Ah, those blessed Scandinavians. Reputedly cool, calm, collected, rather good race drivers and, it would seem, not really that concerned about gods one way or the other. During my time observing and participating in discussions about religion and its public role over the last few years, Scandinavia has often been held up as a bastion of faithless virtue, a shining beacon of godless goodness, a prime example of what can be accomplished on a transnational scale without referring to scripture but merely concentrating on what works for the populace.
Atheist/secularist/humanist commentators often to point to Scandinavian social successes (for example low unemployment, high standards of living, functioning democracies, effective public health care & education) as evidence against the claims of many religious people that if we in the West abandoned our “Judeo-Christian” values or kept our church & state separate, our nations would all fall, unrestricted by fears of celestial surveillance, into a grimy, black crevass of murder, pillage and hedonism (one could argue that the US in the last eight years has fallen into an economic & diplomatic hole of a similar depth, led by a very religious man who was happy to pander to very religious people for his entire reign, but that’s a whole other article).
According to a recent New York Times article by Peter Steinfel on a study by Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman (here), it seems that far from there being only two sides to the god coin, the Scandinavians, almost characteristically, have ended up on a third side. And here it is:
They don’t care.
Zuckerman, after 14 months of talking to Danes & Swedes about religion, discovered that far from being a nation of atheists in the Dawkins/Hitchens mould of actively promoting freethinking and condemning inappropriate religious behaviour, Scandinavians seem to be completely unconcerned by religion. He was perplexed, as I’m sure a lot of people would be. I think this quote sums up his experience:
The many nonbelievers [Zuckerman] interviewed, both informally and in structured, taped and transcribed sessions, were anything but antireligious, for example. They typically balked at the label “atheist.” An overwhelming majority had in fact been baptized, and many had been confirmed or married in church.
Though they denied most of the traditional teachings of Christianity, they called themselves Christians, and most were content to remain in the Danish National Church or the Church of Sweden, the traditional national branches of Lutheranism.
At the same time, they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with me about religion,” Mr. Zuckerman reported, “and even once they agreed to do so, they usually had very little to say on the matter.”
Zuckerman asked himself:
Were they reticent because they considered religion, as Scandinavians generally do, a private, personal matter? Is there, perhaps, as one Lutheran bishop in Denmark has argued, a deep religiosity to be discovered if only one scratches this taciturn surface?
“I spent a year scratching,” Mr. Zuckerman writes. “I scratched and I scratched and I scratched.”
And he concluded that “religion wasn’t really so much a private, personal issue, but rather, a nonissue.” His interviewees just didn’t care about it.
Not even a private, personal issue, as I’m sure many of my US friends – religious and otherwise – would prefer it; an actual non-issue. Doesn’t come up in conversation, public policy, education. It’s something not even worth considering. Something so unimportant it barely even gets discussed. Something so insignificant in day-to-day life that you don’t get Swedish evangelists trying to sneak Genesis into biology classes; multimillionaire Danish preachers with their own TV stations & Lear jets blaming natural disasters on godlessness and depravity (then being caught with their hands in the till or down someone’s pants); Viking priests demanding to have their mythology written into national constitutions or religious monarchs sowing murder and disease with misguided rhetoric (no hyperlinks necessary, this religious madness is unfortunately so commonplace I’m sure every reader could go and google up a dozen individual stories on each topic). And certainly no Ragnarokians going around telling everyone to repent because the Fenris wolf is off his leash so they’d all better bloody well repent!
However, it seems many Scandinavians are happy to identify as Christians despite their obvious non-religiousness.
At one point, [Zuckerman] queries Jens, a 68-year-old nonbeliever, about the sources of Denmark’s very ethical culture. Jens replies: “We are Lutherans in our souls — I’m an atheist, but still have the Lutheran perceptions of many: to help your neighbor. Yeah. It’s an old, good, moral thought.”
Naturally I’d take issue with any assertion that kindness & charity are uniquely Lutheran traits but I admire the general attitude described in this article. “God or not – meh, I don’t worry about that. I get on with my life and try to be good.” It’s an attitude I’ve held for a long time – until somehow, a few years ago, I got interested in spirituality & the reasons behind it and eventually got myself drawn into religious discussions online, chiefly with Americans, first through Off-Topic sections at a few gaming forums I visited, then in comment threads at blogs like this one. As I got drawn into rant after rant and argument after argument with strong religious types, I think I completely lost sight of where I actually stood on the issue of gods and was just having fun swinging my sword around.
Here it is: I don’t believe, but I really don’t think about it that much. The claims of religious people don’t stand up to scrutiny, but it doesn’t bother me (that is, until I read something about some fundie getting too big for his sandals). The problems caused by religious people in Australia simply aren’t of the magnitude that reasonable people face in the US. We don’t have Phelpses or Robertsons publicly condemning gays to hell or dentists inserting creationism into biology textbooks or anti-gay pastors being caught with their pants down & noses full of meth. Most religious people in Australia do indeed keep it private (I still don’t really know what my parents think on the subject – because it doesn’t come up) and people who overstep the un-drawn line of decency are ridiculed as bible-thumpers or simple pains-in-the-arse. Hell, our most successful creationist, the inimitably thick-as-shit Ken Ham, had to move to Kentucky to build his “Fred Flintstone & The Vegan Dinosaurs” Creation Museum. I can’t imagine the ridicule he would’ve copped had he tried to build it here (maybe he could though, which is maybe why he left – plus I’m sure he would’ve known there’d be no cash in it for him down here. Maybe he’s not as thick as he seems – maybe he just knows there’s a particular kind of person born every minute).
