Agnostic, Atheist, Antitheist
I've been idly considering this question a long time:
Am I an agnostic or am I an atheist?
For a long time – approximately since I discovered the term – I have called myself an agnostic. But the last couple of years, I have increasingly felt that agnostic is mostly a term that I used to avoid thinking it through and picking sides.
Spurred by an article given to me by my friend Rasmus, and discussions with Anna and my friends Joen and Kasper, I decided to think about it properly and stop being on the fence.
I have figured out I am not only an atheist, but an antitheist.
I have been for a long time, really. Calling myself an agnostic rather than an atheist or antitheist, has mostly been due to the fact, that "atheism" – to me – carries with it certain connotations that I can't see myself subscribing to, and I didn't know the term antitheist until Joen introduced me to it.
Some atheists I have talked to, completely rule out the possibility of any force that isn't already known. That science has the answers to everything.
For example, that because the actual physical causes of why acupuncture works can not be proven by current science, then it is per definition hogwash. Empirical evidence is not good enough, if there is no directly determinable causality.
I think that mindset is wrong and in conflict with being a logically driven person. Since science is a developing field, it does not have the answer to everything. It might some day, but I think it'll take a while to get there. And it might not even be possible for regular human beings to understand some of the questions and answers (as I once wrote about in article "Understanding Machines").
But having thought about it the last few days, I realize that is mostly a problem that I need to overcome with myself, more than it's something that actually makes it inaccurate that I am an atheist. Sticking a label on yourself will always give a wrong impression to a percentage of the people seeing it, for the simple reason that different people have different definitions of and connotations to those labels. That's true whether you adopt "mac user", "atheist" or "capitalist".
So I am coming out as an antitheist.
Since there are several different explanations for that label, I will elaborate.
I don't believe there is a god, in the sense that there is no consciousness (even an omniscient one) guiding the happenings of the universe.
This is a belief I hold because of my current understanding of the world, and unlike religion it's not based on faith, in that it will change if my understanding of the world changes. For example if something proves me wrong. It's based on what I find is the most probable explanation, considering how well it fits with what I find to be the axioms of nature or of the human condition.
For clarification, I define "faith" in this context as "to believe something without proof or in spite of proof".
So, if the christian God showed up at my doorstep and showed me how he could do anything he wanted, my perception of what is possible and not would change, and I would change my stance.
Granted, my reeling mind would probably first consider scenarios that I would find to be far more likely in the context of all my current knowledge; that I had accidentally ingested large amounts of a psychoactive substance, that I was dreaming, delusional or insane. Or someone hooked me up to one hell of a Virtual Reality environment.
But after having enough proof to reject those explanations, I would admit I was wrong and decide that there was indeed a god.
Of course, my knack for probabilities tells me that this is a very unlikely scenario.
And christians will tell me, that this isn't how God operates, because without faith he is nothing (which in my eyes logically amounts to "if you don't believe in him, he doesn't exist", which in turn is "he's a figment of your imagination").
But that's not all. That's just the atheism part.
Being an antitheist is more than just not personally believing in deities.
It's also believing that faith is ultimately a bad thing for society.
Let me explain why.
Here are a few statements I find to be self evident truths:
- Human beings are animals
- The greatest differentiator between humans and other species is our intelligence
- Human adaptability (intelligence) is the single most important factor in our success as a species
- The purpose of human life in general is that of all other life: Survival as a species
- The human individual is motivated to survive because that generally is a successful strategy towards surviving as a species
I find that any religious doctrine I know of can be explained in terms of these statements.
I started elaborating on this, but realized that this would be an article in itself.
Based on the survival parameter, I find that the human species is currently a very promising species. Not because we are the most numerous or the most hardy, but because we are far better at predicting problems and planning our way out of them, and by far the most adaptable.
The amazing flexibility of the human brain is what has carried us this far.
And this is what I find problematic with faith:
Believing doctrine blindly, means willingly giving up the most important property of human existence to some degree.
You disallow yourself from questioning and considering without restraint huge parts of the human condition. You purposefully make your mind inflexible on certain areas. You close the book on further discussion and examination.
If it had no practical implications beyond how people choose to think, I would be fine as an atheist.
But the problem is, that religion is so deeply seeded in our societies that even the least religious countries I know of still teach their children that even if you don't believe religious doctrine and see obvious logical flaws with it, you can not discuss these things because you have to respect peoples faith.
This is something I disagree with and have disagreed with for quite some years now.
I think it is fundamentally wrong that our so-called secular societies feel that they have to pussyfoot around questions of faith. That special provisions and allowances need to be made for religion.
One of the problems, I find, is the arbitrary distinction of what is religion and what is just a silly notion.
As far as I can tell, it seems to be a vague distinction having to do with numbers and age.
If I have the notion that I must be allowed to walk around with a hockey mask and a ceremonial chain saw, even when I go the bank, I would be considered a nut. I would be laughed at, and maybe even put in jail.
If I believed that there is an interstellar army right behind the sun, which is just waiting for the trillionth cheeseburger to be eaten before they attack the earth, I would probably be medicated.
Yet, if we were 50 million people who had been believing it for 200 years, we would be tax exempt and many people would believe it was wrong to openly mock us.
I think that is a strange and arbitrary thing.
Just because many people believe something to be right, it doesn't make it right. People who can prove something else shouldn't be afraid to let these people know what is more likely, due to some residual belief in the taboos of christianity.
Just because millions of people think that humans only use 10% of our brains or that throwing rice at a wedding harms birds, doesn't make them true.
Just because the entire world believed that the universe revolved around the Earth, doesn't mean Copernicus should politely have shut his trap.
It freezes progress to not question things.
The odd thing is, that most religious people who I have talked to, seem to think that even their omnipotent God is subject to axioms of logic.
For example, when asked why God doesn't just make humans believe him, if he is in fact real and omnipotent, I usually get the traditional answer of how God is nothing without faith, and we have to love him of our own free will to be believers.
But this follows logic. If he is truly omnipotent, he should be able to break any and all rules. He should be able to make us believe in him with force, yet it would be of our own free will. That's illogical, but omnipotence should also make it possible to make 0 equal 5 and the square root of 2 to be 90. Without it being illogical. No rules should apply. But apparently they do. At least according to some of the religious people who have endured conversing with me.
God thus seems to have to follow the same rules of logic that are the foundations of science, which has shown his existence to be so very, very improbable by offering up far more likely explanations for what used to be supporting evidence of his existence.
If you adhere to principles of logic, science is making it ever harder to hide god anywhere.
If we want to be logical and still stick to the concept of god, we might finally conclude that god is the basic natural forces governing the interaction of everything. That is somewhat compatible with the the bible in a metaphorical sense.
God could be that abstract principle that turns simple reiterative equations into beautiful fractals. But then the pursuit of science is the pursuit of understanding God, and the notion that any religion should stand in the way of anything science wants to do becomes absurd. When examined logically, that is.
One shouldn't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with the general moral codex of most religions.
I find that religions are usually quite decent systems of moral principles that were likely initially designed to make our societies run smoother.
But why mix the supernatural into that? Rules for a functioning society is a fine reason for existence in itself. But why not call it a philosophy or set of principles, much like political affiliation or laws are?
It's also important to understand, that I don't feel I can't be friends with people who are non-atheists.
My mom believes in god, and I like my mom. It's just that I disagree with the fact that they have faith in irrational things. If they, or whoever, can live with the fact that I disagree with that, I am fine with it also.
I have lots of friends who think I am a weirdo for being vegetarian, and I have friends who smoke or are socialists.
Even though those are pretty basic things to disagree about, I find we are very good friends anyway.
To coexist peacefully, I believe that it's good to have a common set of ground rules that we can agree upon.
So I agree with one of the basic principles of religion there. I just think it should be an adaptable and constantly challenged set of axioms, rather than a collection set in concrete by a single person or committee many years ago, and unchallenged due to doctrine or tradition.
A good way to arrive at things that work seems to be to try many different permutations to what you have and let the things that work better prevail, then do it all over again. Works for evolution. For intelligence. It is also a way of optimizing methods for various areas of science called Genetic Algorithms.
I find this is exactly what science does. There is probably not an area of science that is not under constant scrutiny.
Anyone is welcome to challenge any area of science. There are no holy areas of "you can't question this". The more fundamental the knowledge you challenge is, the more clearly you have to prove it though. But ultimately it's a meritocracy – if you can prove beyond doubt that the sun is made of pizza, most scientists will sooner or later come around. If not, they are bad scientists.
I find that to be much more solid and workable foundation for a globally healthy coexistence in the long run, and in my eyes faith precludes that.
That's why I am an antitheist.
Nice stuff Brian, thanks.
You write: "A good way to arrive at things that work seems to be to try many different permutations to what you have and let the things that work better prevail, then do it all over again." You define 'work better' as something that can ultimately be proven by science (if I understand you correctly, not totally sure?).
I'd like to expand that definition of 'works better'. Instead of taking only the scientific meaning, let's put it into a personal context. Instead of asking "can i measure this belief to prove it scientifically right or wrong?", ask "what does this belief do for me?"
Assume, for arguments sake, that believing that the sun was made of pizza made me incredibly happy. Sure, you might try to convince me that, scientifically speaking, that is nonsense. But if that belief enriches my life so much, wouldn't it make sense for me stick with that?
This is a bad example of course, try something in a scientifically grey area. Let's say, the belief that all human minds spring from a single consciousness.
Now, that might seem scientifically improbable. But believing this might actually make my life better in many different ways. I would see more of myself in others, my compassion would soar, I would give more to others, maybe find a fulfilling life purpose in serving others. I could reach a whole new level of awareness and joy in life.
In spite of scientific improbability, would I not be better off if I truly believed this, and lived my life accordingly, instead of dismissing it on scientific grounds?
Of course that does not excuse most organised religion, which is plagued with limiting beliefs that disempower you.
I say: Belive whatever you want, but choose your beliefs consciously so they empower you. Limiting yourself to science is, well, limiting, and disempowering (but much less so than giving yourself up to organised religion). Use the scientific method, but use it on yourself. What beliefs work best for you?
That is why I am not an antitheist.
(My argument is not on theism per se, but I think it still applies. If belief in the Christian God empowers you, then sure, knock yourself out. But if you consciously examine that belief, my guess is you'd find it doesn't. Also. I'm not really arguing with you Brian, just supplementing. Just one part of the überconscioussness agreeing with another ;))
I’d like to expand that definition of ‘works better’. Instead of taking only the scientific meaning, let’s put it into a personal context. Instead of asking “can i measure this belief to prove it scientifically right or wrong?â€, ask “what does this belief do for me?â€
Here I was probably not quite clear: What I was writing about were the rules for society. And we kind of have that – laws and politics seem to be rules for society that are iteratively changed.
It really depends on how you feel about it beyond happy. The problem with a completely irrational belief is that there can be no common ground and no arguing for a common ground.
If you turn out to be either very protective of your pizza-belief or even evangelizing, then it is a problem that your belief is not subject to rational argument.
I believe this is the exact problem that are creating great schisms between the west and the middle east.
Now, that might seem scientifically improbable. But believing this might actually make my life better in many different ways. I would see more of myself in others, my compassion would soar, I would give more to others, maybe find a fulfilling life purpose in serving others. I could reach a whole new level of awareness and joy in life.
In a metaphorical sense, I believe you are actually right.
We are all made of the same stuff, we are all part of the same species and fundamentally we have brains that work the same way.
We also have some of the same fundamental goals for the same reason – to survive. To stick together to improve the chance of survival. To interact peacefully, again to enhance our survival.
I kind of view the human species as an organ and humans as cells. Not in a literal sense, but more as a model of how we work and interact.
I think that kind of leans towards your belief. I probably don't think about it the same way you do, but ultimately I think the result is the same.
What should keep you from observing the same similarities and having the same compassion without believing something that you find to be improbable?
And why would you even dismiss is on scientific grounds? Depending on how you think it actually physically happens, I can certain think of ways that allows your belief to be scientifically plausible.
I think the beliefs you hold should not conflict with your common sense.
You speak of science as if it's an absolute that can definitively disprove something you want to believe.
It can't, unless your belief is something simple and testable like "apples fall upwards".
I tried from the beginning of the article to explain that I am not a person who thinks that because something is not definitively provable with current science, it is necessarily bullshit.
But I believe that if something is in clear and direct conflict with existing science, then it's most likely bullshit.
There's a huge difference between the two.
One doesn't allow for progress in science, which is against the whole idea of science.
The other just disallows believing in things that are against your common sense and known science.
