What is truth?

What is truth? Big question, right? It's something philosophers have been pondering for as long as there have been philosophers pondering. I'm not going to pretend to be able to answer it here but I would like to list a few things that truth is not. Belief is not truth. Faith is not truth. Desire is not truth. Hope is not truth. Vague prophecy is not truth. The other day a believer in a religion forum conversation I was a part of told me that he hopes that some day I learn the "truth" and get saved. I am always wary when a word is willfully and consistently misused. There is an Orwellian doublespeak creepiness about the mis-use of the word "truth" by believers that is disturbing to me whenever I hear it. People often speak of a personal truth and I suppose that concept has some validity, but all too often that personal revelation, which ends up being called truth, is applied to humanity as a whole. In other words, "My truth must be your truth". That is a very myopic viewpoint and one thing about belief in God that has always rubbed me the wrong way. That same believer more recently posted that because he knows the truth no one will ever be able to change his mind or shake his faith. He is mistaken if that's what he thinks the non-believers are trying to do by arguing against certainty. Why would I want to take away from him his life's philosophy that he has worked so hard to discover? Conversely, why would he want to deny me mine? As an atheist all I have ever wanted from believers is respect. Respect for my doubts. Respect for my journey. Respect for MY personal "truth". Does belief rule out respect and understanding for other paths of life? I don't think so but if that is the case, that is just one more reason that I would prefer to hold on to my doubts.

Continue ReadingWhat is truth?

Paul Kurtz criticizes fundamentalist atheists

Paul Kurtz is not one of the "new atheists,"but he is a first-rate skeptic, having published 50 books on various topics, many of them relating to religion and skepticism. I wrote a rather detailed post about him last month. Kurtz is founder and chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry. In this 30-minute CFI interview with DJ Grothe, Kurtz expressed that he is not "an atheist," and that one can be a secular humanist without being in "atheist." Kurtz describes himself as a "non-theist," an "agnostic," and a "skeptic." He stresses that people should define themselves by what they do believe, yet to call oneself an atheist is to attempt to define oneself by what one does not believe. He mentioned that while 3% of Americans are atheists, almost 9% of Americans are agnostic, while yet others are skeptical or "religiously indifferent." Kurtz indicates that as a skeptic, he is always willing to look at the evidence, and this is an important part of who he is. He also believes we should all be grounded by a genuine concern for fellow humans. In fact, he suggested that he's thinking about abandoning the term "secular humanism," and replacing it with "empathic humanism." Good will toward others should be the starting point of any ethical system. We should be focusing our efforts on affirming life, and achieving social justice. Kurtz points out that there are such things as "fundamentalist atheists," who he describes as "embittered atheists," people who were "bruised" by religion. These people "bore me now." He is tired of "nasty, in-your-face atheists." These are people who spend too much energy rejecting mythologies of other people. They often engage in intolerant ridicule that borders on "pornographic." According to Kurtz, we can disagree with each other, but we must always do so respectfully. To the extent that we engage in sharp parody and prejudice, this will not further our goals. In fact, Kurtz expressed that he was appalled that CFI supported "blasphemy day." This amounts to "ridiculing" many sincere people. It is not a civilized mode of discussion. Kurtz went out of his way to acknowledge that he had many friends who were practicing members of various religious faiths. He believes in engaging people of other faiths with respectful and reasoned dialogue. "We don't want to be religious bigots."

Continue ReadingPaul Kurtz criticizes fundamentalist atheists

Scientist finds all missing links. Evolution proved. Churches scheduled to close.

Assimulated Press - Tempe, Arizona In a discovery that not even the most optimistic scientist would ever have predicted, all of the transitional forms necessary to prove that evolution is indeed a fact have been found in one location. In a strange twist of fate, it was a Creationist scientist who found the fossils. Uncovered over the course of several years at one extensive archeological dig in Arizona were all the so-called “missing links” needed to show that man has indeed evolved from simpler primate ancestors and that we are kin to all other primates, mammals and indeed every living thing on the planet. At a press conference on Monday, chief archeologist Matthew Christiansen of the Creation Science Foundation stated, “I really didn’t expect to find these fossils. Genesis says that we were created separate from the animals but even I can’t deny this evidence. People can now stop saying that evolution is ‘only a theory’ because it isn’t. It’s a fact. We now have all the complete sets of fossilized transitional forms that we need. There are no gaps. This case is closed.” The news has sent Jewish synagogues and Christian churches around the world into a frenzy. Rabbi Eli Weinstein of the Beth Shalom Israel synagogue in New York put it this way, “Those of us who accepted the traditional account of seven day creation as true are devastated. Proof of evolution means that Genesis is wrong which means that God doesn’t exist. I guess I’m out of a job!” [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingScientist finds all missing links. Evolution proved. Churches scheduled to close.

Conservative Rewrites the Bible

We've featured Andy, son of Phyllis Schafly and his anti-reason heavily monitored blog site, Conservapedia before. His latest project is to create an edited version of the Bible better suited to American Reactionary philosophy. Yes, he is removing all those Liberal parts where the inerrant Word of God must be wrong. Mark C. Chu-Carroll (Good Math blog) wrote The Conservative Rewrite of the Bible where he gives specific examples of what is being edited and why. Like removing any mention of "government", and merging all the names of God to avoid confusion. Even God, in his 10 Commandments, says to forsake all those other Gods over which he has no control and only worship him. Schlafly represents this as a new, better translation. But he is using the KJV as his primary source. The English translation with the most known inconsistencies from original source material is his best version from which to start. Well, might as well. After all, he will be "fixing" God's Word. Even conservative Christians that I know think that this is a crazy project.

Continue ReadingConservative Rewrites the Bible