To close, I have decided Scandinavians (and myself, for that matter) should be called “Apatheists” – they don’t believe and furthermore don’t even care if there’s a god. The universe functions as it does with or without one. They get on with their lives, try to be ethical and don’t even think about whether they’re on Pan-Dimensional Big Brother. There’s an elegant simplicity in that attitude – a refreshing shift of focus onto things that are important, like here, now, you, me and everybody.
Shades of Vonnegut: The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent in The Sirens of Titan.
But doesn't "igtheist" cover Scandinavians? See Ignosticism.
Hell yeah, I like that! I could be Ignostic. Just as elegant and simple as "meh, just live already" or "I don't buy it" but a lot more intellectual-sounding, as it requires a detailed two-pronged explanation 🙂
When having a religious discussion, having a coherent definition of God to start with would be a good idea. Sometimes I think I've seen (and argued against) as many different Gods as I have believers – and that's just within Christianity. Some Christians' gods are all fire & brimstone & doom, some are soft non-interventionists, most are in between – but they're all the same God, apparently. Seriously, if you sectarians can't agree amongst yourselves which particular version of God you worship, don't expect me to accept any of your claims about him.
Ignostic. I like it.
"Apatheists” – they don’t believe and furthermore don’t even care if there’s a god."
I just want to reiterate that this essentially refers to my personal favorite form of secularness, Ignosticism. Every time I get the chance, I trumpet the term on this blog, but I guess I haven't shoved it down your throat enough yet, Hank!
Actually, I might like "apatheist" better! Whenever I tell someone that I consider myself "ignostic", they think I have either missaid or misspelled "agnostic".
Anyway, I see apatheic atheism as a very peacable "belief system", while still maintaining a rigid demand for evidence. Many non-confrontational nonbelievers deem themselves "agnostic", and that strikes me as occaisionally both cowardly and avoidant of dialogue. An apathetic atheist can challenge religious beliefs when they turn sour and harmful, yet they can coexist with fellow rational people of every belief stripe.
I also like to think of ignosticism/apathetic atheism as a kind of "post-atheism". In the hypothetical days where religion no longer exists, ardent "atheists" will cease to exist, too. Then, like the Scandinavians, we can all hold a few faint, traditional memories of religions past while otherwise floating through life without troubling ourselves with silly thoughts of unseen worlds.
However, to qualify, I'm probably still defined as an atheist, based on my non-acceptance (due to lack of evidence) of the most common gods that I encounter: supernatural, pan-dimensional, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, human-observing, universe-creating, follower-rewarding, heretic-punishing, intelligently-designing, key-finding, Grammy-awarding, Superbowl-winning beings who just want to be accepted into our hearts & loved. On pain of eternal torture. I don't buy those gods – my mind won't allow it.
Hank: I reacted similarly when I read of Zuckerman's interviews. How refreshing. It's like going back 30 years in time in America (or at least many places in America), where one's religion was one's own business and religion certainly didn't claim to be a political player. How often is it that the mantra "I don't care" could be characterized as progress? This is a case in point.
I wouldn't say they don't care. I've know a few Swedes an one Finnish guy, and I think it would be more accurate to say that religion is less important in their culture than in ours.
Thanks Nik – I probably should have qualified: the Scandinavians in question don't care enough about religion for it to make an ignorant or dangerous nuisance of itself in daily life.
Glad you like "apatheism" Erika (I just changed my religious preferences on Facebook to reflect it). I guess during all my bloggage over the past few years I sort of forgot there are people who don't even think about god that much (most of my friends for example). Most of the time, I don't care either and I just do my thing and try to be decent. But sit me at a computer and I'm always drawn to stories of religious idiocy or undeserved privilege or some such annoying thing and something in me has to respond.
Maybe I should have an apatheist creed and stick it to a bus: "I don't care if there is a god or not because look, honestly, if there is he's pretty bloody good at hiding – or completely disinterested – so let's just be nice to beings that we KNOW are there." Probably a bit long, but so is most of what I write.
Anyway Erika, as my first Apatheism disciple you can be High Priestess of Stuff, Whatever, or Something. If you like. Or not. Not fussed to be honest. It's all good.
Wait a minute. Erika just gets to be the High Priestess? Without a ceremony? Even a simple ritual? Oh yeah, the Apatheists probably wouldn't bother showing up and participating.
Perhaps this answers the question of another post: Can churches for nonbelievers survive?
If the nonbelievers in question are apatheists/ignostics, I sure doubt it! But they wouldn't really need the fellowship of a church, would they?