To illustrate the difference, the first way to believe in science makes no allowance for travelling beyond the speed of light, because right now that isn't provably possible.
The second way to believe in science allows that progress might be made and that there are ways around the law of relativity (like space/time folding and so forth).
How does something empower you if it creates a conflict between your common sense and your belief?
I think that one should shy away from things that require you to turn a blind eye to things that are in direct conflict with things you know to be true.
There are only two ways around that:
1) To ignore the conflict and thus deep down have the nagging feeling that it's not true. I think this is what most moderately religious people do, and I don't think that is empowering at all.
2) To create a mindset where the conflict does not exist and you are completely convinced that it is no problem. This is faith. This is purposefully turning off a very important and useful set of skills your brain has.
"But I believe that if something is in clear and direct conflict with existing science, then it’s most likely bullshit.
There’s a huge difference between the two.
One doesn’t allow for progress in science, which is against the whole idea of science.
The other just disallows believing in things that are against your common sense and known science."
First, on a nit-picking scale, science sometimes goes against ones common sense. Much of the "discoveries" in psychology were shocking because they went against common sense. For example, it is common sense that you would not expect someone to electricute another person to the point of hearing them scream in pain just because a scientist told him/her to. However, apparently people are sheep, and a solid majority of the people in that experiment "shocked" the recipient to "death" just because they were pressured by the scientist.
Also, humans are not perfect. And science is a mere contruct of humans. As refined as we can get it to explain our world, chances are high that we will miss something, and never realize it. If we have missed a major factor that would change our beginning assumptions when studying the sciences, then all we have "achieved" in explaining would be moot at best.
Another major point you haven't covered are religions that allow a wide variety of interpretations. The only religion that would go under the category of unquestioning belief would be catholicism. (well, the only "major" religion at least) All other religions split off precisely because people do not agree on the implications of their beliefs.
"For a long time – approximately since I discovered the term – I have called myself an agnostic. But the last couple of years, I have increasingly felt that agnostic is mostly a term that I used to avoid thinking it through and picking sides." This is rather offensive. Perhaps you were using the term, "agnostic" in that sense. however, many of us agnostics do not use it in that sense. The basis of agnosticism are (from your favorite source, wiki) :
"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible
to have absolute or certain knowledge of God
or gods; or, alternatively, that while
individual certainty may be possible, they
personally have no knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
You did not even begin to comprehend the principle of agnosticism if you felt you were using it to avoid taking sides. In fact, anosticism is "another" side that has been totally ignored by the major two contending sides.
Agnosticism comes from pure human logic. Humans are fallible. Therefore, while I can be pretty sure that the chair I'm sitting on exists, I can never be 100% sure that even I exist, as it may just be a delusion. While descartes' argument that one does exists(his "I think, therefore I am") is pretty convincing, it is, again, human, therefore fallible. Just by saying "If we want to be logical…", you are canceling out the point your argument, since if we are logical, we can never be sure of anything, for humans are fallible. For more explaination on the argument for and against the possibility of true human knowledge, read some of descartes's "meditations". Without bypassing this, you cannot use "logic" as an excuse for bypassing the beliefs of others.
Spock?! Is that you?! ;)
Muhahaha :)
However, Spock was a stranger to emotions. I am not. Emotions are a provable fact :)
Faith is an unfortunate side effect of intelligence.
Extremely well written. I completely agree with the lot of it, which places me in the same antitheist camp as you (which you knew), but largely it is for the same reasons.
Instead of disagreeing with you on certain parts of your article (because I don't), I'd like to add a few pertinent quotes from my favourite Sci Fi author, Arthur C. Clarke.
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.â€
Clarke’s Second Law
“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.â€
Clarke’s Third Law
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.â€
And finally:
Exactly—and I defy any of you puffed up pseudo scientists to prove or disprove anything. I must confess I have no scientific training and can only quote what I read. However I remember that the cosmic speed limit of the speed of light was established by the great physicist Isaac Newton, but has benn refuted by the latest science of Quantum physics. Quantum physics basically states there is nothing "impossible", that every and all possibilities lies latent waiting to be activated. Conscequently, whatever experiment you conduct in attempting to "prove" anything, you will be successful. But then if all experiments are 'provable", doesn't that negate all conclusions? And YES I do not accept anything that can be torn down, as Clarke stated such truths do not have any value. Quantum physics asserts "all things are possible", Yahshuah HaMaschiach (you probably call Him Jeezus) made the identical statement. He must have been really deep into physics—- Huh? And by the way he isn't a Christian, he is a Jew who taught Judaism.
Most scientists do not want to look deep into quantum physics because they say there is too much metaphysical baggage there. This most extant scientific regimen produces all the most advanced sccomplishments and modern gadgetry in our modern world. Without quantum physics which produces quantum mechanics, we would not have nuclear energy, sophisticated super computers, space travel and lasers and modern medicine and all it's complex solutions for illness and disease. Yet this same regimen says there is a "knower" in the universe, that knows what is happening in all the universe. This science does not use the term God because as I read somewhere, that's like saying everything is "up" Well boys all I can say is sump'ns "up" You call it what you want to call it and I'll call it what I want to call it. But if you are coming around selling your old bag of snake oil called 'scientific logic' or evolutionary hogwash, get real and investigate the latest science and find out what it really says. There was an old song that said "the things that they're liable to say is in the Bible—it aint necessarily so! well apply that to your smug unscientific, out dated facts and you might just experience some truth, unbiased, unslanted and unspun.
Great post. I can't wait to get home and talk face to face to you about these things again. :) But for now I'll just choose the easy way:
Yet, if we were 50 million people who had been believing it for 200 years, we would be tax exempt and many people would believe it was wrong to openly mock us.
The logical way (or American way if you like) of dealing with this would be to ban cheeseburgers from stores, censor everybody on TV that used the word cheeseburger and fine people who said it by accident as a swearword. :D
Very well written, and a pleasure to read.
I have, like you, been on the fence for quite some time mostly referring to myself as agnostic if asked. Unlike you, however, I haven't started thinking about my beliefs (or lack thereof), but this article might just get me started.
For those who understand danish I just wanted to recommend the bible blog from Politiken where Markus Rubin reads (and blogs) the bible.
Excellent post Brian, you are a very exciting writer. Your conclusions are all logical, but I have to disagree with you on a few things.
First of all, religion is essential. Karl Marx said “Religion is the opiate of the massesâ€. You’re implying that most people, without religion, would move on to secular reasoning and logic? Even after generations, this would not be the case. Most people need to believe in something. “People who believe in nothing will believe in anythingâ€. Personally, I would rather live in a society full of devout Muslims, Jews, and Catholics than a bunch of idol worshipping animal-sacrificing wackos. It’s safer for society. You say that we already have laws that govern how people interact, and how we should behave, but that isn’t enough. Even if it’s through fear, people need to believe there are more serious repercussions for murder than going to jail.
I completely agree with you on the fact that people need to constantly be questioning authority and rethinking things. Religion controlled people a lot more thoroughly in Copernicus’ time than today. There are very serious side affects to religion, but for the most part, in my opinion, religion is still very necessary.
One of the basic reasons that I believe in an omnipotent being is the fact that we have absolutely no idea where life came from, or even how life works. The Theory of Evolution, “life evolved from primordial soupâ€, spontaneous generation, is as best we have. How? Why? We can’t even fathom how a tree grows from a seed. This happens, then this is triggered, this grows, we have no idea. Chemicals? We can’t recreate it. Cells in a fetus seem to know what organs to grow into (most of the time). How? For some people, science IS their religion. You say the only difference between animals and humans is intelligence? I say the biggest difference is self-awareness. “I think therefore I amâ€. Animals don’t have that, even extremely intelligent ones. The biggest way we know is because they don’t have culture or language, and are almost purely driven by instinct.
Now…a man of faith will say it’s God’s work. A man of science will say “we will figure it outâ€. Is that not a lot of faith in science? Hey, we will figure it out?
I remember when the Big Bang Theory was “the universal explanationâ€.
I don’t believe in chance. The universe is a little too damn orderly for it to have “just happenedâ€.
When mankind has an even basic understanding of how life works (or even our own bodies), I might be wrong.
Don’t get me wrong: I am constantly re-assessing what my faith tells me, because I want to understand just as much as anyone. What I see the main difference between me and you is: I say man will never figure out life, the universe, and everything, and you say it will. I can completely respect that.
Always keep an open mind, and always explore, create, and attempt to understand. That is as essential for society as faith.
I will reply to this in stages, but let me start with these two things:
1) How is religion essential? Explain it to me with reasoning, and not with quotes from old Karl, please :)
2) I didn't not imply that people will move on to logical reasoning if they just give up faith. I am saying that I wish reasoning would take the place of faith in everyone. I realize there is next to no chance of that, but I wish it nevertheless.
Brian why is religion essential? It isn't. You can take it or leave it. Most religious groups offer invitations, if you demur they just say oh well go to hell.
3) Your quote from Karl Marx is wrong. It's "religion is the Opium of the people", opium being something that makes you a catatonic, happy zombie.
The quote is followed by these words:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."
4)
Not "most people", everyone believes in something, including me. I believe in the correctness of science and the soundness of the scientific method.
Logical thinking does not preclude to believe things, but it does give you a set of tools to test the probability of your ideas.
But no one believes in nothing, as far as I can tell, so that's a perfectly useless (and uncredited) quote.
Please enlighten me by explaining the train of logic that leads you from replacing faith with logic to animal worshippers?
And take into account that putting simplistic statements in quotes do not constitute truths that don't require supporting arguments.
Never heard that one. but "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
How good are you at biology?
Without knowing the full extent of biological and genetic science, I am fairly certain we understand how the mechanisms of life work.
You might want to read this article on abiogenesis if you care just a little bit for the topic.
Believing in an omnipotent being because there is an aspect of life that you don't have a direct and super-easy answer for is the basic mechanism that makes people believe religion.
It's so much easier than actually looking for a real answer.
Q: "Why does this book look blue to me?"
A: "Magic!"
Magic works kind of the same way – it's a much easier answer than to explain to a person how neurology and wave-physics and photons work.
But critical thinkers ask themselves: but how does magic work, then?
As far as I understand it, the arrangement of cells known as DNA serves as the basic starting point which through a series of ever-iterating processes such as mitosis create a human being.
I don't think we understand the DNA strand well enough to know the exact piece of the strand that creates what, but we some of it.
Just because we can't recreate something doesn't mean we don't understand it.
It's often because we don't have tiny little hands that can handle molecule sized objects that we can't recreate it.
As for not knowing how a seed turns into a tree, I also think we understand quite large parts of how that works.
If you are really interested in it, study biology. Maybe help find more answers.
If not and you are too lazy to seek real answers, chalk it up to magic.
If you think it's improbable that a basic repeating action with a simple set of starting parameters can turn into a human being, take a look at how a very simple equation can turn into the picture of a fractal.
It's pretty much the same thing.
Is that also proof of an omnipotent being?
Long one here:
Good point about Marx, I misused that quote. In Marx’s dream society, communism was the religion, hence why the Soviet Union wasn’t allowed to have one.
You say: “Please enlighten me by explaining the train of logic that leads you from replacing faith with logic to animal worshippers?
And take into account that putting simplistic statements in quotes do not constitute truths that don’t require supporting arguments.â€
Gladly, but this one is a more personal opinion that can’t really be proven or disproven. People need to believe something outside of themselves. Remember all those crazy cult things, and EST shit back in the seventies and eighties? After denouncing organized religion, they were so desperate to believe in something they want to Africa and committed suicide. Now, you say “I’m too smart for thatâ€, and obviously you are, but we are talking about a society here. Faith and spirituality is a crutch for many people, but that is the fault of the person, not faith. It’s like drugs. Americans want to ban drugs because it’s bad for people, but do you know the drug problems in this country because they are illegal? Unsafe drugs being sold, people OD’ing, and crazy stuff. Yes, I’m well aware I made the reference between drugs and religion; for some people, it’s the same. Allow people legal access to drugs, and the problems plummet. See my reference to cults now? Imagine a society free of religion. A lot of people will express their faith in less societal healthy ways.
And please Brian, I am trying to have a debate here the best I can. I am no expert; you know more about your side than I know about mine. I’m not even religious, but I consider myself spiritual. I am not trying to use “simplistic statementsâ€, nor am I trying to insult your credibility. I’m also not trying to cop out on supporting my claims, as you said.
You say: “Believing in an omnipotent being because there is an aspect of life that you don’t have a direct and super-easy answer for is the basic mechanism that makes people believe religion.
