Ebonmuse looks closely at the religious trends at Daylight Atheism. The recent rates of growth/decline are especially interesting. It turns out that the fast growing “religion” is secularlism.
I have to wonder how much more quickly attitudes would change (away from systems involving supernatural claims) if the mainstream media would stop walking on eggshells when it discussed religion. What if the media truly welcomed the voices of skepticism? When someone claims to be a devout Catholic, for example, why not make it clear that this set of beliefs (because of the transubstantiation) involves cannibalism? When it is claimed that the Bible is literally true, why not invite questions like this: “Isn’t the Bible a book that encourages slavery?” Sunshine is a great disinfectant
I’m not denying that one can occasionally hear voices of dissent and disbelief on the mainstream airwaves. For the most part, though, it is still outrageous to question the fundamental beliefs of the most popular religions (Sorry Mormons. The big religions are ganging up on you. Actually, Mitt Romney is bringing some much-needed sunshine onto the practices of Mormonism).
If someone claimed that the Earth had two moons or that copper did not conduct electricity, we would be shocked an disappointed if the media stood silent and simply moved on to a different topic. I sense that we are moving toward a day when we we hear the media raise the obvious questions needed when people make baseless religious claims.
What is my hope? I’ll be satisfied when, someday, the mainstream media is willing to interlace assertions of traditional Christian beliefs right alongside direct skeptical questions like these:
- Can you really feed thousands with a single basket of fish and loaves? Has that ever happened since the invention of videocameras?
- What do we really know about the original writings of the Bible? Who changed the Bible, and why?
- What does cognitive science say about why people believe in many things that are not true?
- Isn’t there a dark side to New Testament morality?
- What are the powerful social reasons for belonging to a religion, reasons that have nothing to do with whether the beliefs have any basis in reality? For example, would children tend to follow their parents’ religion if that religion weren’t crammed down their throats when those children were young? And see here.
- Is the threat of hell really the best basis for a moral system?
- Aren’t there many other religions out there? Isn’t it true that Christianity is only one of them and that they ALL claim to be the one true religion? What should that fact do to the confidence level of believers?
- Should we really be looking to ancient writings of scientifically ignorant people when determining how to practice birth control?
- Is it a good idea to force little children to recite things that are obviously untrue (e.g., that the world is 6,000 years old)?
(And as Ebonmuse discusses on his site), Do religious beliefs really improve the quality of life in any meaningful way?
Let the people hear the pro’s and con’s and then decide. No debate should be one-sided. Religion should be no exception. Whenever we hear about the love and peace brought be religion, we should also hear about the wars and ignorance wrought by religious bureacracies. In many cases, the Emperor has no clothes, and it’s time for the people to hear the obvious objections to the many traditional religious claims that are commonly voiced.
Wouldn’t we be better off if we focused on actively trying to just get along, without all of the supernatural claims? Based on the article by Ebonmuse, we can get along without superstition and we can get along well.
You want to know how Jesus performed the miracle of the fishes and loaves? Well, of the fishes, anyway? He served lutefisk and everyone said, "No thanks," or "Just a little, please."
But seriously folks . . . I think the reason religion doesn't get questioned with any vigor is that human beings have real trouble in dealing with personal attacks and the strong emotions that arise from them. The emotions come from both the questioner and the questioned. We have thin skins when it comes to personal beliefs and we don't look closely enough at an individual's religion because we don't necessarily want our own beliefs questioned, or want to have to deal with angry, huffing retorts.
I think Hell is a crappy basis for morality, the Bible was written by fallible humans and is full of contradictions, that there is no one "correct" belief system, that children shouldn't have religion crammed down their throats, that religion has been the basis of a lot of nastiness and death in our history, and that we should look at the cognitive reasons for why people believe things that are not true. But, we also have to question the nature of truth because there are subjective experiences in everyone's life that color the reality of that truth.
We may want to bludgeon people with our truth, but guiding them gently may be a more effective option. We should not, however, attempt to completely scuttle the debate simply for comfort's sake.
May want to check out Harris vs. Hedges. That's what I'm planning for a nice soothing atheistic evening!
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_rel…
Ben. Good idea. I viewed it too and posted on it. It was vigorous yet cordial debate.