It is certainly obvious that you are anti-religious. You must have had a bad experience with a religious person or group. What's the point of living if there is no God? If everything is a coincidence of random occurrence and evolutionary mutatogenis, then what is the point? If everything is relative, then nothing is meaningful. Your article, your opinion, your existence… nothing. It's all a big waste of time. To grow from and infancy to a elderly, experience ups and downs, gain experience and knowledge for what? Nothing. Until you know everything, which you don't, be careful to exclude the possibility of God. If you don't care (Apatheist), that's fine, but why do you care to write about something you don't care about? This is something about 'non-believers' that gives me hope – their seemingly common need to express their 'non-belief.' It is as if you try to convince yourself by convincing others. Maybe somewhere in you their is the possibility of belief. I hope you find it. It's the only way that you will ever find real significance to life and all it's inexplicable wonders. Here's a start: explain how smell, sight, hearing, touch, & taste evolved; How long it would take for evolotion to produce a human with trillions of cells when DNA controls each cell. How old is the earth (according to secular scienc)? What would the rate of mutations/evolutions be for all of this to happen? There are so many question that our human minds cannot answer and, if you spent your whole life trying to, it wouldn't matter because life is meaningless with your perspective. It is said that, 'if you can believe the first four words of the Bible, you can believe the entire Bible.' Despite what you think about the Bible, the idea presents a consideration. If there is a God, it explains everything. If there is not a God, we try to explain everything. In the end, if there is a God, everything is meaningful. If not, nothing is meaninful. It will take more than 'not caring' to do so, but I hope you discover what it is that makes life meaningful.
Move along, nothing new to see here.
Can I have a show of hands? Anyone here have a life that's full of meaning and purpose without religion? Any atheists who didn't have a horrible experience with religion that precipitated abandoning it? Anyone have answers to those sciency-sounding questions? Wow. Lots of hands.
Erika, I think Apatheists wouldn't care if they even had a church, much less whether it survived!
@ Hanna
Y A W N.
I'm not anti-religious, I'm anti-idiot. I'm against religion becoming public policy. I'm against religious fundamentalists pushing their agenda onto other peoples' children. I spend maybe an hour a week writing lively repsonses to things which get my attention, so my lack of belief in other peoples' nonsense is hardly the core of my life. Most of the time, I don't even think about enraged fundamentalist clowns with paragraph deficits and big ol' books of atheist stereotypes. This isn't my life. "Apatheist", by the way, is tongue-in-cheek. Humour. A joke. You've certainly ticked one of my "fundie bingo" boxes by not being able to recognise humour when you see it.
Bypassing all your other copy/pasted dark-ages bullshit (including that oh-so familiar and fucking boring tangent on evolution – seriously, do some googling and try and understand biology before you presume to disprove it), I'm going to respond to your philosophy of meaning (which you've no doubt spent hours working on – A for effort!).
The dichotomy ("a choice between two absolutes", for the people at home) you present basically is:
God = meaning / no God = no meaning.
Okay, and why exactly? Because the magic book told you? But what if the book's flawed through centuries of mistranslation & political connivance? We'll never know because noone's ever seen an original copy – so I guess your life means nothing. What if the god you worship isn't the right one? Your life is again meaningless. What if he's the right one but you're part of the wrong cult? Again, your life is but a speck of dust. What if he is actually up there but doesn't want or need your friggin penitence, hand-wringing, pious wailing and fear of his wrath? Well, let me qualify: your life means something – everyone's does. However, whatever time and effort you put in to pasting other peoples' fallacious anti-athiest arguments onto blog articles is a motherflipping waste of time. Meaningless.
Moving on. Thanks so much for your concern/judgement/mind-fuckingly arrogant presumption that my life is an empty shell without getting on my knees once a week to thank Somebody for finding my keys and not giving me the gay.
Let me tell you straight out: my life has meaning. How exactly? How does my life count even though I find no reason to subscribe to ancient legends instead of reason? Because I damn well give it meaning. My wife, family, friends, music, my job with the Red Cross (yes, that organisation that actually helps people) and everything else I take pleasure in and comfort from make my life meaningful. I don't need to be spoonfed by mythology to be able to appreciate the beauty and love and poetry of this world. I don't need scary stories of demons and serpents to be moral. I don't need my hand to be held by some absent invisible father figure in order to learn how to be decent – I have a real, present father for that. A man grounded in reality and reason and empathy and compassion for others.
Now, you know what gives me hope? Every time a study on religious belief is released, especially in places like the UK, USA and Australia, it shows that non-believers are on the rise. Why is that? Because people are waking up, taking off their god-goggles and realising that they can be happy, decent, law-abiding people without some damn preacher – some used-god salesman – giving them the heebie-jeebies.
By the way, this just in: gay marriage legal in Iowa.
Fundie prayer circles: 0
Actually doing something: 1
From this week's Newsweek:
You are obviously anti-religious. You don't have to pretend. Most people on this site are. However, your employer, which I am very familiar with, is not. Have you ever heard of Jean Dunant? Founder of the International Red Cross? Well, he also started something called the YMCA (I’ll let you figure it out). The organization that gives meaning to your life was inspired and influence by the Christian ideals of compassion and humanitarianism. So, if you are 'anti-idiot,' you should know that you work for a group started by 'idiots' and 'idiotic thinking.'
(I used a paragraph just for you)
I obvious upset you, so I must have hit a sore spot. I merely want you who claim to have open minds to be more open minded to the possibility of God. There are many aspects of 'religion' that I find frustratingly intolerable, but to discount the possibility of God is pointing the proverbial finger in the wrong direction. Man has often screwed up religion and left God to deal with PR nightmare. You can't expect perfection from anything involving human interaction, though. That's both unfair and unbiblical. Still many good people have done many great things in the name of Christianity, religion, etc. Can you really say that they are idiots for believing in God?
