I consider to be a good job of showing Himself and given us a very good understanding of the immaterial. Good enough for me and billions of others.”
And what about the billions of others for whom it is not good enough?
James Stephenson:
“As for only accessible to devout Roman Catholics - no. It is open to anyone who is willing to put their pride aside and meet with their Creator. Not so difficult.”
Muhammad’s divinity and a host of other religious beliefs are just as accessible for those willing to put aside their pride and meet the various incarnations of the alleged creator in each of their religions. Would it really be that easy for you to see the alleged creator through their eyes?
January 1st, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
‘Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary evidence to be rightfully believed.’
- Beelzebub
It was Sagan who coined this phrase and it was never accepted by philosophers.
You would be better using another of his ideas - ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ - this stands up to logic far better.
A supernatural event will leave the same sorts of footprints that a natural event leaves, which can be examined by natural means.
We do not have a supernatural means of examining historical events. So does this mean that supernatural events are ruled out? That nicely stacks the deck in favour of the Atheist. Actually, they leave a footprint like any other event - you simply choose to accept the available evidence or not.
Certainly people around Christ’s time believed him to be the Messiah. Peter was prepared to be martyred for it. Around the same time, Christians were prepared to be used as candles in Nero’s garden for it.
There is much evidence for Christ that I find compelling, including the non-Christian references to him.
Of course, few Christians base their faith on any single thing, but a mixture of evidence and experience.
‘There’s simply no way to know on the surface just how crazy a believer is. James, for instance, seemed a fairly reasonable chap before dropping the ‘just-so’ anti-evolution casuistry. Now he’s got me wondering how far his anti-scientism extends.’
- Beelzebub
Of course - the crime of being healthily skeptical about what the scientific establishment tells me.
The just-so stories are a particular area of non-science - they are really philosophical extensions based upon the TOE.
I can’t link to it, but Fred on Everything sums it all up - next comment.
January 1st, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Sorry about the length, but illustrates a point.
Oh god, the endless, thumping, hope-draining, drab, repetitive soul-crushing tiresomeness of it. I find in Psychology Today a piece called “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature,” explaining various aspects of behavior in Darwinian terms.* The smugness of that “politically incorrect” is characteristic of those who want a sense of adventure without risk. Nothing is more PC than an evolutionary explanation, unless it explains obvious racial differences that we aren’t supposed to talk about.
OK, the authors are going to explain why we mate as we do.
“Blue-eyed people,” they write, “are considered attractive as potential mates because it is easiest to determine whether they are interested in us or not.”
Or, as the authors explain, men like blue eyes because, since eyes dilate when the owner is interested in something, in this case getting laid, and since blue eyes better show a large pupil, then men will know when the woman is interested. This produces more children.
Ponder the solemn fatuity of this. Does any reader over the age of thirteen believe that women with any sort of eyes have trouble letting a man know when they are interested? The authors need to get out more.
Why is this sort of story-telling so widely engaged in when an alert porcupine would reject it? Because it is PC. As a fellow I see on the internet said in another context, “This is a stretch and illustrates how easy it is to believe what fits your world view.” Yep. The authors would find an evolutionary explanation for a loose doorknob.
To be fair, the greater reproductive success of the blue-eyed does explain why they predominate around the planet, with the exception of small population pools such as China, Africa, the Arab world, Southern Europe, Japan, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South and Central America. It’s because men in all those dark-eyed, under-populated places can’t tell when women are interested.
Next: The authors say that blonde hair evolved because it loses its luster with age, and turns brown, therefore signaling to a man that the woman is too old to have healthy offspring. That is, it has the evolutionary advantage of keeping its possessors from having many children.
This would seem to indicate that blondes evolved after the invention of shampoo, since the hair of women who never bathe is presumably something short of lustrous. Doubtless men married to blondes—marriage after all seems to be something of a pattern—stop boinking them when their hair dulls, while men married to brunettes keep at it, producing the huge swarms of dying, defective kids that one usually sees in China, Mexico….
Again, note the complacent absurdity. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between brunettes of 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55, despite dentistry, hair conditioners, and facial creams? But not with blondes, right?
Say the authors, blondeness evolved in Scandinavia because women were covered with clothes and, without hair-luster as a signal of age, men couldn’t tell how old they were. This explains why so many young Eskimo men mate with grandmothers: They just can’t tell.
Does this make any sense at all? It implies, among other things, that young men can’t ask someone. People advanced enough to wear clothes are advanced enough to talk. Do you really suppose that Eskimo boys can’t tell the age of village girls they grew up with? That the same cues as to age that I effortlessly read daily in dark-eyed Mexican women, who characteristically wear clothes, are invisible to Eskimo swains?
Next, breasts. The authors assert that men like big-titted women because big ones sag at an early age, warning the men that the gal is too old to have healthy progeny. This is wonderfully silly. I know all manner of breasty women who don’t sag, because they wear bras, and I can tell how old they are. Again, if big hooters discouraged further reproduction, the evolutionary benefit to the woman would seem exiguous, and big boobs ought to vanish.
An unstated but fairly apparent assumption underlying most discussions of the subject is that mating is entirely physical. The man takes the woman with the biggest tits and bluest eyes and the most of whatever characteristic is currently thought evolutionarily desirable. Perhaps this could be demonstrated with water buffalo. It isn’t what I see among people.
Rather men seem to want a woman who is reasonably cute, not fat and, by whatever the standards of the particular man, likeable. Conducing to the latter condition are (depending on the man) brains, sense of humor, a minimum of bitchiness, and being a decent human being.
With the exception of brains, these are not evolutionarily respectable categories. Yet, in my experience, bright, vivacious, good-humored, dark-haired and small-bazoomed easily trumps the reverse qualities.
In general, a difficulty with grasping the evolutionary logic here is that of knowing whether evolution is thought to apply to the civilized. It doesn’t seem to, quite. For example, one may read in numerous sources that mankind, having left Africa, moved to colder climes and evolved greater intelligence to deal with the problems of survival in cold places. (Obviously they would have to go north to get smart since, if they already were, they wouldn’t go. Who wants to live in four feet of snow?) The implication is that intelligence increases fitness and should lead to the production of more offspring.
But what one sees today is rapid growth of the population of the supposedly least intelligent, namely black Africans, and the extremely low rate of reproduction of the most intelligent, namely Jews. Within populations, the bright have fewer children than the dull, and whole populations of the heretofore fit, for example Japanese, Germans, Spaniards, Russians, and Italians, are rapidly diminishing. If fitness is measured by reproductive abundance, then their fitness has diminished mightily in a few decades.
Is intelligence not a constituent of fitness? Or has natural selection stopped—assuming, or course, that it worked up to some point? If so, why? When did it stop? Or is something entirely else going on?
To force mating into the mold of reductionist fitness-shopping, it is necessary to connect beauty and sexual attractiveness with fitness. This is easily done by making up stories. I can do it by the hour: Wide-set eyes improve depth perception and prevent death when jumping about on high rocks. Long lashes prevent dust blindness in windy regions. Pretty, even teeth cut food more efficiently, avoiding the metabolic burden of inefficient chewing which, in time of famine, would lead to starvation. Ready laughter clears the lungs and avoids pneumonia. Shiny blonde hair reflects sunlight better and makes it easier for men to find fertile women at a distance.
But it reeks of improvisation, of beginning with a conclusion and putty-knifing the logic. I think of those millions of pitiful Chinese w