John Zande’s post is a brilliant work of satire that shows the problems of trying to match the state of our universe to the existence of an omni-benevolent god. Definitely worth a read.
If we found a bomb concealed in a children’s kindergarten, primed and set to detonate when it would wreak the greatest possible carnage, we would reasonably assume that someone vicious and vile – someone evil – had designed the device and had purposefully put it there maximise suffering. How much more reasonable must it be for the impartial observer to then attribute the world as we know it to a vicious and vile, non-contingent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnimalevolentdesigner? Is this not, after all, the most likely explanation for the world before us?
Who else but a perfectly malevolent being would arrange for the enormous suffering present and guaranteed in our perilously thin, blisteringly violent biosphere? Think of the pain and destruction wrought by earthquakes, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, famines and disease. Would a benevolent designer have made provision for…
View original post 1,104 more words
Finding Truth 
@Black Ops Mikey,
“It was clear to me that they were violating the Second Commandment but since they excised that one in favor of doubling up on Lust at the end of the list”
C’mon, Mikey, if you’re going to call us out for the sneaky tricks we pull you might as well get the details right! We doubled up on “covetousness” at the end of the list. We’ve been able to sexually frustrate billions of women and men without needing more than one anti-lust commandment. If we had two there wouldn’t be any challenge to it at all!
I’ll give as elaborate a response to your comment as you want; but the basic problem here, as always, is literalism. I’m not saying that Catholics are any less prone to literalism than anybody else, literalism is a human failing; but if you actually want to have a fruitful discussion on these points you have to disregard the comments of the literalist Catholics, the literalist Protestants and the literalist Atheists.
Is this even making sense to you?
This morning, after Mass, I walked toward the altar, made the sign of the cross, and bowed before the huge crucifix that hangs in the most conspicuous part of the sanctuary. After that, I knelt in front of the golden tabernacle where we keep the consecrated bread that’s used during communion. Did I violate the prohibition against idolatry? The proper answer is, “You don’t know if I committed idolatry or not because I haven’t told you enough about what was going on.” The walk, the bow, the touching of head and chest and shoulders, the kneeling, the genuflecting — those are only external manifestations of what actually happened in that moment.
If you really think that everyone who bows before a religious statue is committing idolatry and every one who refrains from such demonstrations of piety is avoiding idolatry, your understanding of idolatry is very, very, very superficial.
Let’s us both try to do some thinking about what idolatry actually is, how it is manifested in contemporary society, and why it ought to be prohibited.
Arguments over superficial details get really boring really quick.
Paul
LikeLike
Yes, I was right the first time… Catholics are clueless. When I was in High School in a free period between accounting and typing class taught by Sister Loyola, I took the opportunity to inspect the Catholic Encyclopedia in the library. I found that eventually the Catholic church apologized to Galileo — 400 years after he died, of course — we wouldn’t want to rush these things (no such apology was issued to Bruno as near as I can tell). For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church didn’t know the earth was not the center of the universe and resisted science with all their might because… well, because… um, you know, I don’t know. And remember the Bible was a banned book until the 20th Century. Clueless. Catholics are clueless.
This blog posting reminds me of The Onion with their satire article on “God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder”:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-diagnosed-with-bipolar-disorder,348/
I think we do have an explanation: A binary God! Yes, friends, there are two Gods in One (even if the Scripture says “Hear O Israel, God is one God”). There is that nasty Old Testament retentive God, throwing a hissy fit (or worse) at the slightest provocation and then there’s Jesus — a kind, nice sort of easy going fellow, except of course, when he’s throwing money changers out of the Temple. See — that’s the solution to this dilemma. Of course, the Catholics and a lot (I mean a LOT) of Protestants change things up with 3 Gods in One with the Trinity, but while I understand binary, octal and hexadecimal, I’m not much for base 3 systems, and, besides, the Holy Spirit isn’t very interesting as a personality — it’s not like we know His favorite color or what restaurant to take Him to if He shows up (but, thankfully, no one, but no one has ever seen him, not even in the pages of Revelation which talks about both God The Father AND Jesus as being real personalities with a body and everything [Jesus has a beard — important for you guys out there who are going to be his bride and need to prepare for the first evening of the honeymoon]).