Listen. I don't think your life is meaningless. I wouldn't be writing this post if I did. There are people much more willing to accept this message than those on this site, so your life means something to me. The idea I meant to convey by my previous post is that life is more than just a scientific explanation of how matter & physics interact. It's emotion. It's interest & adventure. It's love. How can these and all that makes life amazing be explained scientifically? I believe it is because a transcendent, creative, & loving God exists. I believe God gives life its meaning. This belief is just as rational to me as the big bang, evolution, natural selection, etc. No one saw the big bang, but you believe it. The theories of evolution & natural selection present major flaws and are incapable of proving stages of progression, clearing up the lack of fossilized proof, explaining extreme diversity, etc., etc., but you believe them. So, when I chose to believe the more validated and historically proven record you refer to as a 'magic book,' I am only doing what seems as sensible as you are with your magic theories.
Bottom line: Do you know everything? No. Neither do I. Until you know everything there is to know and can fathom every mystery of life, please be willing to entertain the notion that God may exist.
Hanna wrote, "Can you really say that they are idiots for believing in God?"
Hanna's argument misses an important distinction: believing that a supernatural being created our Universe is very different from believing in the particular god of a specific holy book. We might not be able to say someone is an idiot for believing that a supernatural being created our Universe, but we *can* say someone is an idiot for believing in the particular god of a specific holy book. Why? Simply by pointing out that the given holy book contains logical contradictions which render the particular god described in that holy book nonsensical.
Please don't presume such prescience that you can read my mind, divine my "true" opinion & call me a liar. That kind of arrogance is more upsetting & offensive than any simple conversation about God. It's also presumptuous to label everyone else here with the same mistaken label you stuck on me. As I said, that's more troubling than a disagreement on philosophy.
It isn't religion I oppose, it's the intent of many religious people in the world to impose their faith on others that needs to be checked. Whether it's people attempting to sneak creationism into science classes; Popes condeming millions to deaths from AIDS by claiming condoms not only are ineffective but spread, the disease; theocracies like Saudi Arabia treating women worse than livestock or fundamentalists preaching laughably ineffective "abstinence only" sex education, all these are crimes against humanity and freedom and must be strongly opposed.
I was a strong, committed Christian for the first half of my life [insert "well, you were doing it wrong" apologetic here] and the majority of non-believers I know are in fact EX-believers. People who were religious, asked themselves "why am I religious? Who is God, really?" and heard nothing, so decided to find their own answer. When you realise you can be good just by being good, God ceases to be relevant.
FYI: HENRI Dunant founded the Red Cross afer the battle of Solferino in 1859. He saw 30,000 soldiers lying wounded & dying with no assitance, so he organised local people to assist with their care, built temporary hospitals and paid for equipment with his own money. He responded to the needs of his fellow human beings with no thought of repayment and whether he did so out of religious obligation or simple empathy is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because compassion and humanitarianism did not magically come into existence with the Bible – they are not uniquely Christian or even uniquely religious values. People were being decent to each other and helping each other a long time before the Bible was written. Every religion ever conceived has co-opted humanitarian principles as their own singular invention or touted themselves as the only true stewards of those principles. No religion invented them, however, they're as old as our species itself – older, in fact.
Countless species of animals today, with no language or particularly complex thought processes, cooperate and assist each other for the benefit of their communities. We may be humans with fancy gadgets and languages and varying branches of science and philosophies, but we're still social animals and we all know, deep down, it's simply better for everyone if we cooperate, minimise harm & ease the suffering of others than to simply pursue our own ends with no regard for our fellows. The core motivation is always to help another human. Strip away any religious dogma and you'll find the same thing: love your neighbour. Jesus may have said it, but he didn't invent it. Neither did Krishna, Zeus (certainly not that cranky bastard), Ahura Mazda or Osiris.
It doesn't trouble me that Henri Dunant was religious, any more than it would make me feel vindicated to learn that David Gilmour from Pink Floyd was an atheist. Who cares? Judge a man by his works, not his private beliefs. Henri was, Christian or not (it's likely that he was though – being 1859 it's safe to assume everyone in Europe was), a good man and he created a wonderful organisation that literally changed the world. He saw great suffering and chose to alleviate it. That's why he is admired and that's why I like working for the Red Cross. We help because people need it and we ask for nothing from those we help.
It doesn't trouble me that anybody is religious. People should be free to pursure whatever philosophy they choose (or are brought up to believe – choice almost never comes into it, which is one of the first aspects of religion that got me thinking about it). And I don't think all religious people are idiots either, just the ones who allow it to blind them to reality or make them feel as though they're above other people for no good reason. What troubles me is religious people who have the nerve & the arrogance to think they've got it all figured out when, in fact, nobody does. Not me, not Darwin, not Einstein, not Newton, not Carl Sagan. Not only that, far too many religious people presume to think anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is destined for hell, an immoral monster or just some poor blind sheep who hasn't opened his heart. But your average atheist is honest enough to admit he doesn't have the answers.
I won't address your fallacious, laughable, strawman versions of my "magic theories" (pot, meet kettle). When you learn that understanding a theory doesn't necessarily entail agreeing with it, do yourself a favour and go read about evolution or the big bang theory. It's pointless arguing with someone who doesn't even understand what they're arguing against.
Goodbye.