It’s so much easier than actually looking for a real answer.
Q: “Why does this book look blue to me?â€
A: “Magic!â€
Magic works kind of the same way – it’s a much easier answer than to explain to a person how neurology and wave-physics and photons work.
But critical thinkers ask themselves: but how does magic work, then?â€
I have a fairly good grasp of biology, and I wouldn’t call myself lazy. This is a common argument, claiming because a man has faith he is lazy, and using the magic reference. You’re implying because I believe God created life that I am incapable or unwilling of understanding science at all? The Pope himself has said he supports evolution. No answer about anything significant is ever easy. My faith is not based out of my inability to comprehend, nor kept alive by it. My faith is based on my personal experiences and spirituality. Please Brian, give me some credit here
You say: “If you think it’s improbable that a basic repeating action with a simple set of starting parameters can turn into a human being, take a look at how a very simple equation can turn into the picture of a fractal.
It’s pretty much the same thing.â€
A logical argument, but life and fractals are very different, and incomparable. Although life is full of math, it is not constrained by parameters that we completely know, because it is constantly changing and evolving, refusing to be subjugated. Life does not come from nothing. Spontaneous generation, which says life comes from nothing, does not happen, can not happen, and was dis proven hundreds of years ago. Evolution does happen: finger bones in a dolphin, etc but once again, where did life originally come from? Modern science can’t explain it. You say people will find out, I say they won’t. You skipped over my point about humans being sentient as well. Once again, people can say we are 98% the same genetic material as an ant, but we aren’t the same as ants, are we?
And remember Brian, even if you use many logical arguments based on our current knowledge of life, it still doesn’t prove you right and me wrong: there are too many unknowns.
You say: “I didn’t not imply that people will move on to logical reasoning if they just give up faith. I am saying that I wish reasoning would take the place of faith in everyone. I realize there is next to no chance of that, but I wish it nevertheless.â€
I wish people reasoned more as well, but not at the expense of all their faith. Religious crazies need a swift kick in the nuts more than anyone, due to how dangerous they are. I agree with you: faith can directly contradict reasoning, and that is very bad.
You say: “But no one believes in nothing, as far as I can tell, so that’s a perfectly useless (and uncredited) quote.â€
That quote derives, from my understanding, from the idea that most people who believe in no organized religion will turn to unhealthy expressions of spirituality. I believe it is “Those who stand for nothing will fall for anythingâ€, though, and I don’t know who originally said it. A valid point for most, in my opinion. People need a foundation and a framework. Sort of like “His mind was so open not a single thought would stay in itâ€.
You say: “As far as I understand it, the arrangement of cells known as DNA serves as the basic starting point which through a series of ever-iterating processes such as mitosis create a human being.
I don’t think we understand the DNA strand well enough to know the exact piece of the strand that creates what, but we some of it.â€
As far as I’ve heard on modern science, you are right. However, people assume DNA is a direct map, but since life is so complex, even with the map, we aren’t getting our complete desired destination. This study is still in its infancy, but I have faith that this will help prevent a lot of genetic disorders. My money is we will see good things from this.
You say: “Just because we can’t recreate something doesn’t mean we don’t understand it.
It’s often because we don’t have tiny little hands that can handle molecule sized objects that we can’t recreate it.â€
Since, once again, we have little idea how it works, tools are not the problem. We not only don’t understand it, we have no idea how to understand it yet. We are still at the infancy of this field of science, so my eyes are open.
You say: “As for not knowing how a seed turns into a tree, I also think we understand quite large parts of how that works.â€
Yes, to a limited degree, but can we recreate it? If we understand it, why can’t we recreate it? We can’t even split a seed, put it back together, and make it grow, let alone make one. Lack of tools?
You say: “If you are really interested in it, study biology. Maybe help find more answers.
If not and you are too lazy to seek real answers, chalk it up to magic.â€
I have studied some biology, and it fascinates me. I have also studied biotechnology, and loved it. I am no expert. And I will not devote my life to finding answers I don’t think mankind can find. However, I will happily and eagerly fund and donate to those who will. I think I covered the laziness factor. While I do not believe in magic, I believe in miracles. That’s another topic, for another time.
Another thing: Life, from what we understand, is a little too orderly in my opinion to all be created by chance. According to mathematics/probability, given an infinite amount of time, 20 monkeys at typewriters can type the complete works of Shakespeare, but do you honestly think that would happen?
I enjoy debating with you, and can’t wait to see you in person whenever I can come to Denmark.
Ben: (Long time, no see by the way :)
I'm not gonna write a long entry just now, but right off the bat I have a couple of comments.
You say that
However, we have yet to see the barbaric hordes of atheists wanting to crush the believers.
I don't necessarily think spirituality constitutes a cognitive need for the brain. We do need understanding of ourselves and our surroundings, but spirituality (and in particular the belief in an omnipotent being) is just one way you can choose to explain the the creation, the universe and those other mind boggling phenomena.
I still contemplating all this myself (and I don't think I'll ever stop), but I continually find myself a firm believer of science, and a non-believer of god. Still, I can feel spiritual, but I don't attribute that to anything other than the workings of that wonderfully configured cluster of particles called "my brain".
You might counter this with a claim along the lines of your former quote:
But consider this for a moment.
If you win, say, 10.000.000$ in the lottery, you'll feel incredibly lucky, and go: "Wow! What's the chance of that?! Almost second to none, and still I won".
However, to other people, the notion of someone winning a lot of money in the lottery is not uncommon. On the contrary, it's so common that you don't even give it second thought when you read about a winner in the paper.
Now, my point is this: We're the lottery winners. The incredibly lucky ones who actually possesses self-awareness because certain molecules chose to align themselves in a certain configuration that facilitates this.
We could choose to say: "This couldn't have happened by chance. There must be a god."
But to the rest of the particles in the universe, it would be: "Yeah, whatever. Happens all the time."
Rasmus! Long time indeed!
You say: “However, we have yet to see the barbaric hordes of atheists wanting to crush the believers.?I don’t necessarily think spirituality constitutes a cognitive need for the brain. We do need understanding of ourselves and our surroundings, but spirituality (and in particular the belief in an omnipotent being) is just one way you can choose to explain the the creation, the universe and those other mind boggling phenomena.â€
I agree with you. Some of the smartest people in the world are atheists (Stephen Hawkings, for one). Atheists are not going to crush people. Desperate religious freaks will. However, to cognitively arrive at the point where you and Brian are requires a great deal of time, effort, and thought. Most people will not do that, they would rather go the way of “magic†as Brian says. So, to fill that spiritual side, most people go to religion. Very few people go to science. Society needs a good balance of atheists and believers. My point is a society free of religion would be dangerous.
You say: ‘But consider this for a moment.?If you win, say, 10.000.000$ in the lottery, you’ll feel incredibly lucky, and go: “Wow! What’s the chance of that?! Almost second to none, and still I wonâ€.
However, to other people, the notion of someone winning a lot of money in the lottery is not uncommon. On the contrary, it’s so common that you don’t even give it second thought when you read about a winner in the paper.â€
This right here is one of the fundamental differences between atheists and believers. Currently, no one can be proven right or wrong. I firmly respect both sides, and am always keeping my eyes open. As Brian can tell you, I am almost obsessed with the balance between order and chaos, and that’s one of the main reasons I believe in the order imposed by an omnipotent being.
My purpose in writing these blogs is not to explain why being an atheist is right or wrong. My purpose is to show that it is just as logical to be an informed believer as it is to be a learned atheist.
And never, ever stop contemplating or thinking. It’s our intellect and desire for knowledge that have led mankind to the greatest discoveries ever.
Nice to hear from you, cheers!
Ok, finally got around to answering you, but it may only be in part (time is limited).
But communism isn't theism. It's a political stance (a flawed one that doesn't heed the inevitable greed and selfishness of some people).
You mean all the christianity-based cults and sects? No wait, that's today.
EST? I am not sure what that is.
I don't know of which case you refer, but it seems that about 95% of my friends are atheists or agnostics, of which 0% have felt like they needed to believe in something supernatural, gone to Africa and committed suicide.
I think you are confusing "desperate to believe in something" with "mentally ill".
In fact, I think you just gave another supporting argument for how irrational beliefs cause people to do stupid things.
Yes, I am too smart for that, because it sounds like religion.
I must reiterate: Your story makes absolutely no sense to me; You are seriously postulating that these were normal people who said "I won't believe in any of the accepted organized religions", and that set them on the inevitable slide to African suicideville, a slide which could only have been arrested by intelligence?
I think you are being unfair to drugs.
But seriously; apart from the fact that I agree with your sentiment on legalizing drugs, I think your conclusion is flawed and way off mark.
First of all, I am not saying I want a society without religion.
I want a society without irrational faith. There would be no faith to express in socially unhealthy ways.
People could go about their happy or not so happy lives, without the need for an invisible friend.
I know we disagree there, in that you think people can't live without faith, but seeing as I am doing it, and many other people are as well, I think there is pretty good evidence that you are wrong.
I am so glad to hear it :)
No insult was taken, and I none was intended to be given – but I don't pussyfoot around people in a debate – if you are saying stuff that I think makes no sense, I will call you on it and ask you to explain.
I think saying things like "they renounced organized religion and then they went to africa and committed suicide" is simplistic, in that it treats what I am sure it a much more complex issue in a very simple way, and was supposed to back a conclusion that I think is outright wrong.
I am no expert either, and I am also just trying to have a debate here the best I can.
I am happy that you aren't religious per se, but your description of your beliefs sound quite religious to me – belief in an omnipotent, conscious being that has designed the universe.
It is a common argument, and I do believe there is a good reason for that.
I should probably clarify that I don't mean physically lazy – I mean intellectually lazy.
My point was this; If you are unwilling to try and find a better answer than just using a blanket statement ("God did it") that fits everything, then you are intellectually lazy.
Just because it's a common argument, as you so aptly pointed out, doesn't mean it's wrong.
No, I am saying that as a rational, intelligent and critically thinking human being you should take a look at those beliefs and see if there is a better explanation than supernaturalism.
Yes, he has. After claiming something else for many years. Before that it was the universe-revolves-around-the-earth thing and so forth.
It seems to me that every time some part of the popes faith becomes to intellectually embarrassing for regular people to stomach, he secedes ground to science.
Hopefully we can chip away at it until he reverts to Spinozaism.
Not unless you care nothing about logic and proof, in which case the answer to everything is easy. Easy and wrong.
"My faith is based on my personal spirituality" is the same as "my faith is based on my faith".
So that leaves us with personal experiences.
What experiences have led you to believe in the supernatural?
I am giving you the credit that your argument deserves, plus some extra for knowing that you are an intelligent person.
If you want more credit, stay in the debate :)
How are they incomparable? They are both examples of how a simple set of starting conditions can turn into something very complex.
Even if you hold life as something supernatural, you must still know of mitosis and how we stem from a sperm cell and an egg, that through a series of reiterative actions turn into a human being.
You can argue that a human being and a fractal are different – I would agree with you there – but the mechanism how they grow from simple to complex are not unrelated.
How can you know that? The math might just be chaotic and complex far beyond the comprehension of our soft little brains.
And it what way are we trying to subjugate life?
This is just flat out wrong. The onus is on you to prove your statement.
Now I gotta go to work – I'll continue my answer later.
Modern science already have a score of explanations for it that are far more plausible than an undetectable supernatural conscience.
There are people working on it, not satisfied with the answers that are given by people who believe in mysticism, and they are making progress.
But what is sentience?
If it's self-awareness, then humans are not the only sentient beings. It seems it's the property of a sufficiently complex neocortex. So apparently the triggers for development of a neocortex is somewhere in those two percent.
And no, we aren't like ants. But what is your point in relation to sentience?
I don't want to be right or wrong. I want to become smarter. I want to point out the most glaring flaws in peoples arguments, and for people to challenge my views with rational argument and evidence.
I don't think either of us can be proven to be right or wrong, but I certainly think that one explanation has a far greater probability of being true than the other.
And as Dawkins has so often pointed out: I think belief in something should be proportional with the evidence supporting it. Which is the opposite of faith.
You say that people should reason more but that is shouldn't be at the expense of their faith. Then you Say that faith can directly contradict reasoning, which is bad.
I think it's sounds self-contradictory and a bit hypocritical to want to reason more, but not at the expense of faith.
To me, that's like saying "I want to have more peace, but not at the expense of violence".