But wait!
The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the Rock — the God of the Old Testament — is really Jesus! Isn’t that confusing? The Father only really makes ‘an appearance’ in the New Testament to be portrayed by Jesus, who is the very first to bring us the news that there are really two Gods — him and the Father. And not to worry — the Church is the mother, but given the Inquisition, I’m thinking that if Mother is the Catholic Church, she’s not a very good mother.
Say, you know, maybe the problem isn’t so much with God as it is with religions which are speaking for God — the Inquisition, death to the infidel — that sort of thing. Maybe these religions invented god and then puts the whole thing on him (or her / it) when things gangs aftly with persecutions and purges. Yes, yes, there are ‘natural disasters’ (of the which liberals say Global Warming — if it exists — we brought on ourselves, so how can it be a ‘natural’ disaster as opposed to a man-made one), but the Apostle Paul explains that all away by saying “Time and chance happen to all”, clearly violating the spirit of the thing for insurance companies which do not insure against ‘Acts of God’.
Hey, now!
We can’t ignore Satan in all this. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, unless it’s a genetic based poison that only acts on the male of the species. Satan is free will gone wrong, at least according to the theory, and he’s (it’s? Satan isn’t supposed to be able to have sex, which may explain why he is so cranky) the one who’s the source of most, if not all, of our problems. You see, like this healing thing: The disease, like cancer, might be caused by demons and a lot of these ‘come not out, but by prayer and fasting’. Question: Have you really tried prayer AND fasting to get rid of the cancer? You never know — by dispelling the demons you might find the cure.
Yes, it’s all crazy — over the top. Take a premise not in league with any sort of reality and run with it. Eric and I could tell you the story of a cultist who claims that demons are flying UFOs over the earth and taking species to other planets to develop something nefarious and the story of another cultist who teaches that demons are coming to infest the earth through a Stargate under the ocean (I forget which ocean). Not that this is so different from the dark ages where priests used an axe to split open a head containing demons (the axe was supposed to make an “X”) when the poor guy was just disoriented (from diet) — a sad tale related to us by the Ancient History teacher in College.
I’m not so very sure that we’ve come very far since the days that Roman Catholics insisted by doctrine (accompanied by burning at the stake) that the earth was the center of the universe. And I’m not so sure that the Catholic Church was not involved with creating some of the terrors to maximize pain, destruction and carnage. Yes, I do realize that (reluctantly) these man made horrors have passed (mostly because the Catholic Church doesn’t have as much power now as it did then) and we need to move on (and hope like heck they or someone else doesn’t gain these dictatorial powers over the world like the leader of North Korea with the “winner effect”).
If anyone or any group has the power of the ‘winner effect’ — in the words of Psychology Today: We should be worried.
LikeLike
Just so I don’t have to explain:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-winner-effect/201304/the-north-korean-dictator-is-behaving-rationally
LikeLike
Quite Epic, Mikey…though I think Paul (Captain Catholic) has you cornered on this one. You see, he is a great “believer” (that’s probably the wrong word, which is why it is in quotes) in anti-literalism–nothing means what it looks like it means, which means it means whatever we interpret it to mean.
When Ex. 20 or Deut. 5 talk about “thou shalt not make any graven image…to bow down to them or serve them”, well, you know, “bowing” before graven images of Mother Mary, or even Jesus, or a Roman-era torture-and-execution device, well, that’s not really breaking the commandment b/c you’re taking it too literally.
Of course, CC is right–just b/c he did all those actions doesn’t mean he was committing idolatry; he might be a Secret Atheist who is only a Cultural Catholic (a possibility that has been tossed about occasionally by some who do not yet fully Grasp his “you take everything too literally” Message). 😉
LikeLike
Yes, Eric, and if there is a God, he’s in real trouble.