Something in this article reminded me of the character of Jubal Harshaw in Robert A> Heinlein's novel "Stranger in a Strange Land". Jubal Harshaw in a practicing agnostic. When asked to explain the difference between an agnostic and an atheust, he argue on these points.
A religious person (theistic) KNOWS there is a god (or gods) and nothing will convince him that there is not.
An atheist KNOWS there is no god and nothing will convince him that there is.
An agnostic honestly admits to himself and the world that he doesn't know these unknowable things, and defers his decision until proof is shown.
In a simpler description of the difference, I tell people this:
The famous question is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
A Theist answers "The Chicken came first because God created the chicken and the chicken layed the first egg."
An Atheist answers "The first chicken came from an egg that was layed by a proto-chicken as the species evolved into chickens"
An Agnostic answers "I don't know, but I like my eggs scrambled"
Throw me in the agnostic pile, Niklaus. I like my eggs hard-boiled or over-easy.
My problem with the term "agnostic" is that it has two poles:
You can't prove that God exists, so I believe in an all-natural universe,
vs.
You can't prove God doesn't exist, so I am a child of a mysterious and unprovable God.
Both theists and atheists can be agnostic.
TOKYO- Every breed of domestic chicken that ever lived can be traced to a single subspecies of red junglefowl native to Thailand, according to mitochondrial DNA evidence discovered by Japanese researchers.
The researchers compared divergences in DNA sequences and RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) typing of mitochondrial DNA from a selection of wild and domestic breeds of fowl. One hundred and nineteen birds representing 26 domestic breeds, 30 green junglefowl, and 14 subspecies of red junglefowl were studied.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA04/protochi…
Demographics will not persuade those who believe they are to "Enter in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in there at: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Man-made belief systems {versions/adaptations/paraphrases of the instructions} are a result of failure to follow the instructions. The instructions were given to show us our incapacity, which is unappealing to the flesh.
So, people that are honest enough with themselves to avoid inventing yet another belief system learn to disparage the versions/adaptations/paraphrases while calling them the instructions, and encourage one another in this. The assumption is made that all belief systems are man-made therefore none are universally applicable.
The instructions are accomplishing their purpose. Will this make any sense from a scientific perspective. No.
Welcome back, Larry. As you point out, I had omitted to consider this topic from the perspective of a vengeful God who throws people into hell (I know . . . you would argue that people are making bad choices and throwing themselves into hell).
Larry: Demographics won't convince individuals of anything. But they can guide the actions of those who seek a goal for a population They can hearten or frighten those who hope or fear.
Any set of instructions is necessarily written by man, based on a belief system of man. The Old Testament is a collection of stories from several closely related cultures, anthologized about 2700 years ago. The New Testament is another collection of stories from another culture, heavily cribbed from stories from the intervening time, and edited and assembled about 1700 years ago.
Both of these volumes depend heavily on the testimony of men who heard voices that no one else could hear (Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, etc).
As someone who studied schizophrenia on the way to getting my degree in psychology, I have grave doubts about the wisdom of giving total trust to these documents as a source of absolute wisdom (as opposed to merely another belief system).
Here is a serious look into why God felt it necessary to send His son Jesus to the cross…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls
Ben: My favorite line from your Mr. Deity video is "I'm not a chicken." Second place: "The health plan doesn't cover crucifixion."
Erich says: " . . . you would argue that people are making bad choices and throwing themselves into hell" No, I would not. Augustine {with a little help from Jerome} invented the eternal puishment doctrine around 400 AD, having borrowed it from paganism. Their lack of study in the Hebrew and Greek languages assisting. We want to believe we are able to choose, and this serves God's purposes for the time being. When God does the choosing, our so-called free will is exposed as a figment.
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=2127... http://www.gods-kingdom.org/free_will.htm
Dan says: "Any set of instructions is necessarily written by man, based on a belief system of man". This "adaptation" may be why you fail to appreciate what I am saying. If one confuses man-made belief systems {religions}, which are only caricatures of reality, with what actually is, one cannot be aware of what actually is. A caricature presupposes an original. The instructions condemn this practice {which doesn't seem to me like something men inventing belief systems would do} as well as it's consequences, so I reject any responsibility for defending counterfeits.