Hanna Sayce,
This blog is specifically concerned with topics of religion, science and democracy from the viewpoint of non-believers of various backgrounds. There may be some here who would advocate the abolishment of religion, just as there are fundamentalists who advocate the state sponsorship and legislated inclusion of their religion based beliefs. (i.e. an official Church of America). Most here tend to be of a live and let live philosophy. With few exceptions, we don't go to religious blogs and try to get the faithful to give up their faith, However, we are pretty well set in our ways.
You state that your faith gives meaning to your existence, to you life. That seems to work for you, but you have asserted it must be that way for everyone.
Yet other people do not think as you. I am an agnostic existentialist, a philosophy that is very difficult for some to grasp. As an existentialist, I do not believe in predestination, a grand plan, a higher purpose for existence.I believe each individual is responsible for the outcome of his or her choices, and that societies are responsible for their collective actions.
There are Christian existentialists, like the Free Will Baptists, but I am not one of them. I am agnostic because, since I do not believe in predestination, I find no need to believe in an omnipotent temporally transcendent intelligent being to be the author of destiny, Honestly, I find it incomprehensible. To me, the idea that we are nothing more than puppets performing a play for some omnipotent entities amusement is an idea filled with hopelessness and despair.
However, even though I personally do not see proof of the existence of such a being, lack of proof is itself not proof of non-existence. I am therefore an agnostic as I courageously acknowledge that I do not, cannot know that which is by definition unknowable. With this question settled for now I can set about addressing the problems I can know, understand and affect.
That I do not see some transcendental meaning of existence, does not mean my life is without purpose. I have been very close to dying on three occasions, and considered what I find important in life: family, knowledge, and society.
You assert that without faith, all knowledge learned in a lifetime is lost upon death. I disagree. Part of the knowledge I have accumulated has already been passed on to others that will outlive me, and those others will pass this knowledge along with their added insights to others that will outlive them, through teaching, writings and even through blogs such as this. Science and technology is built upon the lessons learned by scientists long deceased. Many of these scientists were atheists, and their knowledge has existed well after their deaths.
I find myself driven by a curiosity to understand things, and this curiosity gives me a will to survive, simply to see what happens next. And I feel a moral obligation to do as much as I can to make the world a better for everyone, hopefully to leave it in better shape than I inherited it.
I understand many things quite well.
The concept of evolution originated in the church when church scholars noted that individual sub-species are better adapted to their environments. The basic concept of evolution implies that newer species are closer to perfection than their predecessors. Others before Darwin postulated the idea of "Throw backs" that were less evolved, but more adapted to harsher environments. But Darwin exposed the mechanism that drives evolution and it doesn't favor perfection, just adaptation.
Natural selection follows different rates for different species. The key factor determining the rate of the emergence of new traits is time from progenesis to maturity, or simply worded the period of time is takes for an individual to grow to reproductive age . In the case of a virus, this can be hours, with fungi and many insects, as little as a few days. With humans, this is usually considered to be 20 years, even though most girls begin ovulation by 15 and a few as early as 12.
Oh and the senses of sight, smell and touch were documented a long time ago in single cell organisms. hearing appears to have evolved as a specialized form of touch in primitive multicellular animals. There is also a sensory organ found in many species that is not found in humans. This is literally a biological compass. This organ is found in homing pigeons, many migratory bird species, and in some aquatic life. These were covering in my 8th grade biology class.
Religion or no religion, people make choices which may align them with general norms of "good" or "bad." Unlike many folks here, I believe in God, am active in my faith (after examining many others) and enjoy a good debate.
It is not for me to decide whether someone's life or any other thing about them is aligned with "good" or "bad" simply because they are skeptics or fervent non-believers. Do as you say you will do, have done what you say you have done, and be loyal to family and friends covers most everything in my sphere of operation. It appears that many on this blog see things somewhat like this, which is why I participate here.
@ grumpypilgrim – while I will never concede to your obviously typical atheistic and untried view of the Bible, I must remind you that every major scientific theory you hold near and dear is still just a theory. They are presented rationally with evidence interpreted to support them but present many (how you say) ?'logical contradictions'?, gaps, and omissions as well. Calling me an 'idiot' for believing in the God of the Bible, is no different than you being an idiot for believing in your 8th grade biology book. I've interpreted the evidence differently than you, I guess, and have come to the rational conclusion that God exists.
@ Hank & Niklaus – I think we have reached more of an understanding. I consider both of you to be intelligent. Believe it or not, we agree on many things. I'm not a fundamentalist. It would be a lie for me or anyone to say that we didn't want people to believe in what we thought was true, but I would never force my beliefs on anyone. I spent most of my life as an atheist, in fact. I have done my homework and know enough to have an opinion on the big scientific theories. I love the stuff! I just see it differently. I can only hope that the option exists for you simply because I care, simply because I think Christians are supposed to care.
I think you guys are great. You didn't give me a cut & paste response, a Googled statistic, or the all-too-often 'ignore the stupid Christian' post. We have probably seen the worst in both sides of the argument, but I appreciate the manner in which you have expressed your views.
If there were any way I could convince you to give God a chance, I would do it. If I could pray for a loved one to be healed, an opportunity to present itself, etc., let me know. I believe in miracles. They were Christ's greatest witnessing tools.
Ending on a good note – thanks for your comments.
Hanna: In regard to your statement about theories, may I direct you to this information-packed video that clarifies what scientists mean when they say that something is a theory. It's not quite what you think it means.