The solution to all your problems: Just redefine them as being “too literal” and they will just go away. Whatever you think in your own mind is what is reality and nothing else.
It reminds me of my son’s psychotic break where he believed that he was re creating the universe and became the uber God to recreate God. He also believed that he had to turn off the main power to the house to leave it “grounded” so evil couldn’t get in. He used our poor cat’s tail to ground the universe by bulling on his tail while the cat was on a chair (it’s unfortunate that poor Kitty didn’t understand his great role in saving the Universe). And, in fact, neither did the County Mental Health professionals who came to assess him.
Yes, reality is exactly what we define it to be in our own heads. The cult you belong to has the ultimate truth and you don’t need to reference external realities.
Until they put you on your meds.
I guess mental health professionals and the law enforcement people just take things too literally. Just because you shot someone and they fell over means that they are not dead if you sincerely believe otherwise. You can’t be convicted of murder because in your mind he’s still alive.
The earth is still the center of the universe because a church believes it to be true — this business about science is just to much literalism.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing though, if the Catholics became like the Buddhists who cheerfully admit they are idolaters and take great joy in it — and the world is better off as a result of their teachings. Just ask Brad Pitt. Sorry. Sorry. Bad example.
I reference my former boss’s favorite wisdom: “Lies, it’s all lies”.
But only if you don’t take it literally (and, say, the word literal has two contradictory meanings — quite the paradox, if you get my drift).
Eric, I do believe you have mastered sarcasm.
LikeLike
I’ve been deliberately dense when I know better: Up until a few scant decades ago, the Catholics could not eat meat on Friday, but they could eat fish, because, as we all know, fish is not meat.
LikeLike
Eric,
That’s exactly what I was thinking Eric. Paul (aka Captain Catholic) underestimates how easy it is to interpret passages to mean whatever we would like them to mean. I also believe that using the exact same techniques of interpretation that Christians use, all religions can very easy be validated as true as well.
It’s hard to objectively quantify this ability to interpret passages to mean whatever we want them to mean, but it can be demonstrated, and to me is easily seen practically by the fact that there are so many different denominations with differing interpretations of scriptures. This hit home for me many years ago when I was in a small study group on the book of James led by my pastor. We each had homework to take a couple of chapters and as research had to read several different related commentaries. Our pastor made sure that the books we chose were all within the small range of the “moderate” Christian evangelical pocket that our church fit in. What was shocking was how even within that small pocket there was so much disagreement on how each passage could be interpreted. In fact even each individual author would often lay out all of the different varieties of interpretations that other scholars had written about. Then expand outside the small pocket of the range of our church and the ability to interpret the way you would like becomes very easy to recognize.
LikeLike
Please tell me that CC isn’t a doctor, a jet pilot or works in a nuclear plant.
LikeLike
I think I have heard it said he is some sort of Mental Health Professional, though I didn’t hear that from him so I may have my information wrong.
LikeLike
Or we could just accept that Captain has faith.
Don’t we all have foundations that rest primarily on faith? Don’t believe me? then I’ll attempt to unpack this a bit more.
All epistemology rests on a first premise, that as a starting point cannot be validated.
For example, Descartes famous “I think therefore I am” includes within it the belief that our cognition is our own. So the question of “how do I know I’m here and what is real” for Descarte seems to partly rest on the belief that we have ownership over our thoughts, in the sense that we have free will.
But How does Descarte know this?
He doesn’t. Actually I don’t think anyone can, at least not objectively. There is no external way we can prove that our cognition, identity and preferences are our own. This is because we are all walking around brimming with the impressions of our parents, our friends, work mates and our culture.
we are an assortment of influences. What we react to, accept or deny, are not distinctions from all these influences but a intrinsic part of them.
Whether you agree with Descartes starting assertion or not “Cogito ergo sum” is faith based, since it cannot be proven objectively.
First premises through which all information we receive is processed can only be accepted by faith, since starting premises cannot validate themselves. If I am wrong, please name me one foundational premise that doesn’t.