Which is hogwash. They might also turn to no expressions of spirituality. And even if it weren't the case, it sounds like a large, rich and powerful entity making slogans for why the competition is a terrible alternative.
You will have to explain that in greater detail.
I don't see the validity. I understand it as "if you don't believe in something enough to stand up for it and stick to it, then you can be made to believe anything".
How is that true?
I think some of the people who believe in nothing are people who see a great deal of flaws with most ideologies, and therefore will not stand for any of them. These people are most likely much more critical thinkers than most.
I agree with this. It's exactly what I want – a common foundation and framework that is provably true and supported by evidence. The only kind of foundation that everyone would have to agree on, because it's based on consensus born of evidence.
I think we have far more understanding of how it works than you think.
What is it more specifically that you think we know nothing of, and will even go so far as to say "we have no idea how to understand it" about?
We can, to the best of my knowledge, produce amino acids and simple polymers. I think we are also able to create proteins.
If we had the option of using atoms or molecules like building blocks, I think we could build biomolecules soon enough.
Give it time. It took 3.5 billion years to occur naturally, and the theory of cells was formulated less than 150 years ago.
Look at what the advent of computers and super high powered microscopes and other tools progress has done for the field in just the last 50 years.
You can't possibly gain a proper understanding of a field that occurs at a scale that is out of the range of our senses without better tools.
Damn right, tools.
Explain the difference?
How is it orderly?
If you mean because everything just happens to be perfect conditions for life, then consider if maybe a water puddle might not lie in a hole in the ground and ponder the existence of a higher consciousness, because the world was created so it fit perfectly around that puddle.
Point being: Do you think we are possibly perceiving order in the environment that produced us, because it's the environment that produced us?
Seeing as the monkeys at the typewriters are a metaphor for true randomness, of course that would happen.
We are talking an infinite amount of time.
Actually, the theory is even doubly secured to succeed, seeing as it's also an infinite number of monkeys.
I could write a piece of software that generates random numbers (let's for arguments sake pretend they were truly random), and in the sequence of numbers would eventually occur my phone number.
It probably wouldn't even take a day for it to happen.
Likewise :)
How is it orderly?
If you mean because everything just happens to be perfect conditions for life, then consider if maybe a water puddle might not lie in a hole in the ground and ponder the existence of a higher consciousness, because the world was created so it fit perfectly around that puddle.
Point being: Do you think we are possibly perceiving order in the environment that produced us, because it’s the environment that produced us?
Whhops, ignore above post, typing mistake by tired hands.
Here's the real one:
Ugh, finals are taking my time away.
Okay…
You say: “But communism isn’t theism. It’s a political stance (a flawed one that doesn’t heed the inevitable greed and selfishness of some people).â€
I was making the point about believing in the ideal of communism, where all people work together for the greater good with no sense of individual gain. It requires blind following, because when people start to question it they see it is full of shit. That’s why the Soviet Union did not allow religion: they didn’t want people to believe in anything else but communism (which is both a system of government and a societal/philosophical ideal).
You say: “You mean all the christianity-based cults and sects? No wait, that’s today.
EST? I am not sure what that is.â€
No argument here. There are Christian and non-Christian based cults alike. Understand that in the eyes of religion, they are the same. That’s why the Islamic Church does not agree with what terrorists like Osama bin Laden are/were doing. Once you become a crazy cult, it doesn’t matter whether it pretends to be Christian or not (although the Christian ones are more dangerous due to their familiarity).
Lise could probably tell you more about EST. From what I know, it was this earth-natural thing of the 70’s involving “the power of the mindâ€.
You say†“I think you are confusing “desperate to believe in something†with “mentally illâ€.
In fact, I think you just gave another supporting argument for how irrational beliefs cause people to do stupid things.â€
Ah, all the more reason for organized religion to tell people what to do. I don’t see what our disagreement is here. Major, organized religions like Judiasm and Christianity do not tell people to do really dangerous things. Hence why they are safer.
You say “Yes, I am too smart for that, because it sounds like religion.
I must reiterate: Your story makes absolutely no sense to me; You are seriously postulating that these were normal people who said “I won’t believe in any of the accepted organized religionsâ€, and that set them on the inevitable slide to African suicideville, a slide which could only have been arrested by intelligence?â€
You’re right. These were not normal people. These were the people what wanted to find something more than normal, organized religion. If society were to free itself of religion, I believe this will happen. Not right away, but in time. Less than 200 years probably before we have something scarier and more dangerous than what we have currently. Mob mentality is an ugly, ugly thing. I’ve seen it happen to smart people I know (mob mentality, not the suicide thing).
Unfortunately, I can’t offhand find the Africa story. Let me look into that some more, and I’ll get back to you. It was pretty famous. Anyone know? 1980’s, it was video documented.
You say: “I think you are being unfair to drugs.
But seriously; apart from the fact that I agree with your sentiment on legalizing drugs, I think your conclusion is flawed and way off mark.
First of all, I am not saying I want a society without religion.
I want a society without irrational faith. There would be no faith to express in socially unhealthy ways.â€
How is it flawed? Also, you think all faith is irrational, from what I can tell. There is faith in people, the “spiritual sideâ€. Why do you think most people are religious? It isn’t just based on lack of knowledge. People NEED to express faith. My point here is only about religion being safer than cults. I hope you agree with this: There is a huge difference between dangerous cults and religion. It is better for a society to be following the teachings of Moses, Mohammed and Jesus than Loki, Chtulu, and other weirdoes.
You say: “I know we disagree there, in that you think people can’t live without faith, but seeing as I am doing it, and many other people are as well, I think there is pretty good evidence that you are wrong.â€
Brian, dear buddy, you and your friends are a fraction of a minority. Shit, I know people who live without sex. They are fine. Could most people live safely without fulfilling their sexual urges? Hell no. Hello, Catholic priest molesters. I am talking about a society here.
You say: “I am happy that you aren’t religious per se, but your description of your beliefs sound quite religious to me – belief in an omnipotent, conscious being that has designed the universe.â€
I am not religious. I don’t follow a doctrine or go to church. Religion is a manmade construction, a system of how people are supposed to talk to God, all about power and control. The Catholics perfected this, with the tithes, and Purgatory and whatnot. I am spiritual. I believe in a higher being, and don’t need any pastors, preachers, or Imams, to talk to Her/Him/It. It comes from entirely in me. I think some people call it the Holy Spirit in all people.
You say: “It is a common argument, and I do believe there is a good reason for that.
I should probably clarify that I don’t mean physically lazy – I mean intellectually lazy.
My point was this; If you are unwilling to try and find a better answer than just using a blanket statement (â€God did itâ€) that fits everything, then you are intellectually lazy.
Just because it’s a common argument, as you so aptly pointed out, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.â€
There will always be a disagreement here between you and me. At least we’re past the magic analogy. I have said why I believe in a higher being. Once again, you seem to think all faith is illogical.
You say: “Yes, he has. After claiming something else for many years. Before that it was the universe-revolves-around-the-earth thing and so forth.
It seems to me that every time some part of the popes faith becomes to intellectually embarrassing for regular people to stomach, he secedes ground to science.
Hopefully we can chip away at it until he reverts to Spinozaism.â€
Heh, yeah, funny isn’t it? Catholics have some WEIRD ass beliefs. I keep thinking about the “Every Sperm is Sacred†song from Meaning of Life. Those with power won’t be happy to give it up readily, that’s for sure. Thank God for the digital age.
You say: “Not unless you care nothing about logic and proof, in which case the answer to everything is easy. Easy and wrong.â€
Once again, the whole “faith is irrational†thing. It seems we will never agree. To each his own.
You say: “What experiences have led you to believe in the supernatural?â€
Well, that’ll be something for when I come to Denmark. I’ll bring my Ghostbuster’s photon gun and we’ll go hunting around Arhus for Viking ghosts. Seriously though, that’s better to talk about in person. The scene from Pulp Fiction comes to mind, when Jules leaves his life because of the miracle he witnessed. Less poignant typed, more poignant dicussed.
You say: “If you want more credit, stay in the debate :)â€
When/how did I leave it?
You say: “You can argue that a human being and a fractal are different – I would agree with you there – but the mechanism how they grow from simple to complex are not unrelated.â€
Well…what they started from is different. We don’t know what started life. Once life is created, then I can agree with you in the fractal analogy. However, you are saying here that life “just happenedâ€. It’s the core of our different beliefs.
You say: “How can you know that? The math might just be chaotic and complex far beyond the comprehension of our soft little brains.
And it what way are we trying to subjugate life?â€
I don’t know that. I believe that. Maybe you’re right Brian, maybe we just don’t know yet. My example of subjugation (although probably not the best word choice) is our attempt to control it, with stem cell research and the likes. It doesn’t want to be controlled. Man has always been fighting nature.
You say: “Modern science already have a score of explanations for it that are far more plausible than an undetectable supernatural conscience.
There are people working on it, not satisfied with the answers that are given by people who believe in mysticism, and they are making progress.â€
Really? The Big Bang Theory? The Primordial Cesspool? The comet from outer space that brought life to Earth? Maybe it makes sense to you, but not to me. Please, tell me one of these more plausible ones that you think might be right.
You say: “But what is sentience?
If it’s self-awareness, then humans are not the only sentient beings. It seems it’s the property of a sufficiently complex neocortex. So apparently the triggers for development of a neocortex is somewhere in those two percent.â€
What other beings are sentient? And yes, it might be the neocortex. Or it might be something more.
You say: “I don’t want to be right or wrong. I want to become smarter. I want to point out the most glaring flaws in peoples arguments, and for people to challenge my views with rational argument and evidence.â€
I don’t want to be right or wrong here either. What evidence? There is no evidence. And I’m doing my best with the rational arguments here, but these are arguments of belief, Brian. We’re not debating about what kind of engine to put into our Chevelle here, with numbers and stats to fall back on. This is life, the universe, and everything. All we have are theories and beliefs.
You say: “You say that people should reason more but that is shouldn’t be at the expense of their faith. Then you Say that faith can directly contradict reasoning, which is bad.â€
Again, you say faith is illogical, and I do not. We don’t agree here.
You say: “Which is hogwash. They might also turn to no expressions of spirituality. And even if it weren’t the case, it sounds like a large, rich and powerful entity making slogans for why the competition is a terrible alternative.â€
Heh, maybe. I want a mix of atheists and believers in a society; it’s good to have difference.
You say: “I agree with this. It’s exactly what I want – a common foundation and framework that is provably true and supported by evidence. The only kind of foundation that everyone would have to agree on, because it’s based on consensus born of evidence.â€
Well, it’ll be awhile before we have evidence. But don’t we have a common foundation here? (Correct if wrong)
We both agree on:
Religion can be full of crapp.
A lot of people are morons.
There is power in religion.
It’s good to be a critical thinker.
Beer tastes good.
We disagree on:
Faith is not illogical.
The universe was not created by chance.
Man will find all the answers he seeks.
So, we have some foundation. What’s your favorite beer?
You say: “We can, to the best of my knowledge, produce amino acids and simple polymers. I think we are also able to create proteins.â€
Cool, you say it’s a step toward creating life, and I say it’s not. It’s just controlling it better. Another tool.
You say: “Give it time. It took 3.5 billion years to occur naturally, and the theory of cells was formulated less than 150 years ago.
Look at what the advent of computers and super high powered microscopes and other tools progress has done for the field in just the last 50 years.
You can’t possibly gain a proper understanding of a field that occurs at a scale that is out of the range of our senses without better tools.
Damn right, tools.
You’re right about the computers, and by what you say there, neither one of us can be proven right. We’ll be wormfood by the time the answer, if any, is found.
You have your faith in mankind, science, and luck, and mine is in God. In my opinion, both are logical and rational.
You say: “Explain the difference?†(about miracles)
It’s a matter of faith, I suppose, and difficult to explain. Science can explain why an eclipse happens, but it can’t explain (better than luck or chance) why someone can be shot like 8 times and live (my neighbor’s friend in Vietnam.) You say luck, chance, I say fate, miracle.
You say: “How is it orderly?
If you mean because everything just happens to be perfect conditions for life, then consider if maybe a water puddle might not lie in a hole in the ground and ponder the existence of a higher consciousness, because the world was created so it fit perfectly around that puddle.
Point being: Do you think we are possibly perceiving order in the environment that produced us, because it’s the environment that produced us?â€
Maybe, maybe. Definitely food for thought. Either way, there’s a lot going on we don’t know about.