As for giving God a chance…I give Him a chance every day. I listen to atheists giving speeches as well as preachers preaching. I try to give videos about evolution equal time with videos about creationism. I try to do this with an open mind. Time after time the atheist and evolutionists make perfect sense to me and the religious/creationists do not. What am I to do Hanna? I go where reason leads me.
@Hanna Sayce: re 'Theory'. You don't understand the meaning of the word.
Scientific theories are not mere suppositions. They are the strongest, move evidential, most predictive things we have.
The Theory of evolution is supported by mountains of data (hundreds of thousands of papers). It has huge predictive power. It has successfully been demonstrated both in the field and in the lab. It is so powerfully valid, that insights from this theory have been used to develop hardware and software solutions that work better than anything we can 'design' (see 'genetic algorithms')
The Standard Model (atomic theory) is so powerfully descriptive, scientists have been able to posit the behavior of 'artificial' elements accurately, to understand and predict the material and electronic behavior of atoms & 'superatoms', to predict accurately the need for (and potential energies of) such exotic creatures as the Higgs boson.
Every field of science has a few theories. They are the pinnacle of our understanding. Alongside these pillars, are many thousands of ancillary hypotheses — expanding our knowledge and our predictive power (just as Quantum Mechanics expanded upon Classical Mechanics)
Believing in something is simply wishful thinking. I believe in my kids. But I also spend an inordinate amount of time with them mentoring them, helping them with (and around) their homework, and generally ensuring they have the aptitudes and skills necessary to succeed. Acts not wishes. I don't simply 'pray' for their success. I work for their success.
Science is the same. Scientists WORK for answers. inspiration might suggest an approach – but scientists need then to work extremely methodically to design experiments that uncover the reality. And that reality may concur with the 'inspiration' or more likely refute the inspiration. Science welcomes negative correlation, because that eliminates whole areas of fruitless investigation – Science is about discovering truth, not investing it.
Lastly: Science is not antagonistic towards religion. It is, (as the Scandinavians might have it) simply apathetic towards religion. It has no opinion about religion whatsoever. Except where religion makes testable, observable claims. You believe in miracles. I 'believe' that any observable event is ultimately reducible to known agents (causes, effects) based on fundamental physical constraints (universal physical laws, such as gravity, speed of light, etc). You say miracle and so unexplainable except through a supernatural agency. I say, simply, unexplained. Let 'science' observe first hand, and I will guarantee that your miracle will become explained.
Anyway – thanks for your gracious comments. I just get testy when people use 'theory' as a synonym for 'supposition'.
Hank says, "People were being decent to each other and helping each other a long time before the Bible was written. Every religion ever conceived has co-opted humanitarian principles as their own singular invention or touted themselves as the only true stewards of those principles. No religion invented them, however, they’re as old as our species itself – older, in fact."
The "Bible" as you call contains enough information about what existed before humanity and what will exist after humanity to make it clear to me that people left to themselves have no hope for a future on this planet.
Sure there are plenty of people with a desire to "do good" as you call it, but there are just as many people or more who think the good others are trying to do is in reality evil in disguise.
Some religions/philosophies are obvious distortions of the "can't we all just get along mentality."
No one likes war unless your religions/philosophy either approves or permits it. This is the distinction. You claim that those religions that try to force others into their way of thinking are the slime of the earth, yet you use mockery, personal verbal assault and ad hominem attacks to make others think you are more justified or better than your fellow humans – unless of course the other people aren't human.
Case in point, look at your insinuations about Hanna, and the manner of your conversation.
@Karl
You said 'The “Bible” as you call contains enough information about what existed before humanity and what will exist after humanity'
Sorry, but exactly what evidence do you have for this assertion – other than the bible itself. And which version? Is it original, or a translation? Which source material was used in the compilation? Which was eliminated?
'The Bible Says' is not a cogent argument, outside grade school apologetics, since the bible is not internally consistent (I can find a refutation in the bible for almost every statement you make using the bible as 'gospel').
Attacking Hank for his comment, when his statements are demonstrably and evidentially true (regarding religion) demonstrates that you are nothing more than a god-bot.
I agree entirely with TonyC. Karl, please tell us about "the Bible." Before answering, consider this post: http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-c…
Hanna,
No offense taken on my part. I acknowledge that many people have a psychological need to be able to explain the mechanics of the universe, and to seek a purpose for existence. It provides a sense of security. Many address this need through religious belief, some by placing such worries to the back of their minds and many seek understanding through critical empiricism that includes science.
Many of the regulars here firmly believe in the value of healthy skepticism as a tool to refine jewels of knowledge from the incredible amount of garbage on the internet (and elsewhere). We have our own opinions on the issues, and may take different sides on some, but in most such cases we agreeably disagree and leave it at that.
As a lot, we are not anti-religious. We recognize that many of the organizations that build on religion are political entities that seek to assert their control over others in ways that are anti democratic, and often completely in violation of the religious morals they claim to value. We easily see this in the Taliban, in Al Qaeda, but are expected to accept the same diatribes if presented by the Cornerstore Chuch and other TV ministries, or by the politicians who proclaim fundamentalist Christian "values" just to get a vote.
Hank says, “People were being decent to each other and helping each other a long time before the Bible was written. Every religion ever conceived has co-opted humanitarian principles as their own singular invention or touted themselves as the only true stewards of those principles. No religion invented them, however, they’re as old as our species itself – older, in fact.”