Niklaus, your description of an agnostic sounds more like the definition of ignostic, one who conceeds that we cannot know whether a god exists or not, and concludes that this renders all debate on the issue meaningless. See here.
Shun the non-believer, shhhhuuuunnnnnnn!
Larry: Please explain your offbeat (specialized?) usage of "adaptation" and "instructions". Help me find some sense in your responses.
I had assumed the common meanings. But my studies in many fields taught me long ago that each specialty makes up its own vocabulary to describe the same set of ideas, and use apparently common terms to describe specific, non-intuitively-linked ideas. Scientology, Law, Physics, and Psychology come to mind as major violators of common sense meanings of words.
To me, "instructions" means a set of suggested or required responses to a specified set of conditions conveyed between like-minds. How to build a computer, how to avoid jail, that sort of thing. It is a system of teaching from one known and specified source to one or more others.
Dan: Your definition for “instructions” works fine for me, except maybe the “like-minds” part. My use of “offbeat” words is an attempt to get past your filtering system. The “sense” I am trying to impart is that imitations can imitate other imitations, but what’s the point?
If, for example, a rulemaker were to say, “Thou shalt have no imitations of these rules”, then over eons languages, attitudes, habits, change and knowledge is increased, pretty soon the idea that the rules were to remain unchanged is lost, and the idea that “rules are made to be broken” becomes the norm. Even the concept {and the wisdom} of an original rulemaker is lost.
One of the principles of science is to be able to trace the first source of any declaration or conclusion. This allows others to duplicate the experiment, or at least to compare copies to originals. This latter task is the work done by Bart Ehrman and other serious students of scripture. This principle keeps ideas, instructions, etc. from unintentionally morphing over time.
What is the first source for your "instructions"? Not the presumed source of a voice in someone's head, but the first instance of it being written for our use.
Did you ever notice the very loose correlation between typical presentations of "The Ten Commandments" and Genesis 20 and 21, the two tablets Moses brought down from the mountain? Are either of these the "instructions" to which you refer?
Larry writes: "The instructions were given to show us our incapacity, which is unappealing to the flesh."
I've always been curious about the Christian notion of "the flesh." They speak as if "the flesh" is somehow distinct and separate from "the spirit," which I suppose is consistent with the Bible, but I find it utterly nonsensical. They don't seem to appreciate that "the spirit" is a function of the brain; i.e., flesh. No brain, no spirit — even the Bible doesn't say otherwise. What do Christians suppose will supply their "spirit" with sensory inputs after they become spiritual entities in heaven and no longer have sensory organs? Or, do they suppose they will be bodily resurrected in "the flesh," in which case won't they again be subject to temptations of "the flesh?" It just makes no sense to me…how can they claim they will be bodily resurrected, but will be free of all sins of the flesh? Could any of you kind folks please enlighten me on how this will work?
Dan: The first mention I am aware of is Genesis 26:5, but the cite you mean is probably Exodus 20. This is a summary of the rest of the laws and statutes. There are certain penalties for sin (law breaking) which are called "judgments" which take the form of restitution payment to the victims of injustice, and the death penalty for such sins as cannot be paid by restitution–such as premeditated murder, kidnapping, bestiality, and rape of a married woman.
The law reveals the moral code by which God relates to mankind and judges the people of all nations, taking into account their level of knowledge. This gives the law a prophetic tone, for all the types and shadows prophesy of something greater to come.
The Sacrifices picture Christ and His death on the cross, the feast days prophesy of His first and second comings, and laws of redemption and Jubilee speak of the process by which God judges and all mankind.
In the New Testament, while the forms of the law changed, as spelled out in the book of Hebrews, the moral code remained the same, for in the matter of morality and character, God does not change. When God's Law is in the earth the people will learn righteousness.
grumpypilgrim: Man is made up of spirit, soul and body. The spirit is that part which is independent of the body, while the soul is that which animates the body. Click on my name and go to: Spiritual and Mental Logic.
So, the old testament, a collection of man's stories put together around 700 B.C. and often attributed to Moses, a (mythical?) man from around 1200 B.C, is your absolute reference? Most of the laws in it were cribbed from Hammurabi's texts that were published a century before the ostensible time of Moses. Except for the monotheistic parts, these were added later when the various gods of the Hebrew culture were consolidated.