Brian, I feel we are going in circles here. We are arguing core beliefs, and both trying to present evidence when there really isn’t any. I consider myself a logical person, for the most part, and obviously you do too. At best we can agree to disagree. Even though, deep down, I believe you are wrong, I respect where you are coming from. Deep down, you believe I am wrong, but I don’t think you respect where I am coming from. You say it’s illogical, a cop out, and lazy to believe in God. Well, anyway, at least we can both agree it’s important to be a good person, regardless if anyone is watching or not.
Bed time for me.
Ok, you are right in that things are going in circles, so I will just cut to the heart of your argument – 3 statements:
1. You think faith is not illogical.
2. People have an intrinsic need to have faith in something higher
3. If 2 isn't true, then how come so many people believe in something?
Ad 1: Here's how the dictionary I use describes "logic", which is the sense in which I use it:
Will you, with that definition in mind, still argue that faith is not illogical?
If so, the onus is on you to provide an explanation how it is "correct or reliable inference" to infer the existence of a supernatural being from the existence of life. As we have already agreed on (I think), you can't, in the same way that I can not disprove it.
"Reliable" in this case means that it is not logical to infer A from B, if pretty much anything can be inferred from B in the same manner.
And that's the case with inferring the existence of god from the existence of life – you can infer the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster by the exact same inference, and thus it is not reliable.
If we agree on that, then you can not declare that faith is logical. And rightly so, because it isn't.
Ad 2: There is nothing that suggests that is true.
Do you think the russian wild kid who was raised by wolves had a need for belief in god? No.
Belief in god is something that is passed from person to person, from parent to child, and when no better explanation is available, then the human mind will accept that.
It's like that stupid story about how people only use 10% of their brains or that throwing rice at weddings harms birds – they are bits of misinformation that people think are cool, and so they spread them.
Richard Dawkins coined the concept of a "meme" – an information-based virus.
Faith in god is such a virus.
Ad 3. If being a nazi was wrong, then how come so many people were?
Because many people can be just as stupid as individuals, and as you mention yourself, mob-mentality is an ugly thing.
The number of people believing in something wrong doesn't make it true. Logical truth is not a democratic process. If you want a truth susceptible to the whim of the masses, you are looking for truthiness, not truth.
If it makes your life easier to believe in something and everyone else is doing it, many humans (especially the dumber ones) will just go along with it. That is your explanation.
I don't really care what you say to points 2 and 3 if you can't bother answering, but I care a lot about you understanding that your use of the the word "logic" is wrong.
Good argument.
You have just clearly explained to me why you believe faith is illogical. But the words correct and reliable are completely open to interpretation. Some schizophrenics have no doubt that they hear voices, but are they wrong? It seems to me that those words are too vague, because what’s correct and reliable can vary so much, individual to individual. And if we are going by majority rules here, most people do believe in God, so the onus would be on you atheists to disprove it, and currently, it is.
Definition number two for logic is: a particular method of reasoning or argumentation. Still sounds open to interpretation to me, since we all have our own particular method. And we are certainly debating, aren’t we?
You say: “Do you think the russian wild kid who was raised by wolves had a need for belief in god? No.â€
You’re right. Neither do animals. The kid also couldn’t talk or think like a human, and probably had no human conscience. There have been similar cases with children chained in basements not growing up like people. Many psychologists believe that only through interaction with other humans can babies grow up to be completely mentally developed. Now, is it because humans pass on the knowledge of God to others that faith is perpetuated? Or is faith (or even questioning faith) simply a byproduct of a well-developed mind? Once again, we don’t know. So, your point about the Russian boy is illogical to me, but obviously not to you.
You say: “Faith in god is such a virus.â€
It certainly can be. A bold statement, and that’s what you believe. I could also say atheism is a virus, spreading among people who have experienced tremendous hardships. Most atheists I know only became atheists after something truly awful happened to them, and frankly, I don’t blame them. I hope nothing horrible has happened to you, because if so, hug
You say: “The number of people believing in something wrong doesn’t make it true.â€
I say that in most cases the number of people who do believe make it true. It’s like the schizophrenic’s voices; we say they are imaginary because we can’t hear them. We all have our own realities. Conspiracy theorists love to say that the fact there is no evidence is evidence in itself. It certainly can be, but for the most part they are wrong. At least I hope so.
If enough people believe in something, it doesn’t matter if it’s wrong, it becomes right by majority rules. That’s how the world works, always worked, and always will work. All the more reason for people to be believing in safe religion.
Yes, if they claim the voices are coming from anything but their mind, they are.
And when I talk about correct, I am talking about "based on observable fact".
Vague?
Correct: "free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth".
Reliable: "that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information."
There, definitions out of the way, let's not waste time with semantics.
I don't care that there are other meanings beneath these definitions, as these are the meanings with which I am familiar, and apparently also the authors of the dictionary.
Majority rules when talking about fact?! What are you talking about?
I don't know if we are having language problems here, but fact is not something that is majority-decides. Fact is proved by other facts, and so forth until you reach axioms.
Can you get a stone to fall upward if you get all the religious people in the states to vote for it? Can you boil water at 10 degrees celsius?
No, you can't. Because gravity makes the stone fall towards the ground, and water boils at 100 degrees celcius. These things are facts, and facts are not susceptible to democracy.
The fact that you suggest something so ludicrous makes me doubt whether we are speaking the same language or if we are on the same planet.
First of all, let me express my disdain that you are wasting time making this into a discussion of semantics.
The more distinct definition of the word is the one I chose, and so choosing one that is less distinct to interpret it to your use is, in my eyes, a facile waste of time.
My point was exactly that humans only develop fully when interacting with and learning from other humans, and it's interesting to see that many things like morals and faith don't seem to be inherent in a human – something that goes against the "it is intrinsic to our nature" argument.
And that it's illogical to you doesn't mean much to me, since you seem to have your own definition of the word.
And I think the fact that atheism is strongly statistically correlated to intelligence makes your "faith is a property of a fully developed mind" argument rather unlikely.
Or do you think that some 90% of the scientific community (that has ultimately been responsible for the healthy and technologically enabled life you live today) have undeveloped minds?
Is it possible that the opposite might be true?
Yes, something horrible happened to me – I grew up in a home were I wasn't taught that it is a virtue to believe things that have no logical (the distinct english definition, not yours) merit.
It's funny you should say that about atheists, because all the atheists I know – and there are quite a few, because I hardly have a friend who is not – are intelligent people who simply saw that faith was a snake eating it's own tail and decided that it was an irrational waste of time. Not a single one of them became atheists due to anything more traumatic than being flabbergasted at seeing religious people doing and saying insane things.
On the other hand, every single religious person I have ever met in real life and discussed it with, either became religious because they were raised by religious parents, or because something seriously terrible happened to them, like serious illness. I have not met a single well adjusted adult who just became religious because they thought that it was missing in their lives.
I am not saying there are none, I am saying I have met none that I am aware of in my 28 years of life.
I think this is a pointless branch of discussion as long as we are speaking from personal experience and not from something a little more general and useful.
I try to be as respectful as I can here, but there is no other way I can put this: In the context of this discussion, that is a load of horseshit; You are pulling out schizophrenics and conspiracy theorists as your supporting argument for your "truth is a democracy" and "reality is subjective" argument?
In my eyes, you have – in the course of your comments here – gone from making wild assertions with quotes, to arguing logically, to arguing semantics to being abstrusely deconstructionistic.
I am beginning think you are not trying to have an discussion with me any longer, but merely trying to muddy the argument to the point where we drop it.
If that's what you are attempting, then fine, we can drop it.
I don't see much point in debating something like science vs religion and then attempt to make it a debate about semantics and competing philosophical views of realism. If we can't even agree on a consensual reality, and your arguments go back to that, then this debate is utterly pointless in my eyes.
Wow. If you reread that sentence and decide you really believe that, then you are so far beyond the scope of my logic that it's just ridiculous.
That's right out there with the people who want to teach creationism instead of evolution in the schools.
Let me see if I can put this succinctly:
The concepts of "Fact" and "truth" are not susceptible to the majority rule.
None of the definitions you can find for those words in the dictionary even come close to being interpretable as being susceptible to a vote, unless you want to waste some time with some relativistic maneuvering and start discussing metaphysics and the meaning of the word "real".
If that's your game, then you are – in my personal reality – incapable of having a useful discussion about the original topic, and I suggest we drop it, no hard feelings.
If not, either write me up a dictionary how your language works, and I'll try to discuss these things with you using your words, or get on board with mine.
Your move :)
You’re right, unfortunately this can’t continue too much more.
You say: “And when I talk about correct, I am talking about “based on factâ€.â€
First of all, you seem to claim belief in God as illogical a fact, so I won’t go there. There are no facts to back up belief vs. atheism. That’s what this is about.
You say: “I don’t know if we are having language problems here, but fact is not something that is majority-decides. Fact is proved by other facts, and so forth until you reach axioms.
Are you in doubt about the validity of this?
Can you get a stone to fall upward if you get all the religious people in the states to vote for it? Can you boil water at 10 degrees celsius?â€
Fact is definitely something the majority decides if it can’t be easily disproven. That’s why theories have to be tested multiple times by many people before they become accepted as facts. No, you certainly can’t get a stone to fall upward because it can be easily disproven. I’m talking about stuff that is beyond human knowledge at this point, like the proof of existence of a higher being.
Once again, it seems to be in a situation like this, majority rules. I don’t like it, but how is it not true? Don’t most people take the existence of god as a fact? I think they kinda have to be religious.
You say: “First of all, let me express my disdain that you are wasting time making this into a discussion of semantics.â€
You brought it up, not me, remember?
You say: “The more distinct definition of the word is the one I chose, and so choosing one that is less distinct to interpret it to your use is, in my eyes, a facile waste of time.â€
I’m sorry you don’t like the definition I chose, and I’m sorry the English language is limited in its word choice so that we can’t use different words. But I am using a true-blue Webster definition of the word whether you like it or not. It’s not my personal definition or interpretation. You use the definition that supports your argument more, and I use the one that supports mine more.
You say: “And I think the fact that atheism is strongly statistically correlated to intelligence makes your “faith is a property of a fully developed mind†argument rather unlikely.â€
True, that is food for thought. By your argument, fist in the order of intelligence are animals, then people who are believers, and then finally those who elevate themselves to non-believers. I can’t disagree with you here, for the most part. I made the point about the developed mind in both accepting faith and questioning it as a point of higher thought, nothing more.
You say: “It’s funny you should say that about atheists, because all the atheists I know – and there are quite a few, because I hardly have a friend who is not – are intelligent people who simply saw that faith was a snake eating it’s own tail and decided that it was an irrational waste of time. Not a single one of them became atheists due to anything more traumatic than being flabbergasted at seeing religious people doing and saying insane things.â€
I believe you. I said from my experience, what I saw was true. And religious people do crazy crapp. Hence why I am not religious.
You say: “I am not saying there are none, I am saying I have met none that I am aware of in my 28 years of life.â€
I agree, religion is a siren song, and a crutch to many. People for the most part believe what they are raised to believe.
You say: “I try to be as respectful as I can here, but there is no other way I can put this: That is a load of horseshit; You are pulling out schizophrenics and conspiracy theorists as your supporting argument for your “truth is a democracy†and “reality is an individual thing†argument?â€
It certainly is for religion, isn’t it? That’s all I am talking about here, not simple science like gravity.
You say: “Wow. If you reread that sentence and decide you really believe that, then you are so far beyond the scope of my logic that it’s just ridiculous.
That’s right out there with the people who want to teach creationism instead of evolution in the schools.â€
Brian, I don’t like it. It’s what I believe. It’s scary. When something can’t be disproven, that happens, whether we want it to or not. Those people who were burned in the Salem Witch Trials were taken to be witches as a fact. It didn’t matter it was horeshit. That’s why it scares me.
You say: “The concepts of “Fact†and “truth†are not susceptible to the majority rule.â€
Once again, stuff like faith, beliefs, and reincarnation sure seem to be. I don’t like it. I hate most religion. I hate “One Nation, Under God†added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950’s. I hate people telling me I am a sinner. I hate people shouting the “word of God†at students on campus all day. It pisses me off. That doesn’t mean I don’t realize that this stuff is controlled by the masses. The only thing, and I mean only thing, I like about safe organized religion is that it keeps people in check and controlled. Look at my below comment from 11/28. Tell me, please, that you realize that all this stuff is controlled by what people want to believe since there are currently no facts to support or disprove it? Facts are independent of truths: in the Middle Ages, it was a fact that the world was flat. I should have more clearly articulated that it becomes true and right to most people, so the rest of us are silenced by them.