To use a slightly absurd example, there is no way to prove whether we are not in actuality just all brains in a collective vat, and that our impressions are just an illusion. People may find this idea silly. However, there is no way we can discount that we aren’t just brains in a vat and all stimulus is an illusion.
Epistemology in all its forms begins with assertions that are accepted without proof, because it is the primary starting point. Call that what you want, but that is faith.
Epistemological Dualism. Monism even Empiricism have foundational assumptions that cannot be validated in themselves, and are therefore a starting belief.
These beliefs are fleshed out, applied and systemically presented with evidence supporting their starting point, but each can only do this if that leap of faith from is made, which shapes the way corresponding information is processed and interpreted. These as starting points cannot be proven, only built from and acted upon.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_epist_theories.htm
So why are people critical of Captains hope?
we all have hopes, and many of us are driven by our hopes.
Kind regards, Ryan
LikeLike
I have tend to write in a disorganised way in the past, trying to change that 😛
A quick edit.
“First premises through which all information we receive is processed can only be accepted by faith, since starting premises cannot validate themselves.
If I am wrong, Please name me one foundational premise that does*”
I would love to be pointed towards a more accurate perspective. Always eager for revision.
It does seem to me though that Epistemology in all its forms begins with assertions that are accepted without proof. Is that not faith?
Kind regards
LikeLike
Hey Ryan – I agree very much with a lot of what you said, although Descartes’ cogito may not be the best example because I agree with Descartes that we can know that there is something that exists given that I am asking the question (that is what he meant).
But you are very right, given the problem of infinite regress in epistemology we all have to come down to some very basic beliefs that have no justification – philosophers say they can be justified only in the sense that they are “self-evident”. These are called foundational beliefs, aka properly basic beliefs, or axioms. I don’t mind using the word faith to describe belief in these axioms. But the axioms I believe in are a whittled down list that I believe practically everyone on this blog and everyone I interact with would agree with. It is that list that I try my best to build the rest of my knowledge from (yes, easier said than done, I know). “gods do NOT exist” is NOT on my list of axioms, and “gods exist” is also not on that list of mine.
But just because we agree that we all have axioms that we believe because they seem self-evident does not mean that absolutely any belief is a properly basic belief. Let’s take the law of non-contradiction. That is often said to be a properly basic belief. First thing we know about this law is that it is practically universally believed to be true by all humans (nothing at all is perfectly universal). Second thing is that if I were to deny that the law of non-contradiction was true then anything I tried to do in life would be absurd and meaningless. Even the language that I use would be meaningless because language is based on that law.
If we were to allow any belief to be declared as an axiom then that would also lead us to absurdity. That would mean we would have to say that any belief whatsoever that anyone has should be acceptable – but then that leads to a violation of the law of non-contradiction. So surely we have to come up with some criteria for what “self-evident” means. I’ve given my idea of the 2 criteria I use in my last paragraph. What is your criteria?
LikeLike
Hi Howie,
Thanks for clearing up the example on Descarte,
Although I’d add that even if a person does ask this question “do I exist?” this still doesn’t prove that they actually exists. Its not a proof.
We are still left with the dilemma of identifying the identity of the questioner. What I mean by this is, where exactly does this question come from?
A response could be “The question comes from the person themselves, it need not be more complicated”
Okay, but on the topic of language, assuming that all our inner thoughts, reflections and outward expressions are constructed through language. Can we really have cognition without a form language? so how do we prove that our inner language of the self is not just a process, that triggers emotions?
I don’t think we can, again it comes down to faith, we believe or reject the belief that the question we ask is our own. But I admit, this is not really a very practical line of questioning. It just follows an endless regression. Although an interesting case to consider might be Helen Keller, who evidently was able to think (she wrote books!) yet was both deaf and blind!
Where the heck was her point of reference, apart from touch? What did her internal language “look” like? her cognitive processes? It seems there are indeed many forms of language. Its not just expressed through symbols and sounds. But that’s another topic.
