Why do I bother? I don't believe a word of it, and yet I am fascinated by it. I witness apparently rational and intelligent humans willingly suspend reality and chose to find truth and meaning in comforting myths. Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' is more consistent and plausible than most of the Holy books, and yet it does not have the pedigree. Seems age and 'otherworldliness' is more compelling, even though there is so little worthwhile in those Holy books other than restatements of Humanist truths and ways to lead one's life, dressed up in a supernatural cloak - I guess that offers a stronger reason for some to obey the ethical imperatives outlined therein.
More than that: they acquire faith that these myths are real, and that there is an unknowable creator and overseer who must be worshipped, even though worshipping appears to be a placebo that offers no tangible benefits except to reserve a place in a mythical yet comforting state of eternal bliss.
I keep thinking that I must be missing some vital part of the picture. I do not choose not to believe as if I had the option to believe. I used to believe, but that was out of laziness and a desire (even a necessity) to conform. Now, as every year passes, I become yet more certain that all organised religions promote a myth that satisfies people's desires to lead, or be led, for some purpose that cannot be disproved - for the very reason that is is irrational and outside all that we know within the natural Universe.
Is it more of a kind of club to give hope to the dispossessed or superstitious, and to allow religious leaders to earn a living away from the squalid reality of the shop floor or salesroom, whilst making a virtue out of frugality.
And as science increasingly removes mystery, there seems to be an ever growing desire by ultra-religious people to find scientific proofs for things that neither need nor warrant scientific proofs. If you believe in a supernatural force able to defy the natural laws why is it important to find natural proofs for events? At its most barmy are searches for the Ark and the creationist museums, but even the more sane and rational believers indulge in finding proofs for the existence of God. It staggers me that intelligent people still quote Aquinas or Descartes in support of God's existence, even though their proofs have since been conclusively destroyed by generations of philosophers.
I am trying to imagine a World without any religion at all - No beliefs by any human in anything but what is real, what is tangible and provable. I'm reminded of that old aphorism, "If there was no God we would have to invent one" Which is what I think we've done - or rather different groups have invented or adapted
different Gods, to better suit their environment or culture. As an outsider to religion it seems so very obvious that religion is very much man-made, but will we ever convince those who rely on their faith to make their lives bearable and to give them meaning? I doubt it. Whilst we do not teach humanist ethics and morality to children, and whilst we allow adults to keep indoctrinating their children in their own faith it will not go away. So instead we have to accept that religion will always be with us, like rain - in turns a life giving and a destructive force. I guess we are all somewhere on the scale of sanity/madness. Seems to me
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Friday, 14 January 2011
What is an 'Innocent'?
I've noticed that when Catholics want to appeal to the emotions with regard to abortion or similar topics they frequently use terms such as 'slaughter of the innocents' and other phrases including the word 'innocent'.
I really don't get it. If one's fundamental position is that all life is sacred, and it is only God who has the right to give and to take life, why should it matter whether the person is an 'innocent' or not? Is it less bad to kill a person who has committed a sin?
It seems to me that so much of the Catholic way of thinking is based on emotion rather than reason, and yet many take great pride in stating that they embrace reason. Conversely they accuse those who relinquish their faith of being guilty of pride.
This morning I was reading the blog of the Archdiocese of Washington. To an outsider these people appear to be so wrapped up in their narrow view of life that they have lost touch with what it is to be truly human. In one thread they repeatedly assert that someone who has relinquished his faith must have done so out of ignorance, and they all say they will pray for him. I guess that's a charitable thought, but do please keep your prayers for someone who appreciates them.
I really don't get it. If one's fundamental position is that all life is sacred, and it is only God who has the right to give and to take life, why should it matter whether the person is an 'innocent' or not? Is it less bad to kill a person who has committed a sin?
It seems to me that so much of the Catholic way of thinking is based on emotion rather than reason, and yet many take great pride in stating that they embrace reason. Conversely they accuse those who relinquish their faith of being guilty of pride.
This morning I was reading the blog of the Archdiocese of Washington. To an outsider these people appear to be so wrapped up in their narrow view of life that they have lost touch with what it is to be truly human. In one thread they repeatedly assert that someone who has relinquished his faith must have done so out of ignorance, and they all say they will pray for him. I guess that's a charitable thought, but do please keep your prayers for someone who appreciates them.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Are those who accept religious teaching really insane?
I guess one should really define first what insanity is. Maybe it really is just an alternative version of sanity. After all, if the majority do something which I regard as insane, then maybe I'm the one who's insane.