You say: “If that’s your game, then you are – in my personal reality – incapable of having a useful discussion about the original topic, and I suggest we drop it, no hard feelings.â€
I am dropping it; because we can’t agree even to disagree. You’re personal beliefs stem from faith being illogical, and mine don’t. Normally, I don’t bother with these debates about things that can’t be proven. You may think it’s because I’m stupid and lazy, and that’s fine. But I like you Brian, you’re a smart guy, I’ve always looked up to your style of thinking. I respect the extremely well written and thoughtful original post you did, and you’re probably the first true atheist I’ve ever attempted to seriously debate about this. Every single person has told me that this would be pointless, and I agree.
You say: “If not, either write me up a dictionary how your language works, and I’ll try to discuss these things with you using your words, or get on board with mine.â€
I don’t know if that’s a personal attack, or an extremely sarcastic remark (limits of compuer mediated communication), but all I will say is my definitions of words have been just as authentic as yours. Either way, peace. If one of us is proven right in our lifetime, the other one has to buy the drinks.
No, there are no facts to either prove or disprove the existence of a god, I agree with you.
No, that is not fact. That is opinion or conjecture.
First you say that something can become fact if it's not easily disproved, then that it needs to be tested (proven) multiple times before they become fact.
One of these statements is correct, and the other is a misunderstanding of the word "fact".
This is a main point in this discussion:
A fact is not a fact because many people construe it as such and it's hard to prove it's opposite.
A fact is a fact because it is supported by evidence.
That a large number of people are calling their opinion fact does not make it so. It's a misnomer.
But this can not be discussed as fact, only as conjecture or theory, since there is no evidence one way or the other.
Yes, they do in the USA. That does not make it a fact. A fact is something that is supported by evidence.
It's also not a fact that god does not exist, it's just a theory. In my eyes, it's a theory that is supported by a lot more rational arguments than the oppositions, but it's still not a fact.
Yes, I brought it up because you are using words like logical about faith, which I believe to be categorically wrong.
I think that finding a weak definition of a word that has a stronger definition and then bending it to it's opposite through deconstructionism is something very different from clarifying ones stand by providing word definitions.
There are plenty of words to use about faith, but choosing ones that are the antithesis of faith, and then argue they are not incompatible on semantic grounds is certainly not because the language is limited.
Yes it is. You purposefully took a weaker definition so it would be open to your interpretation.
I think you are missing the point. I don't want to support my argument on semantic grounds. I had to because you would not concede the use of the word that traditionally is used for "inference without the element of faith". Then what am I supposed to do?
Frankly, I don't care if we use "logical" or invent a new word like "antifaithy", I am just trying to make it clear what my opinion is.
I don't believe I mentioned animals, and I didn't make that conclusion either.
That would be warping the meaning of the statistics, since that would mean that people would become more intelligent by becoming atheists.
The only thing I can conclude is that it seems that the smarter people are, the less apt they are to believe religion.
I agree with you there, but in my eyes, the only thing that enables religion is faith.
Religion has nothing to do with fact. See above explanation, and please stop using a word like "truth" or "fact" about things that are not absolute in our common frame of reference – that is confusing. If "fact" is the same as "majority opinion", then what do you call something that is an irrevocable and unquestionable fact, like the presence of gravity on earth?
Yes, but they were not in fact witches. They were not. They were thought to be witches.
If you don't reserve "fact" for something that is unquestionably true, then please teach me with a better word that is impervious majority rule in your eyes.
I am sorry to bring the cultural thing into this, but I think this tendency to view majority opinion as fact is a social plague on the states.
Please don't fall prey to using the incorrect terminology of the crazy enemy. By accepting their tenet that "fact" is what the majority believes, you are lending credibility to their crazy arguments, and I have a hard time believing that is what you want.
No, because faith, beliefs and reincarnation have nothing to do with "truth" or "fact". They are ideas or theories if you will. They are not backed by truth or fact, and neither is the non-existence of them.
But in it does it by planting the seeds of "not questioning certain things is a virtue" in the minds of those it controls, and so it is a volatile way to control anyone. Eventually they might turn on you, and nothing you can say will change their minds.
And while it might arguably keep people safe and controlled inside their little community, it does anything but when their religious circle, so certain in the infallibility of their beliefs clashes with another such circle, equally certain of the infallibility of their beliefs.
Even today, that is the most prominent reason I see to why wars aren't ended. Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, etc.
I am sure that when the first priests convinced these people of the righteousness of their beliefs, it created some kind of order – but then I am also familiar with the fact that you actually do get warmer from pissing your pants for the first few minutes.
But neither are viable long term solutions to peaceful coexistence.
I don't quite understand that in the context of your 11/28 comment.
No, it was not a fact. They thought it was a fact to the best of their knowledge, but that doesn't make it a fact. When it was proven that the world was not fact, it was clear that it had never been fact.
I get your point, but I think that explaining it by claiming that fact is altered by opinion is wildly misleading, and doesn't lend clarity to your argument.
Why not? I find that one often touches upon many interesting concepts that start thoughts.
If nothing else, it hones your ability to debate.
No, I actually don't. I think you are intelligent, but wrong.
And there is still a big distinction between intellectually lazy and just lazy.
Thank you, I like you too :)
I think it's a pity that you think it's a waste of time. I find it is an interesting debate, except when it turns into a semantic argument.
I find it invigorates the thought process to discuss this stuff, however little agreement we end up finding.
If you enter a debate with the expectation that either side will reverse their stand because of that debate, then most debates are futile.
But I have found that over the years, debating other fundamentally incompatible world views, such as socialism vs capitalism, that in the course of hundreds of hours of debating, your thoughts change and expand on the subject. They may just veer a few degrees of their original course, but that's still not pointless, if you ask me.
Rome was not built in one day :)
It was neither. It was an attempt at quelling the semantic aspect of the argument, because I find it fruitless.
Trying to convince your opponent in debate that their standpoint is actually yours by attempting to change the meaning of the words they are using is a marvelously useless way to debate – the opponents intentions do not change, even if you manage to win a victory of semantics. The only thing is does is to waste time, because every argument made with the word that is changed now has to be revisited and rephrased in new words.
The only purpose to a semantic sidestep in a debate is clarification of either party's meaning. It is least confusing for everyone if people use the same set of word definitions; my argument was merely that I didn't give a crap whether we use the English words in the precise way that I construe them (and still construe them), or the way you construe them, as long as we both are clear on what I mean when I use a certain word.
Always :)
Deal ;)
BTW, I just want to add that I hate religion to be forced at me just as much as anyone. A side effect of being American. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Like most things, it’s up to the individual.
Excellent piece Brian.
"Many atheists I have talked to, completely rule out the possibility of any force that isn’t already known. That science has the answers to everything."
I don't know any atheists who would match that description.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is the belief that it is unknowable whether or not any gods exist. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, in fact, most atheists are agnostic regarding a deist god, as such a god is by definition unknowable.
The common usage of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" has distorted their definitions to the point that many think they are disjoint sets.
Granted, if you view a dictionary as descriptive, rather than prescriptive, (and in the long run) maybe the words have been perverted to the point that new words are needed for the old definitions.
Still, ask most atheists who have had a lot of discussions with other atheists, have read a lot on the subject, and they will at least be familiar with the definitions I've given.
I was doing a search for css experiments and somehow from a link on another site came upon your blog. You sound very intelligent and thoughtful, but I was sadden that none of the Christians that you had talked to gave you any sort of proof for a Creator or for Christ. For me, Christianity is the easiest to believe, I don't believe blindly and I don't think I have allot of faith either. I don't think faith means blindly believing in whatever, but more it's a trust in an Omniscient Being larger than yourself on a daily basis.
I'd like to point you in the direction of an interesting book I think you would find to be an insightful read. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (Strobel, Lee) Here's a link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310241448/ref=pd_sbs_b_2/202-1038277-0083811
It's written from a scientific point-of-view.
One thing that I agreed with in your blog was this statement "Just because many people believe something to be right, it doesn’t make it right." This is true and why I know you are seeking for the truth and will look until you've found sufficient proof to either change your mind or stay where you are. I wouldn't change my mind either if there wasn't solid evidence to fall back on.
I think of myself as an intelligent scientific mind and yes I do think that God creates the snowflake fractals, as well as all the other beauty we see around us. I believe that the genetic structure of DNA actually directly points to a creator! I think that we as humans can only begin to gasp at what God is. I believe that God is in all things, yes He is a person but He's also something else, He's not human- the Bible says He's light and love . . . I personally think that He is what holds everything in this universe together. He is not bound by the logical rules he has set up but he chooses to do what he wants, he isn't logical by the reasoning that we as "man" would reason, but by the reasoning of a True God. This is why it's impossible for us to understand why certain things are allowed to happen, etc. . .
I really hope you have an open mind or at least a curious one to get Lee's book just to see what evidence you may be overlooking.
In Love,
Jen
Allright. Then you'll have to explain to me, in context of the following quotes, what blind belief actually is.
I'd like to ask you why, but I think i know. You think that something that mindblowingly practical and advanced couldn't have evolved by chance. Well, suppose I actually bought into that explanation. How is it then, that the complexity of DNA points toward the creator that YOU believe in?
1. When debating the existence of god, please don't use bible-quotes.
2. IF there had been a god, AND he had created mankind, he would in his omnipotency of course know about the human susceptibility for interpretation. Don't you think that he would have chosen a more precise way to distribute his word that in a book? I mean, was it ever gods intention that people should fight for centuries over the interpretation of "his word"?
What a moral cop-out. Why does all christians grab at straws to explain the hideous happenings of the world, in term of gods "will"?
Please don't use the word evidence. This suggests that there exists a completely logical and rational train of thought that proves the existence of god, and anybody has yet to show that.
I will answer in full later, but I just want to interject that the "don't use bible quotes" is not just a preference, but rather to avoid wasting time on a classical logical fallacy called "circular reasoning".
Jen, there are a lot of books by Christian apologists who claim to be scientific, and I was hoping this wasn't one of them. It would be interesting to see a load of intelligent arguments.
But it only took a rather rudimentary look around the internet to see that this books has been picked to pieces already, and that it presents no new thoughts in the debate.
It's a bunch of interviews with other christian apologists, without the counterbalance of neutral points of view. It's also mostly based on the historical validity of Jesus, and that is something I am pretty uninterested in.
I am fairly open to the idea that Jesus did in fact exist, and that he probably had some nice parlor tricks in his act, but ultimately, I think that historical arguments for christianity are only useful as a counterarguments to claims such as that Jesus never existed.
Considering how hard it is to remember what I ate last week, I have absolutely no trust in the fine-grained accuracy of 2000 year old historical claims.
For example, I don't believe for a second that the story of Jesus walking on water can be proved by proving the historical validity of the claim this long time after the fact.
If I come across it, I'll take a look at it, but seeing as there is a preponderance of evidence that it is the usual claptrap, I am loath to drop money on it.
That's such a long article that I just couldn't manage it all, but i got half way and would have to say that you make a couple of wrong turns (possibly) in my humble view. First that the differentiator between humans and animals is intelligence when morality is way more telling on the human condition and that if you disbelieve in God that he does not exist, it works that way with Santa (maybe) but not necessarily with God. Think aliens.
Faith also has almost no correlation with doctrine although it can have. By the same token though, faith can have a correlation with porridge, barns and the meaning of Jupiter.
My own view (like you were interested) is that you've overthought this one. The universe is a system, there are physics and metaphysics that we can understand about the system, others are beyond us; doesn't mean they're not there (much like your view on the value of science).
Some people call the bit we don't yet grasp about the system (and other bits that we do even) 'God'.
No worries :) I wrote it mostly for myself.
But morality is – in my eyes – a set of thoughts that I would roughly translate into "a sense of the bigger picture", and something we can choose to ignore, which many people seem to do.
Intelligence is a property of human existence to a much greater degree than morality. In fact, I think morality might stem from intelligence – the ability to see a larger and more abstract picture, and glean from it the necessity in a system of morals.
This argument makes no sense.
You argue that there is a difference between Santa and God?
How so? Isn't it obvious from my article that their existences are equally credible to me?
I am going to assume that you mean the dictionary meaning of "correlation", because otherwise I think your statement could quite easily be refuted through statistics.
As for the meaning of the argument with the word in it's meaning of "mutual relation", I am going to guess that you mean that they don't correspond exactly.
If that is so, I agree. I don't believe I stated otherwise.