As much as I want to agree with this, Hank, I can't. We simply have no data and it may be that religions are the first cogent attempts by our forebears to codify ethical behavior. A good deal of Plato suggests little need for religion on a person by person basis, but there is enough in it to also suggest strongly that getting to a point where people could stand on their own moral ground without religion required walking up a slope built on religions.
Hammurabi's Code (which many people mistakenly believe is from the Torah) is a codification of punishments for various crimes, which is related to but not the same as a code of ethics. Little in the way of recorded thinking about the matter predates it, so it may well be that, inspired by notions of a primary lawgiver, people began to build ethical systems—but they did so within a framework of religion. Much as I dislike religion in general, history tells me that religion is the spine of human betterment.*
Sorry.
*I hasten to add, religion is entirely a human invention in my opinion—there's no god there—but what matters is what people believe, in this case, not what is fact.
I should have clarified my position there, Mark T. My dim implication was that we and our ancestor species – and our cousins today, from whales to gibbons – were and are acting alturistically or cooperatively, long before we even developed the tools of language and abstract thought with which we codify behaviour. Social animals cooperate and assist each other because it works. Because it benefits the community. In that respect we are no different, though we've thought up numerous ways to distance ourselves from our fellow men in order to deny them our cooperation, much more so and in much more complexity than any non-human animal.
Oh look, Karl's back. Oh goodie.
Read closely and you'll see its ideas that I attack with my horrid, hurtful words, not people. You & Hanna may be the nicest, most honest people in the world, but I can't respect your views of the world or your opinions of science (or anything else) if they don't stand up to scrutiny. That's it in a nutshell. Ideas must earn respect through investigation and discussion of their origins. Opinions must be carefully considered after weighing relevant facts. The literal truth of Biblical creation myth does not stand up to scrutiny – in fact it's comprehensively debunked by all current branches of science, from cosmology to microbiology. For example, to stand there and assert that evolution is "just" a theory despite literally millions of pieces of physical evidence, from fossils to the DNA present in every organism to its proven uses in modern medicine, is displaying a colossal ignorance of the facts – a wilful ignorance, too, given the ease with which it is possible to gain a rapid and effective understanding of the subject.
The Bible speaks of a plane of existence (a stream of conciousness if you would prefer)that is outside of an existence that is simply bound to time as a purely scientific naturalist would be limited to.
Until this is considered as a possibility by any agnostic, atheist, or any other type of personal philisophy these limited perspectives by interpretive necessity have to rule out anything that might be considered evidence that doesn't fit within their paradigm.
I could discuss the Bible's outside of time references but that would mean nothing to most here on Dangerous Intersection.
Shoot holes is a philosophy if you like, but shooting holes in evidence that supports other philisophies is not being honest, or clear as to what you think you are trying to do.
Karl,
I write science fiction. I can cite you all manner of possible explanation for a "stream of consciousness" outside the material time stream as we experience it. The literature is rife with it and a lot of it is profoundly engaging, intriguing, and a marvel to play with. There are even suggestions in some stories about what would constitute evidence for it.
But we don't have that evidence. Not unless you count Jung's work on dreams and archetypes as forms of evidence.
At some point, like it or not, things "beyond the material plane", in order to be relevant to those of us who live here, there must be a point of intersection that leaves behind material evidence. As far as I am aware, discounting anecdote, there ain't none.
But it makes for great SF.
Mark says, "At some point, like it or not, things “beyond the material plane”, in order to be relevant to those of us who live here, there must be a point of intersection that leaves behind material evidence. As far as I am aware, discounting anecdote, there ain’t none."
That's where I find the perspective of the materialist greatly wanting in what they can consider as evidence. If I had to base everything I knew upon a materialists interpretation, life would not make much sense. Emotions would be the biggest lie every brought into existence by evolution.
Sure if this world is all there is, and if you can't consider any other reason for why it is here than to experience life for a while and to interact with your environment (including other people who will one day have no ongoing existence on any other plane or in any other dimension)than you have limited your perspective by wagering on the ability of the natural world to tell you every thing and any thing you will ever need to know. I prefer to hold a glimmer of hope for meaning "outside of the box."
Cultures are full of stuff that science can't explain, although sometimes its pundits think it can. Does that make the stuff science can't explain unreal and therefore not apart of reality?
If the "out or character" feeling many like to get from mind altering chemical activity is a pointless activity as far as science goes, why do so many people not beleive the scientists and therefore keeping altering their states of consciousness?
I am fairly devout Christian, and I do hold that there was communion within the Trinity before the creation of the Cosmos as we know it.
There are however, powerful allusions in the scriptures to “beings” that were not apart of the Trinity that existed before our earth came into being, and who either existed or continue to exist before the presence of God and either around his throne or banished from fellowship around this throne.
I see the entire scheme of the existence of the earth and even people themselves as the means by which God both initiates the creation of fully living eternal beings and then how he brings them to “maturation.”
The maturation process either reveals the Sons of God or it doesn’t. Like an uncut and unpolished crystal is cut and polished to reveal the inner beauty of the gem, so God is in the business of revealing those who would be the Son’s of God, and who will work and to do His will in agreement.
Those who strive to prevent or undo this plan of revealing the Sons of God, actually do His work and will by being in opposition to his plan.