What about the thousands of generations of modern man who lived before the invention of a One True God? Archaeologists find symbols from many forms of religion going back to the discovery of fire, but monotheism is a relatively modern invention.
Example of a circular argument: God exists because the Bible says so, because it was written by men who know that God exists, and they know this to be true because the Bible says so…
Spirit separate from the body? Many big prizes have been (and still are) offered to anyone who can demonstrate any evidence of a spirit existing without a body, to a trained observer. People who hear voices are not proof of this. People who hallucinate out-of-body experiences are not proof.
I'll visit your MessianicDruid blog tomorrow.
A few weeks ago at a family gathering I was sitting with some of my husband's relatives in their 80's who are both Catholic and life-long left wing political activists. The subject got around to the new pope, and I listened as they basically tore Josef Ratzinger a new one. Then one of them described a conversation she had had with a Protestant minister, about the Apostle's Creed, which is the basic statement of faith for many Christians. "There's all this stuff in there about what we're supposed to believe, like the VIrgin Birth and all that," she complained. "But there's nothing about what Jesus told us to do."
LarryJC: I've waded through your post. I don't doubt your recall of Scripture, nor question your use of reason to extrapolate ideas from it.
My skepticism is about your understanding of from what sources that scripture evolved, and your understanding of math (the language of science and reason), neurobiology and information theory that neatly explain some of your conclusions, and refute others.
Your use of Pun as Prophecy intrigues me:
Try some of these translations of the same text, and note that the word "delay" meaning postpone or wait didn't exist in any language when the book was written.
I admit, I could only manage to skim Larry's blog about Spiritual and Mental Logic. I found it so circular and self-contradictory that I simply could not read more than the first few sentences and skim the rest. Let me give just one example of Larry's circular "logic" to illustrate my point: he writes in his blog, "matter is spirit that has been given form;" but in his comment above he writes, "Man is made up of spirit, soul and body. The spirit is that part which is independent of the body." So, which is it? Is "spirit" independent of body, or is "spirit" that which "gives form" to body (i.e., matter)?
The many problems in Larry's essay appear to stem from the unsupported assertion in its very first sentence: "Within each of us are two centers of thinking." Huh? I've read more than a few medical reports about the brain and not one of them mentions two centers of thinking. Perhaps this is why the spirit/soul/body triumvirate has never made sense to me. There is the brain, which is an organ of the body, and there is the mind, which is an emergent property of the brain. The notion of "spirit-heart" and "soul-mind" doesn't fit any reality with which I am familiar, because I see no dividing line between "spirit-heart" and "soul-mind." To the contrary, we have exactly one center of thinking — the brain — and our emotions, dreams, perceptions, motivations, etc., are all merely a few of the many functions that our complex brains perform. If we accept the unsupported assertion that there are two centers of thinking, then we can imagine into existence whatever (nonsensical) model we wish. Indeed, why should we stop at two? We could equally imagine into existence more centers of thinking, to support whatever religious model we want — from Christianity to Hinduism, Jainism to Mayanism, Buddhism to druidism. The moment we depart from scientific truth, we open the door to whatever religious superstition anyone might wish to promote — a process that means "game over" for any religion purporting to be the One True Religion.
Dan wrote, "Most of the laws in it were cribbed from Hammurabi’s texts that were published a century before the ostensible time of Moses."
"The oldest known law code from Mesopotamia is the Code of Hammurabi. Historians date this king of Babylon between 2400 and 2100 B.C. The book of Jasher 27:2 identifies him with Nimrod “the rebel” and dates him from 1908-2123 years from Adam, which is 1987-1772. B.C. According to Prof. A.H. Sayce, Hammurabi was mentioned in Genesis 14:1 under the name of Amraphel…" Another imitator who sets himself up as rulemaker.
Nimrod is still a euphemism for someone who "thinks of himself more highly than he ought to think". I'm sure he got some of it right so what Moses "cribbed" is going to show some similarities, since it was family history.
The Word has no need to evolve. What is written is written and needs no contribution from man, accept perhaps in the sense of serving as a writing utensil. God understands math as well as language, and sometimes uses one for the other. Wouldn't it be interesting if it was discovered that the bible was a self-authenticating text?
http://www.whatabeginning.com/ObDec.htm