You are entitled to your view, but you'll excuse me if this doesn't cause me great despair coming from someone who didn't bother to read the entire article :)
Well, that's commonly referred to as "Spinoza's God" (which I find a slightly strange fit, but I've seen it used more than once), and if that's your belief, then we are not really arguing theism, but rather semantics; If you wan't to slap the name "god" onto the big pile of science as yet unknown to us, then fine, we can agree there is "god".
But we could also call it "Susan" and agree there is a Susan. Or Brahma. Or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But that's hardly what most religious people would construe as "faith" and "god".
200 years ago we'ed likely be mocked at the very least, 500 years ago we would likely be tortured and put to death!
well done Brian, I've been an atheist since, well since I can remember nothing else made sense.
Okay, all that is mostly fair enough, however, I wasn't making the points because I am saying that there is a god, I am just saying that by your own deduction you cannot know. Science does not help you prove God, therefore he may not exist, therefore he may also. You're right to say that it doesn't matter what you call it, and Dawkins calls it a flying spaghetti monster with logical eloquence, but I think your argument is as unproveable as any other (Dawkins included). Which doesn't make it wrong, just unproveable.
I think the most interesting point in your rebuttal is your idea that morality stems from intelligence, is it not therefore a refinement and evolution of intelligence? Apes have intelligence (relative to beetles), but they don't have morality (relative to beetles). They might be taught to not indulge in immoral behaviours but only through training not an innate sense of right and wrong. (I guess you could argue something similar for humans though, but we learn the rightness of things and can apply them out of context, apes can't). But regardless, morality ought to therefore be closer to the quality of God than mere intelligence. You don't have to be clever to be moral, quite the opposite arguably.
Now God and Santa cannot be equally credible to you (well they might be to you, but to anyone?) Santa can be disproved because he is an invention (provably so). God is not definitively an invention, nor are aliens, but a flying spaghetti monster is.
None of that 'proves' God either, but nothing you say disproves God, you are simply saying that you choose to not believe.
And that of course is absolutely correct. I actually like your definition, it is quite possibly a needed categorisation.
No, that is true. As has been said over and over by a million atheists before me.
But I can look at the things I hold to be self-evident truths, and then extrapolate from that. The problem is, I can't do that with god in any conceivable way, other than "because a lot of people say so", and does simply not constitute any kind of supporting evidence towards a higher probability.
So I am not denying that there in any way could be a god. I am just saying that I find it as probable as there being a Santa or Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.
As has been stated and restated (which you are probably familiar with, since you know of the teapot and FSM), lack of proof to the contrary does not constitute proof.
There is absolutely nothing in this universe that I can not come up with a more plausible explanation for than there being a god, ergo I find theism to be completely arbitrary.
True. But as the flying spaghetti monster so clearly illustrates, this is true for any ridiculous, random idea I might come up with, if I craft these ideas with defies-proof in mind.
Is morality not a refinement of intelligence? No, I believe they are not related.
Morals are a set of rules. Intelligence is the ability to perceive patterns and predict outcomes based on these patterns (according to the most credible and promising theories on human intelligence). They are unrelated.
What I am arguing is not that morality is derived from intelligence, but that the way intelligence functions, together with the general idea of evolution, is probably the reason why it's ultimately biologically a good idea for humans to be moral.
if you want me to elaborate on this, I will be more than happy to.
That is because our neocortex is more complicated and larger, and therefore we are able to grasp ever more abstract patterns.
This is pretty much what you are measuring when you typically measure IQ - the ability to look at a bunch of examples, and then grasp what the organizing principle is, and then apply that principle to find the right solution.
So the big difference between a dumber – but still sentient – creature is, that while the dumb creature can predict that when something comes at it fast, it should dodge to avoid pain, humans can predict from what a person is wearing that this person might be serious trouble and totally avoid crossing paths with that person.
That is a much, much more complicated and abstract reasoning than merely reacting to a direct stimuli.
This is where you made a leap in your argument that I absolutely can not follow.
It sounds to me like you think that a more refined evolutionary concept is closer to the quality of god? So god is the pinnacle of evolution? or what?
I don't understand, please elaborate.
How do you know definitively that the spaghetti monster is an invention? Because it's silly? Because the creators of it have admitted to creating it?
How is that proof? The spaghetti monster could just be planting these creators to test your faith.
Santa could be doing the same.
I do see your point – but the only difference between the two is that the concept of god is a very old imaginary concept that many people became convinced of long time before scientific explanations became widespread, and the flying spaghetti monster is something that most people are aware popped up on the internet a few years ago.
But then replace Santa with Thor or Athene.
Are they also reasonable objects of faith?
Because here I see absolutely no distinction; like with the case of the christian god, these mythical gods have their origins completely obscured by the passage of time.
I never meant to disprove god. It's not up to me to disprove god, it's up to the people who believe in him to prove that it's a reasonable thing to believe in.
If they can't, I find it reprehensible that people base entire nations politics on it. Be it in the middle east or in north America.
Thank you :)
I am a little confused about your stand on the matter, but maybe you will care to enlighten me?
Hi again Brian. I read this last night and didn't reply straight away because I wanted to do it some justice, so I've been chewing it over since then (and sleeping of course). I think one of the strongest impressions that comes out of our discussion is that you are a much more rigorous thinker than I and more stringent too. Personally, I trust my feelings much more than I trust my thoughts (or I try to), my thoughts are maybe a little neglected :)
First of all, I really want to say that I don't think you are wrong. I mostly agree with much of your reasoning (and very good reasoning it is too), where I differ is in your conclusions.
Nasradim is sitting in his house when a neighbor comes and asks if he can borrow his donkey. Now Nasradim did not want to loan out his donkey, so he said, "I'm very sorry, but I loaned out my donkey yesterday." The neighbour, much disappointed, leaves the house. At that point, the donkey brayed in the barn. His neighbor, believing he has caught him in a lie, says, "Then what is that I hear in the barn?" And Nasradim replies, "Friend, are you going to believe me or a donkey?"
I like this story because it cuts both ways. What it tells us is that there is a tendency to believe the ideas about things instead of the direct experience. Now you tell me that you have extrapolated from 'self-evident truths' that God does not exist. Which truths are these? There is no evidence for a God? No tangible, measurable thing that can prove him?
What about love? By your logic, love is also impossible to prove. It is not measurable or evident: like God it is just an idea, and from that you can extrapolate the idea that acts of love (as with acts of faith) are essentially meaningless in that they are only perpetrated by believers.
My own experience has taught me something about this. I loved Dawkins when I read watchmaker at university because he validated my non-belief. It all began to fit together very neatly for me, the biology of evolution, the non-wasteful, streamlined beauty of it, suddenly the idea of God seemed faintly ludicrous. Why was it necessary? Everything worked fine without it.
True.
But maybe, we are just not seeing beyond the remit of our own experience. I pretty much closed off from any idea of God – even that sounds grand – I simply began to reconcile myself to the sense that all of life was that which I could see, touch, and understand.
But I cannot even begin to think that way now, Which isn't to say either that I am a God-fearing soul nowadays. I think that perhaps we are trying to rationalise something that is just too arcane. Take synchronicity as an example. Synchronicity is something that I never experienced as a scientist. That is, when I was completely self-assured in my non-belief in all things unscientific, I was never aware of synchronicity. At best I would note the occasional mild coincidence which I could then explain as the minds tendency to seek order, so I would just 'notice' correlations and parallels from time to time. But nothing more.
All that has changed since I changed. I cannot really say how it is that I changed but I just became aware in myself of a possibility, and rather than chasing it away as I would have done once, I listened to it a little.
This is very difficult, I envy your clarity of explanation here, so bear with me please.
Now synchronicity is almost an affliction in my life. Here is one example. One of my favourite stories is Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian trilogy. I know, it's probably junk, but I'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to such things and I have always liked good adventure stories. I bought the first paperback 'The Winter King' on Amazon, thinking it sounded interesting. I read it in about 3 days (pretty good going for someone with a job, a wife and 2 children) and was just desperate to have the next instalment, so I went back on Amazon only to find that part 2 'Enemy of God' was out of stock. Same everywhere else, I couldn't find the book anywhere. That same day, I walked down to the village (where I lived at the time) to get some food at the shop and there, sitting in the window of the Charity shop in our village was 'Enemy of God'.
Okay, an odd and fortuitous coincidence. No big deal. Suffice to say that these three books have become one of my favourite trilogies of recent years. I am also a collector of modern first editions so I would have loved to own these three books and add them to my collection, but they would cost probably more than £100 to buy, so I live without them.
A few days ago, I was thinking about these books because my son, who is now 13 has just read them and he really enjoyed them also. He had literally finished the third volume 'Excalibur' the day before. I was in Ashford collecting a parcel and thought that as Christmas was just around the corner, I should buy him a new book to read.
Just as I thought that, I caught something out of the corner of my eye. There, in the window of a charity shop were the first 2 volumes of the Cornwell trilogy, 'The Winter King' and 'Enemy of God'. Both hardbacks in great condition. Now you must understand that I have never even seen these books for sale except in paperback before, so I was really amazed, I had just been thinking about them at that moment, and before you think about a subconscious trigger I was round the corner from the shop when this train of thought began and could not see the shop window at all. I went into the shop and sure enough they were the two first edition copies for £2.50 each. I could not believe the luck and strangeness of it. I guess it was only a pity that the third part 'Excalibur' was not there, but hey! It was still fantastic for me.
Two days ago, I was in Maidstone and I was walking along again and well, you know what I am going to say don't you. Yes.
There was 'Excalibur' in a shop window. First edition hardback for sale for £2.50.
It is so strange (and inconsequential too) that you probably do not believe me, but I swear it is the truth.
Now I believe that the universe is a mechanism, it is supremely intricate and we are interacting with it all the time, maybe in ways we do not even perceive. I know that synchronicity is the waymarkers of the path within the universe, and when we take heed of those markers, they appear ever more frequently. I know it is true, not because it is just an idea that I have, because I have taken notice of the experience of it. I believe in it, because it has happened to me. I love my wife also and that is how I know that love exists too. The understanding is not dissimilar.
Now as to the idea of God or flying spaghetti monsters.
Right now, you can go somewhere, it doesn't really matter where but one of the choices you can make is whether you walk, drive a Volvo or catch the train. All of the experiences you will undergo to get where you want to be will be fundamentally different depending on which method you choose. What remains is that you will arrive at the same place. It doesn't matter that you call this wonderful and unproveable mechanism God, or Allah, or Odin, or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all are talking about the same thing, their destination is the same. Actually, your grasp of the mechanism is irrelevant; once you have experienced it you will know it is there, and you will feel it, like love, in your heart.
Now I know that in the absence of that direct experience, this discussion is just an abstraction and that you probably think I am a nut :)
I also see that this falls somewhere at the edge of your logic so it does not necessarily discount what you say, which is why I did not try to disprove your argument. I have had some strange experiences recently myself and I could tell you war stories all day, none of which would likely convince you of anything except my increasingly confirmed nut-status, but for me, that is all I know.
Lastly, do I think that God is the pinnacle of evolution? No, because I do not believe in God in that way. I believe in the underlying, underpinning and overarching magic of the mechanism, the one that ensures that our moral and spiritual evolution as a species, as an entity and as an individual is the only issue of relevance in all of creation. We can only strive to become what we are, there is no ideal; but I do think that our innate morality is one of the more obvious parts of our constitution that resonates most easily with the higher vibration (if you like) of the mechanism. By listening to our conscience, we become more in tune with the Universe.
Jezza, I am going to answer this soon – I just want to be able to take the time I need to give it a proper answer. Very good comment, thanks.
Good comment Jezza. This argument about a higher being is entirely about beliefs and feelings, and Brian and I have been debating it logically (well, to the best of my ability anyway, Brian is more researched than me).
I like your point about love, very good analogy.
Jezza says: “I have had some strange experiences recently myself and I could tell you war stories all day, none of which would likely convince you of anything except my increasingly confirmed nut-status, but for me, that is all I know.â€
Jezza, I am right there with you. I have had some strange experiences too, ones that could be potentially disastrous, but thankfully didn’t, like the several times I have avoided car accidents imply by a feeling I couldn’t describe. It is really hard to quantify. To me, you’re not a nut. And you certainly aren’t alone.
It’s like trying to explain love to someone who has never felt it.
Thank you.
I think philosophy and later science is the attempt to get beyond the limitations of methods of thought that are less rigorous and (for science) formalized.
I don't think it's an inherent trait in people to think rigorously, so it takes some practice – I find that debate is a good way to get that practice.
I get the opposite meaning from that story: The guy tells him the donkey isn't there (the idea) but he hears the donkey braying (direct experience), and then he doubts the idea.