So let's say insanity is an affliction possessed by those who do not appear to conform to norms that I and those like me agree are correct. In that case, believers of religious doctrine are indeed insane. Why would anyone turn logic on its head in order to comply with something written in an alien culture thousands of years ago by people who hadn't the first clue why things were the way they were, and so invented reasons that made a kind of sense if one had no better alternatives - producing stories that were so outlandish that people thought they must be correct, on the basis that no sane person could possibly have imagined them whilst temporarily delusional as a result of eating the wrong mushrooms. (Pauses to take a breath...)
Surely to cling to ideas such as these which are so very far past their sell by date is a form of self delusion, by people who would prefer to believe comforting fiction than face uncomfortable fact. Crazy!
Or is it just me that's crazy? And does it matter? Ho hum....
So let's say insanity is an affliction possessed by those who do not appear to conform to norms that I and those like me agree are correct. In that case, believers of religious doctrine are indeed insane. Why would anyone turn logic on its head in order to comply with something written in an alien culture thousands of years ago by people who hadn't the first clue why things were the way they were, and so invented reasons that made a kind of sense if one had no better alternatives - producing stories that were so outlandish that people thought they must be correct, on the basis that no sane person could possibly have imagined them whilst temporarily delusional as a result of eating the wrong mushrooms. (Pauses to take a breath...)
Surely to cling to ideas such as these which are so very far past their sell by date is a form of self delusion, by people who would prefer to believe comforting fiction than face uncomfortable fact. Crazy!
Or is it just me that's crazy? And does it matter? Ho hum....
Monday, 10 January 2011
Religious people read religious blogs. Atheists read atheist blogs. Why?
I've been reading a blog written by a devout Catholic. She writes well and provides much fascinating food for thought. But those submitting comments are almost exclusively her fans, telling her how wonderful she is. Am I so unusual in wanting to get involved in blogs by people with whom I do not agree? -- not as a heckler or someone who writes very rude childish comments, but as someone who is genuinely interested in understanding a very different point of view, and politely putting forward an alternative one.
It's a little worrying that so many bloggers swim in their own cosy circle of admirers, who hang on their every word. Surely it is only by being challenged that we are forced to confront our doubts, and we come out of the exchange either confirmed in our beliefs or able to modify them in the light of new information or arguments.
It's a little worrying that so many bloggers swim in their own cosy circle of admirers, who hang on their every word. Surely it is only by being challenged that we are forced to confront our doubts, and we come out of the exchange either confirmed in our beliefs or able to modify them in the light of new information or arguments.
No Random Coincidence? Or Wishful Thinking?
A comment on a Catholic Blog about the apparent intervention of God in subtle ways:
I have experienced this in my life in so many ways! I can’t even begin to tell you. One story I’ll share—though my eyes are welling up with tears at this very moment. My first husband died in a hunting accident--during the deer hunt here in Utah, after we had been married 15 years. At his funeral my friend’s daughter played the music to the country western song, “The Dance”.
Anyway, many years later, I was at an outside Jazz concert being held at Deer Valley Resort, when the jazz band said they usually don’t play country western, but they wanted to play this song tonight and proceeded to play “The Dance”. As I looked up to the mountainside, a huge buck watched through the forest at all of us gathered there. I was at that concert with my new husband, we had just gotten married. Any guesses where...right there at that resort looking over that mountainside. To me that was a wonderful message from what is a very thin veil between here and the afterlife. We’ve gone on to have a son who was born on September 2nd, the same birthday as my 1st husband’s nephew—his namesake, Daniel. You’re right, no event, when lived in faith, is random or meaningless.
If Internet accounts are representative, then so much of Christian witness seems to revolve around superstition; and finding meaning in the most tenuous connections. Surely what this really illustrates is humans' amazing ability to find patterns in things around them, and their fondness to ascribe meaning where there is none. I presume that this is comforting and that it gives people a sense of purpose, but that does not mean that their assumptions are correct.
But is this really just harmless nonsense? Maybe it is. And maybe if it provides people with comfort then who am I to disillusion them? My concern is that this mindset leads on to other unsound connections and conclusions which may indeed be harmful. Is it not better to base our decisions and our actions on reality rather than on wishful thinking?
I have experienced this in my life in so many ways! I can’t even begin to tell you. One story I’ll share—though my eyes are welling up with tears at this very moment. My first husband died in a hunting accident--during the deer hunt here in Utah, after we had been married 15 years. At his funeral my friend’s daughter played the music to the country western song, “The Dance”.