First, in relation to your question on the Law of non-contradiction? I’d like to first make one point, that the assumption of contradiction can be a misunderstanding in itself.
For example, the seeming contradiction that a surgeon, in order to heal an eye, must cut into it to remove a cancer, could seem to some who are not informed to be a great contradiction.
When we don’t have a more rounded understanding on something many things can appear to be a contradiction, when in fact they aren’t. Since we do not have a complete understanding of the nature of many processes, Its not impossible that certain faith, although seemingly a contradiction, could be a paradox, that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true. but yet not a contradiction.
Now to the subject of actual contradictions. I can’t argue with you here, my criteria in this case I think is the same as yours, in regards to the law of non-contradiction. With maybe one exception. I propose that there are certain paradoxes that can be mistaken to be contradictions. After all, understanding is a state of flux. Not everything that cannot be proved is false. Furthermore, just because a paradox is labelled a contradiction in one era does not change the paradox into a contradiction. Other than that I agree that the law of non-contradiction is necessary.
and I have many questions, lots of thoughts that run through my head regarding the subject faith, some organised, some not. some reasonable. some not 🙂 Yet despite all my wandering and questions I cannot escape this:
Certain Faith or trust in specific teachings can encourage people to do beautiful, kind and beneficial things.
Certain Faith can also drive people to do cruel, harsh and harmful things
The Sermon on the Mount encourages the former, the kind and loving things.
returning to to my first point a post back, I see no reason why we should be critical of such hope.
As always, kind regards
Ryan
LikeLike
On another note, this is a really cool video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KFAoqODZok
LikeLike
Ryan,
I’m a bit behind on this thread, but I wanted to comment on a point you were making in regard to contradictions, and hopefully I won’t be too far out of context.
I thought that your example of an eye surgeon cutting on an eye in order to make it healthy was a good point. To someone who doesn’t know about surgery, that concept may seem like a contradiction.
I do, however, think it is a little different than the contraction we find in the bible.
1. The bible is supposedly the only inspired word of god, so if something is amiss there, where do we go for clarification? Did god publish another perfect source? All we have to “resolve” biblical contradictions are pure suppositions by those who want the bible to be true – no real source. God has yet to clarify for himself and really, has yet to write his own book. If we believe the bible, he merely talked to a few men once upon a time, but can’t be bothered with it now, since he had a couple of guys pen his book for him. With things like surgery, we can become more educated, in various ways, to learn that sometimes we have to cut into the body in order to heal it of the root cause.
2. If we are incorrect with our perception of the bible, when we think it holds contradictions, we go to hell or are punished eternally for that misconception. With medicine, there is no eternal consequence for misconceptions – and an opportunity to correct that misconception is often presented.
Additionally, if we can dismiss the contradictions in the bible by saying “well, maybe there’s a good explanation,” or by inventing imaginary ways to reconcile the issue, then couldn’t we do that with any contradiction? Are we to dismiss all contradictions because, “hey, there may be a valid explanation that is either beyond our comprehension or just beyond our current education?”
If looks like a contraction doesn’t mean it is one – it just means it looks like one. And because god isn’t talking or offering additional courses, the bible looks like it has contradictions in it.
LikeLike
Ok, tough topic, not sure I understood your answer fully, but that’s ok.
I wouldn’t disagree that faith in certain things can lead to good things. Perhaps it all stems from desires though. I myself don’t have faith in some meta-cosmic foundation of goodness (I actually don’t know for sure whether or not such a thing exists), but I know for sure that I desire to treat others kindly. It is simply something I want to do. Doing otherwise makes me feel like shit. So it is my desires that drive that. So if a cosmic foundation for goodness exists outside of humans then I’d go along, and if it doesn’t exist then I’d still act the same way. So in some ways it’s existence is not relevant to me.
LikeLike
Yup Ryan, although totally off topic that video was very cool. Chemistry rocks!
LikeLike
Ross, or Ryan, I don’t think we’re here trying to destroy the Captain’s faith. Faith, I don’t think, is the basic thing under criticism here. The main point, I think, is that someone says “according to scripture such and such, blah blah blah”, to which CC says “well there’s your problem–you’re taking the scripture too literally!”