This is what science is about – if someone tells you something and you find contradictory evidence, then maybe what you are told is wrong; investigate further.
I have not extrapolated proof that god does not exist. I have simply extrapolated other explanations that are much less far fetched. I have observed there is a complete lack of evidence for his existence.
Since there is no evidence for his existence, and since I can very easily conjure up an explanation for why people arrived at the idea of a god in the first place, and why it's being perpetuated – all in terms of science and observable tendencies in human nature and human cognitive processes – I simply choose to believe the much more likely explanation, which is the non-existence.
Actually, love is measurable and directly observable.
When in love, your body produces high levels of dopamine and there is unique observable neurological activity in the brain.
Check out Wikipedia as a starting point, if you are interested.
Apart from that, it's also very easy to observe when you are in love. The fact that I believe in it is because I have experienced in, as has most other people.
The feeling is there, and it's name is "love". I am experiencing the emotion, and I am using the label for it.
There is no mysticism in that. It's a psychological and physical phenomenon, like many other emotions.
There's also the fact that I am experiencing it directly. It's not something I believe because I heard someone tell of it, who had the story from his friend who heard that a guy felt it 2000 years ago.
Were you raised by religious parents, since your non belief needed validation?
Do you live in the states?
Sounds like you had it right. Except for the word "faintly".
Can you see, touch and understand gravity? Electromagnetic force? Quantum physics?
I am quite reconciled with the fact that there are a lot of things my brain can not directly understand, because it evolved without a direct and constant presence of the abstract knowledge of these things.
That true. You had it right. It's what a brain does; finds patterns.
I think that is interesting, because it tells me a lot more about human cognitive function that it does about how science closed you off from synchronicity.
To me, your example is exactly like the age old (danish?) adage about how you never notice mailboxes until you are looking for them.
(In Denmark they are bright red and mounted in torso height all over the place, so it's quite remarkable).
When you start focusing on something, it becomes clearer and other things fade away.
It's also the exact thing that allows people to fool themselves when they are at a psychic – they notice all the good guesses and ignore the bad guesses.
I think it's for reasons like this that people have sought to create objective ways of evaluating things like this – like statistics.
The human mind is simply to susceptible to trick itself into believing whatever it wants to believe.
Even scientists who are aware of it have had the problem to such a degree that they developed double blind testing.
I agree with this sentiment.
Here you lost me – you believe there is a "path within the universe"?
As for the "take heed" ... "more frequently", that is the exact effect I was describing earlier.
I have, for example, noticed that I have a tendency to look at the clock at exactly 13:37 or 13:38 almost every day.
It has happened to me hundreds of times, but I can easily think of explanations that do not involve supreme beings or a higher meaning.
I totally disagree.
The fact that you know love exists, is because it is an emotion you have directly experienced, and there is absolutely no need for interpretation on what it means or is. It's just a label you put on a certain emotion.
Synchronicity, however, is not something you have experienced directly – rather you have experienced a number of different experiences you have had, and then gleaned from them, some higher organizing principle.
There is a world of difference. One is direct experience, the other is interpretation with other possible explanations.
I have a wonderful feeling in my head – it's intellectual honesty, and an understanding of logic and the scientific method. It's also a bit of knowledge about how the brain and human thought processes works.
No, I don't think you are a nut. Honestly, I think that either from the society you live in or your parents or both, you have been imposed with the idea that there is a hole in you, that only some kind of belief in "something bigger" can fill.
What I don't understand is how you could from really understanding science, to having some kind of non-rational faith again, unless you had faith to begin with, or was taught that it was a virtue when you grew up.
I must say, though, that what you explain to me is exceptionally close to not conflicting with my view of the world, except for the "path within the universe" but, which sounds like an idea of a higher purpose to me.
I am somewhat with you there, except I would never call that "god". I would call that "fundamental natural forces".
I also wouldn't call it magic :)
This is were we part ways, I think. I don't think we have an innate morality in any way that does not ultimately stem from our need to survive and be comfortable.
You seem to think there is a "higher ideal" or something like that, and I don't believe that.
Sounds very new agey, I think.
I think you are ultimately kind of a spinozaist, and that is reasonably compatible with my world view, except it uses a different terminology and is somewhat less rigorous and formalized than the one I subscribe to.
Thank you for your comment.
Okay, now you have me a little scared :)
I feel that way because what you say is so rational and reasonable, and of course, it could be exactly as you say and my understanding of the universe is as fragile as you might expect for one who does not have the army of scientists backing him up!
I don't doubt for one minute that your world is equally full of wonder as my own, but I cannot help but suspect that it is a little less bright and welcoming. I do often wonder in the midst of these discussion where we will end up. It seems that the questions that science seeks to answer become increasingly fundamental and so we think we have 'solved' everything and we don't need to wonder so much anymore. It's a shame in my view, and none of it makes me wonder any the less. When the sun shines on my face, I understand why it feels the way it does, I understand about the waveforms and so forth, but I know that it has nothing to do with the physics that makes it feel so good to me, it's because I am connected with it.
Now then, I want to take issue with your explanation about love, because what you are talking about are the observable physiological effects of love on the human organism. You are not remotely 'measuring love' when you observe these phenomena, you cannot tell from those measurements how deep that love is, how profound or how long it has been in evidence. Similarly, if you were to take the same measurements from someone in a state of religious ecstasy, you could not 'measure faith' either, but by your (irrefutable) logic, this same quantification actually proves faith, if your measurements can 'prove' love. In fact, I might go so far to say that I rest my case because you have just proved faith for me ;)
I wasn't brought up in a religious household, indeed my stepfather is a reknowned and eminent evolutionist, one of the top men in his field in the world and he believes in God too, I have argued against the concept with him in the past too and he seemed to give my thoughts little weight overall, although he understood and respected my views. I find myself understanding exactly his stance now, but I also was convinced of my own position before. I am not sure there is – or ever will be – a right answer to this discussionbecause ultimately it is all about choice, and choice is informed by experience, our experiences lead us to different conclusions is all.
Finally, I think the one area in which we do disagree almost wholly is in the idea of morality. I believe that it is innate and it serves a function beyond the simple expedience of societical integration; I think it is our one true spiritual sense, unlike touch or sight which is almost wholly material.
The reason I believe in morality so deeply is because we have a term for those people in whom it is broken: we call them psychopaths (or sociopaths in the US). For everyone who isn't "broken" it is innate, but ultimately in a material sense those people who listen to it less are often likely to experience success more readily; whereas those who listen to it more often have material difficulty and spiritual wholeness (in my experience). This is why it is a spiritual sense primarily.
I cannot quantify it of course, but I am convinced that at some level you will agree?
It took me a while, but I finally got around to answering :)
I don't feel that anyone backing me up is what makes me have the strength of my convictions, but rather that I can look at the world and get to my conclusions without having to conjure up improbable beings or events anywhere along the line. And others that seem to have the same stance towards not kidding themselves seem to come to the same conclusions as me.
Well, I guess it's that age old philosophical condundrum: Do we see blue the same way. I can't really know, but I find the world plenty bright and welcoming, and cannot help but suspect that the world is clearer to me :)
I rarely do. It usually ends up with people still disagreeing, and someone bowing out of the discussion.
What I usually wonder, is whether my effort made even a little bit of difference. I sometimes think it does.
Science has not solved everything by a long shot. Any person claiming it has is as irrational as a religious person.
There are still many things to wonder about.
That said, I can't understand this tendency to revel in mystery to such a degree that you willfully want to avoid investigating them. I really don't.
Why is it a pity if we really solve all the fundamental mysteries?
Why do people think, that because the cause of something is known, it is somehow less magnificent?
When I watch Penn and Teller pull of some awesome trick, I know it's fake, but that doesn't make me enjoy it less.
That I love my girlfriend feels no less significant or bleaker because I know it's a bunch of neurochemical reactions.
In the words of Douglas Adams:
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Again, I can't help but wonder why you feel the need to impose some supernatural meaning on the sun shining on your face to justify it feeling good?
Isn't it enough that it does?
No, because that is entirely subjective. You might be able to get an idea of how overpowering that feeling is from the amount of neurological activity, though.
And whether or not you believe you are measuring love is a question of whether you believe that there is some kind of "soul" or similar non-physical entity causing these neurological reactions, or if they are all there is.
I believe the neurological activity is causing the feeling, while a theist would attribute this to some otherworldly entity.
I find it interesting that and orgasm or happiness can be triggered through chemicals or electrical impulses, if things such as ecstasy (the feeling, not the drug) and happiness are really caused by an supernatural entity.
The question has never been whether faith exists. I see hard proof of that every day. I am in absolutely no doubt of the existence of faith. If I was, it would be absurd to claim it is harmful to the world.
I, of course, think there is a right answer, or I wouldn't declare myself an antitheist :)
I think that intellectual honesty, logic and rigorous thought is somewhat universal. Plenty of philosophers throughout the ages have come to this conclusion.
I find that the people who believe in fairies are usually the people who don't choose to filter their input through their common sense. They are people who revel in mysteries, because they feel they need that mystery to think that the world is not a bleak place.
I can't begin to claim that I understand that mindset. To me, filtering things through common sense and looking at them sceptically is not really a choice. I can't choose to believe something I do not truly believe.
Then how do you explain that this same "god-given" moralistic behavior can be found in animals?
Or do you think that monkeys also possess spirituality?
I think the biggest flaw with this reasoning is that you define success materialistically, which is very typical for people of the western world.
Sociopaths might be wealthy, but if you take your definition of success and replace it with a broader and more biologically minded definition, you will find that these broken people have a very big lack of success: They do not have a flock that want to watch their backs, they likely do not have a mate that is happy and want to procreate with them, and they will likely die miserable and alone.
I am sorry, but absolutely will not :)
I have still never heard a convincing argument that morals should come from anything but a need for survival as a species.
I also think that the observation of many of the traits we define as moralistic are documented in other non-human species, blows that argument out of the water.
jezza re your synchronicity.
Interesting interpretation of fate, for example had your visit been at a different time and presumably only one or none of the titles were available would that also have some significant meaning. I rather think this is equivalent to getting in my car and say picking up an item from the shop, observing all the way that I get a clear run and manage every green light, I don't consider that providence but simply chance. In your expectation of finding the books of your desire meant others were disappointed that their desired books what ever title and author or combination there of, were not available.
Just and observation
"Interesting interpretation of fate, for example had your visit been at a different time and presumably only one or none of the titles were available would that also have some significant meaning."
No, I don't think so, I don't really understand that whole argument. The idea of synchronicity (which isn't my idea at all) has to happen to be considered synchronous, thus if the books weren't there then of course there would be nothing synchronous to remark on.
I think this is similar to saying 'would it still be considered blue if it were some other colour?' I would suggest that you read the preceding discussion because I think I already stated the difference with coincidence. Maybe not, shall I expand on that?
Brian, I am looking forward to your thoughts :)
Ben, thank you, I am delighted to have company in the land of the mad people ;P
I didn't mention it before but I thought that this line:
"If I believed that there is an interstellar army right behind the sun, which is just waiting for the trillionth cheeseburger to be eaten before they attack the earth, I would probably be medicated."
Was unutterably superb and it really had me institches. What a perfectly expressed supposition, really brilliant.
Sorry Jezza, I don't see the comparison to a colour being called anything as opposed to a chance sequence of events. a colour is a colour call it what ever its spectral density defines it and that is all there is to it. A "colour" is a label we use to communicate the concept of light with a specific spectral density without a visible reference.
No, I don’t think so, I don’t really understand that whole argument. The idea of synchronicity (which isn’t my idea at all) has to happen to be considered synchronous, thus if the books weren’t there then of course there would be nothing synchronous to remark on.
That's my point, like planets lining up other then it doesn't happen often (relative in human terms) its notable because it happens, but it just happens.
Morality now there is a topic, you say people who do not conform are broken or psychopaths. I'm not sure this is the same concept. Morality is an accepted set of rules or standards of behaviour as I understand it. Now my point here is "accepted". In history whilst cultures explored further a field they were confronted with social behaviour that was considered against their accepted moral standards however these cultures behaviours where perfectly accepted by the cultures adhering to them, hence the conflicting views, given the situation who is right and who is wrong?
We tend to be very judgemental and self righteous in our views on morality and social behaviour I wonder what civilizations thought when they were being invaded and having external law, religion and moral practices imposed on them by force practices that may well have been unthinkable to those cultures.
Robert
PS sorry about the bold thing with the text