Anyway, many years later, I was at an outside Jazz concert being held at Deer Valley Resort, when the jazz band said they usually don’t play country western, but they wanted to play this song tonight and proceeded to play “The Dance”. As I looked up to the mountainside, a huge buck watched through the forest at all of us gathered there. I was at that concert with my new husband, we had just gotten married. Any guesses where...right there at that resort looking over that mountainside. To me that was a wonderful message from what is a very thin veil between here and the afterlife. We’ve gone on to have a son who was born on September 2nd, the same birthday as my 1st husband’s nephew—his namesake, Daniel. You’re right, no event, when lived in faith, is random or meaningless.
If Internet accounts are representative, then so much of Christian witness seems to revolve around superstition; and finding meaning in the most tenuous connections. Surely what this really illustrates is humans' amazing ability to find patterns in things around them, and their fondness to ascribe meaning where there is none. I presume that this is comforting and that it gives people a sense of purpose, but that does not mean that their assumptions are correct.
But is this really just harmless nonsense? Maybe it is. And maybe if it provides people with comfort then who am I to disillusion them? My concern is that this mindset leads on to other unsound connections and conclusions which may indeed be harmful. Is it not better to base our decisions and our actions on reality rather than on wishful thinking?
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Theocracy is bad news!
An article caught my attention on the BBC website today:
Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab. Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public. It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.
The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law. The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging. The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia. Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991. The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.
This is appalling. Christians may say that this is a consequence of Islamic teaching and would not apply to a Christian theocracy. But in a Christian theocracy it's likely that such things as homosexulaity would be outlawed despite being something that is innate in some people, and people's right to choose in many aspects of their lives would be significantly curtailed.
Theocracy is bad news, however and wherever it may occur.
Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab. Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public. It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.
The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law. The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging. The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia. Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991. The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.
This is appalling. Christians may say that this is a consequence of Islamic teaching and would not apply to a Christian theocracy. But in a Christian theocracy it's likely that such things as homosexulaity would be outlawed despite being something that is innate in some people, and people's right to choose in many aspects of their lives would be significantly curtailed.
Theocracy is bad news, however and wherever it may occur.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
“I stood in Venice, on the Bridge of Sighs; / A palace and a prison on each hand.”
I was reminded by an item on the radio of Byron's works. It reminded me of the alliteration Byron uses with Palace/Prison that so impressed me many years ago. So many thoughts, dreams and ideas contained in just this one brief combination of ideas. Sublime!
Is it possible to be a romantic and not to believe in anything outside the natural World? I think our minds play tricks on us all the time, and we imagine that there are greater forces at work because we simply do not understand our own minds. But is that such a surprise? It would perhaps be even more strange if we could understand fully how our minds work. Hmm...
Is it possible to be a romantic and not to believe in anything outside the natural World? I think our minds play tricks on us all the time, and we imagine that there are greater forces at work because we simply do not understand our own minds. But is that such a surprise? It would perhaps be even more strange if we could understand fully how our minds work. Hmm...
Sunday, 2 January 2011
There is no God?
Recently I've been thinking again about ways that Humanists and Believers can accommodate each others' views, and live side by side, disagreeing but respecting their differing view on the fundamental reasons for our existence.
For a long time I've tried to accommodate the views of believers, based on that aphorism that I can no more disprove the existence of God than a believer can prove God's existence. I thought I understood religion and chose to reject it on the probability of evidence, and because I found rational explanations so convincing. But recently I've been trying to really understand religious motivation in a lot more depth, half hoping that I might find something there that would provide a better reason for intelligent believers to believe.
I have to say that I have failed to find anything. On the contrary, religion seems all the more ridiculous the more I study it. I presume religion is still ingrained into the human psyche as a by-product of the evolutionary need to find meaning in everything. I suppose that if one makes that leap of faith and accepts religion as being valid and wants it to be a core part of ones life, then it is relatively easy to find 'truths' that reinforce and augment that desire. One has only to read many of the blogs that deeply devout people write to witness how they convince themselves at every stage that they are doing the right thing, often relying on hugely partial 'evidence' and ignoring or explaining away that which does not fit their chosen narrative.
Is that aphorism really valid at all though? Is belief in a supernatural entity just an idea on a spectrum somewhere between belief in the celestial tea pot and belief in the laws of physics? And isn't it really quite a long way towards the celestial tea pot? If so, then am I acting morally in doing nothing to try to stop people leading their whole lives believing, and sometimes ruining them as a result?