If our desire is to see God reveal those who are the Sons of God, we will find redemption through his only begotten Son Jesus. (In this sense I see how Judas might actually not be lost for eternity.) If it our will to oppose God revealing those who are the Sons of God, we shall be thwarted in the end.
Mark would call this science fiction, I however find it something worth believing in that was indeed written in the Bible, a book full of stories and myths.
[Admin warning: this post contains some preaching, which contravenes our comment policy. Karl, in future posts, the portions that constitute preaching will be deleted.]
Karl, every religion contains
Although they disagree on what is the correct holy text and the name(s) of the God(s). F'rinstance, read about the Titans that ruled the Earth before there were gods.
All this proves about reality is a common drive to believe in something beyond the possible.
Karl, if I decoded the somewhat convoluted wording " a plane of existence that is outside of an existence that is simply bound to time as a purely scientific naturalist would be limited to", I take it you are referring to the concept of Eternity.
You also seem to be saying that one cannot understand the concept of eternity without accepting the Christian Bible as fact. Actually most religions of the world have some form of eternity woven into their beliefs. That includes the concept of an ephemeral energy that animates the body, which in turn acts as a container for this energy. They claim this energy, (soul, life force, chi, spirit, Kai ) is eternal and transcends time.
An easy concept to understand. However it is often difficult to accept. Various aspects of the eternity concepts are not even accepted between different religions. For example, many East Asian religions believe in some form of re-incarnation, either in a new human body, or as various animals and sometimes even as plants. Several Native American religions believe one's spirit becomes one with the land and the spirits of those already dead, and occasionally take animal forms to guide the people through bad times.
The point is, understanding and acceptance are different things. We accept things all the time we don't understand. Often this allows us to be used by unscrupulous leaders for their own gain. However, when we can attain a critical understanding of something before deciding whether or not to accept it, it empowers us to defend ourselves against such charlatans.
Karl writes:—"Cultures are full of stuff that science can’t explain, although sometimes its pundits think it can. Does that make the stuff science can’t explain unreal and therefore not apart of reality?"
I think it's called Anthropology, which is all about the stuff cultures contain…and it's a science!
You know, I keep seeing references to all this stuff "science can't explain" and I keep asking for examples. You mentioned emotions. Well, we're very well aware of the electrochemical nature of emotions, which is neurobiology which is a science. That we have the emotions is not a mystery. You keep implying that there is. Perhaps in the "Why" category, you have a point, but there seems no need to go beyond human experience for that.
I suspect, along with a number of scientists (Sagan, Asimov, Dawkins, Gould, a few others) that folks who say that the natural universe is not enough to settle their questions very simply lack the questions. In short, they don't know enough to know that the universe, as it stands before us, is limitlessly fascinating. Appeals to fantasy realms of gods and ghosts are poor substitutes, but substitutes they are—because they actually do not demand as much attention, being that they cannot be directly observed and therefore cannot be known in the kind of depth that the universe offers.
All your jabbing at science seems to come down to the question of Why Do We Have Consciousness and How Come We Keep Asking Questions? What, in short, is Curiosity (especially coupled with our evident ability to satisfy it)? Gotta tell you, I don't know. Nor do I particularly care, not if it means referring to ephemeral ethereal spiritual nonbeing kinda stuff for answers. You can only go so far in that direction before coming up against the wall of "well, I guess I gotta die before I get anymore answers." And that's a cheat. It lets us off the hook for doing the work.
At least, in my opinion.
Yay! +20 hit points to MT!
great comment about science and 'stuff that most people are too lazy to ask about'.
In my conversations with many people across the world, I've come to the following conclusion: there are interested people, and there are satisfied people.
Interested people are curious, engaged, they ask why, how, when, where, what, who? They have a need and desire to know. They are not all 'scientists' but they all seek answers beyond pabulum. They have tended, on the whole, to be atheist, or agnostic. generally less than respectful of authority (especially authority without responsibility). They are sometimes successful, sometimes not. Sometimes pleasant, sometimes not. Happy, angry, cute, annoying, fun, dull. In short – they are everyman – but with questions. They have fairly robust opinions on lots of things – but are eager to learn and adjust their opinions based on new knowledge. They generally seem to enjoy their life.
The satisfied people, on the other hand, have generally been respectful of authority, unquestioning, accept the status quo, don't rock the boat kind of folks. The only time I heard 'why?' was when change was proposed. Mostly, these folks were formally religious (in greater or lesser degree). They covered the spectrum of success, and again were everyman. They seem satisfied with the level of understanding, and to have fairly robust opinions on most anything, which they hold dear – dissenting opinions or evidence only seems to make them hold their opinion more strongly. They don't seem happy with their life – there are always major things they'd change.
Personally I an proud to be interested. I want always to learn. I love to learn that I was wrong or mistaken about something – it generally opens up whole new vistas of thought and possibility that were previously closed, obscured or unthinkable. I love learning about new discoveries – and about negative evidence (closing the door on some possibilities, opens the door on others). I'm very satisfied with my life. I'm never satisfied with my understanding.
I do not jab at science as if it were a sport. I jab at acience because it is not infallable, and those who use it to build evidence for the supremacy of their perspective of reality and social policy are very much blind to their own biases and circular reasoning which to them only seems logical and overwhelming.
The next time someone uses the term innumerable or even "millions" of evidences I'm going to ask them to start listing them.
I'd wager the same million evidences just as easily support a view of creationism as one opposed to a creator.