He had said that just b/c he did the sign of the cross and bowed and all that stuff, didn’t prove he was committing idolatry, as Mikey had suggested. I then said something about the 10 commandments not saying anything about idolatry when it says “don’t make graven images of anything to bow to them”. I then went on to be sarcastic and suggest that just b/c the scripture says “thus and thus”, well there’s no way to prove it actually means that b/c we can’t take anything too literally. Wink. Wink.
It is, specifically, the impossible-to-pin-down-on-any-particular-point “anti literalism” that is being criticized, not his faith.
LikeLike
… unless it’s his faith in anti-literalism…
LikeLike
Dear Friends,
I stop by to lurk from time to time. I know I’m being waved at and winked at — I also notice that I’m given the one finger salute from time to time.
I haven’t had an opportunity to respond, nor do I have opportunity now, other than to be amazed at how all you “atheists” are as unimaginative in your approach to scripture as the most blockheaded fundamentalist.
I certainly have faith, but my faith isn’t in the Bible or in anything that can studied by those who have no faith. That’s my definition of idolatry. Yes, you heard me right. I consider the super fanatic right wing “Christians” to be the idolaters.
Instead of bowing before a Golden Calf (which is merely a human artifact), they bow before a book (also a human artifact).
Today’s idolaters are actually in worse shape than the ancient Israelite apostates. The ancients at least had a nice block of gold to spend after they came to the realization that they’d been acting like idiots.
What have you got once you figure out that it’s crazy to worship a book? You’ve got ash, nothing more.
Paul
LikeLike
Cap’n, I think you’re correct, but where do you get your notion of god and jesus, if not that human artifact we call the bible?
Even you’re clergy follow the book to one degree or another. Any flavor of christian comes to their knowledge of christ through that book.
LikeLike
So let me get this straight: A person thinks God exists because of confirmation bias, but what if a person has confirmation bias because confirmation bias says that all events that work to our benefit are read as confirmation bias and has confirmation bias to confirm that?
This seems a lot like those who have no structural visualization trying to make sense of the universe by using superstition rather than science, building superstructures built on premises which have no reality and claiming it has no reality because nothing is real.
It’s no wonder Steven Hawking claimed “Philosophy is dead”. He can prove it through confirmation bias because with science all those “coincidences” of being able to reproduce experiments and consistent observations (like when Haley’s Comet will appear next) are just random occurrences which don’t mean anything because they are mere coincidences.
We can’t really know anything at all, so what ever we believe must be true.
From my point of view, people without structural visualization shouldn’t try to tell us what is.
And anyway, someone who is a mental health professional must worship the DSM-5 because it is the source of their belief system.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I agree with the Captain’s point about idolatry. Idolatry is a problem of the mind — you can’t really know if someone is a true idolater or not just by watching their actions. You may have a picture of a loved one that you really like to look at. Is it your idol? That’s highly unlikely. It’s not the picture itself that is the object of your affection — it’s the individual that it represents.
This, as a side note, is one of the things that bothered me about the Old Testament when I was a Christian. The OT railed on and on about “idolaters,” but it seemed to fundamentally misunderstand those people. I’m pretty certain that none of them viewed the actual statue as a literal god — it was just something to focus on when thinking about their god. It’s exactly the same way that people focus on crucifixes, religious paintings, even things like The Passion of the Christ. The Bible’s writers just didn’t understand it.
And the Captain’s also quite right that many Christians today have actually become true idolaters in the sense that they worship the Bible far more than they worship God. It has become more than just a focus point to them — they look to it directly for inspiration and guidance.
LikeLike
I agree,
It has to do with the spirit behind the letter and not the letter itself. The intention behind why we do things is paramount to determining the personal meaning of an action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
LikeLike
William and Howie
I will address your questions, I don’t mean to be rude 🙂
I just need some time to think about what you wrote.
Hope you are both going well
LikeLike