To a believer this may sound extremely arrogant. I would prefer to think that it was an honest statement of how I feel about this. As ever, my thoughts are very much work in progress. I record them for future reference. I wonder how I will feel about this in 6 months time.
For a long time I've tried to accommodate the views of believers, based on that aphorism that I can no more disprove the existence of God than a believer can prove God's existence. I thought I understood religion and chose to reject it on the probability of evidence, and because I found rational explanations so convincing. But recently I've been trying to really understand religious motivation in a lot more depth, half hoping that I might find something there that would provide a better reason for intelligent believers to believe.
I have to say that I have failed to find anything. On the contrary, religion seems all the more ridiculous the more I study it. I presume religion is still ingrained into the human psyche as a by-product of the evolutionary need to find meaning in everything. I suppose that if one makes that leap of faith and accepts religion as being valid and wants it to be a core part of ones life, then it is relatively easy to find 'truths' that reinforce and augment that desire. One has only to read many of the blogs that deeply devout people write to witness how they convince themselves at every stage that they are doing the right thing, often relying on hugely partial 'evidence' and ignoring or explaining away that which does not fit their chosen narrative.
Is that aphorism really valid at all though? Is belief in a supernatural entity just an idea on a spectrum somewhere between belief in the celestial tea pot and belief in the laws of physics? And isn't it really quite a long way towards the celestial tea pot? If so, then am I acting morally in doing nothing to try to stop people leading their whole lives believing, and sometimes ruining them as a result?
To a believer this may sound extremely arrogant. I would prefer to think that it was an honest statement of how I feel about this. As ever, my thoughts are very much work in progress. I record them for future reference. I wonder how I will feel about this in 6 months time.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Is Morality from God or Man
It's the first day of 2011, and like many other people I'm making New Year's Resolutions. This year amongst other things I'm going to raise £1,000 for my local Air Ambulance. This is the figure I chose because they calculated it costs £1,000 for each life saved by the Air Ambulance.
It's obvious from the fact that I'm an Atheist what I think about what informs our morality, but why would I want to do something altruistic like this that has no direct material benefit to me?
As a Humanist I feel a sense of empathy with my fellow humans, and I want to live in a society where we care for and look out for those who need help. And one day I may need help myself. If we lead by example while we have the power to do so, then there is perhaps a greater chance that when we need help someone will do the same for us. I've noticed that as we get older we tend to get more altruistic and we tend to do more to help other people. Is it because having dependent Children 'conditions' us to care for others, and having experienced our share of knocks in life we can understand how we all need to help each other to get through life? I'm constantly amazed when I'm out collecting for the Air Ambulance how pensioners are so often the most generous, and how young men are invariably the least generous. Perhaps it is only as we get older that we begin to realise our corporate responsibility for our fellow humans.
Altruism is a sign of civilisation and is an evolutionary social attribute to increase our future chances of survival. Hooray for us humans! :-)
It's obvious from the fact that I'm an Atheist what I think about what informs our morality, but why would I want to do something altruistic like this that has no direct material benefit to me?
As a Humanist I feel a sense of empathy with my fellow humans, and I want to live in a society where we care for and look out for those who need help. And one day I may need help myself. If we lead by example while we have the power to do so, then there is perhaps a greater chance that when we need help someone will do the same for us. I've noticed that as we get older we tend to get more altruistic and we tend to do more to help other people. Is it because having dependent Children 'conditions' us to care for others, and having experienced our share of knocks in life we can understand how we all need to help each other to get through life? I'm constantly amazed when I'm out collecting for the Air Ambulance how pensioners are so often the most generous, and how young men are invariably the least generous. Perhaps it is only as we get older that we begin to realise our corporate responsibility for our fellow humans.
Altruism is a sign of civilisation and is an evolutionary social attribute to increase our future chances of survival. Hooray for us humans! :-)
Friday, 31 December 2010
"...A God who is but a reflection of human frailty"
An interesting quote I came across, attributed to Albert Einstein, in a column for the New York Times Nov 9, 1930:: “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.”
I've always found the worship of God a strange thing to do. I did not choose to be created, and I have only very limited control over my destiny. Why would God expect my praise for His creation? Why would he want it?
I've always found the worship of God a strange thing to do. I did not choose to be created, and I have only very limited control over my destiny. Why would God expect my praise for His creation? Why would he want it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
