See here.
A short rundown of many popular reasons and a number of explanations for why they fail or are incomplete. This is a major concern for both theists and atheists, the theists just haven't realized it yet. Metaethics is hard.
Monday, August 29, 2005
My Story
"...I would contend that the evidence is not weak enough for you to have given it all up. The reason you did is most likely that you never perceived value in the religion in the first place, and hence got mired into skepticism to an irrational degree."
Simply not true. I could tell you my story. I was very religious as a child. I was the little kid who at 10 wanted to fast Tisha B'av and Yom Kippur - and who did it the full day. I was the one in camp when all the other kids were lazying in bed, I would go off to chinuch because I enjoyed it.
I was always a very curious child and would ask my parents all sorts of questions, but as time went on I got less and less satisfying answers. I went delving into the fundamentals of Judaism because, besides for my own curiosity, I wanted to be able to give my kids the best and fullest answers I could for anything they would ask me.
So I began my studies without fear that Judaism had anything to lose. Orthodoxy was obviously right so what had I to fear from seeing things from different sides? But as I studied the more it all fell apart in my hands. I kept looking for rational after rationale to keep it up but it just wasn't working out.
So one night, as I lay in bed, I thought, "Hey, wait, what if God isn't real, the Torah is man-made, and so on" that explains all the problems I've been finding in Judaism. All of them are explained thus.
I didn't really take that to heart for awhile though, I kept looking for ways to prove Judaism's validity, I saw the consequences and refused to have them, I spoke to dozens of religious people and rabbis but none of them had the goods. They all supplied the same tired arguments that I knew were useless.
So I was forced to come to the conclusions I've come to. I didn't want them, I didn't ask for them, but they came just the same.
And even now I don't want to walk away from Judaism. I can't. I'd like to reform it so that it isn't based on fairy tales. I'm proud to be a Jew, but not proud of much of what Orthodox Judaism believes and says. You don't know the endless heartache I go through because something I love is so wrong.
Don't put me in a box.
Simply not true. I could tell you my story. I was very religious as a child. I was the little kid who at 10 wanted to fast Tisha B'av and Yom Kippur - and who did it the full day. I was the one in camp when all the other kids were lazying in bed, I would go off to chinuch because I enjoyed it.
I was always a very curious child and would ask my parents all sorts of questions, but as time went on I got less and less satisfying answers. I went delving into the fundamentals of Judaism because, besides for my own curiosity, I wanted to be able to give my kids the best and fullest answers I could for anything they would ask me.
So I began my studies without fear that Judaism had anything to lose. Orthodoxy was obviously right so what had I to fear from seeing things from different sides? But as I studied the more it all fell apart in my hands. I kept looking for rational after rationale to keep it up but it just wasn't working out.
So one night, as I lay in bed, I thought, "Hey, wait, what if God isn't real, the Torah is man-made, and so on" that explains all the problems I've been finding in Judaism. All of them are explained thus.
I didn't really take that to heart for awhile though, I kept looking for ways to prove Judaism's validity, I saw the consequences and refused to have them, I spoke to dozens of religious people and rabbis but none of them had the goods. They all supplied the same tired arguments that I knew were useless.
So I was forced to come to the conclusions I've come to. I didn't want them, I didn't ask for them, but they came just the same.
And even now I don't want to walk away from Judaism. I can't. I'd like to reform it so that it isn't based on fairy tales. I'm proud to be a Jew, but not proud of much of what Orthodox Judaism believes and says. You don't know the endless heartache I go through because something I love is so wrong.
Don't put me in a box.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Odium Theologicum
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion." - Bertrand Russell
Are Values Irrational?
I've been thinking about morality and ethics lately and basically what I've found is that people will only act by a certain moral code if they find value to whatever the morals apply to.
If you value human life, then you will act to preserve it. If you value justice, you will pursue it. If you value liberty, you will fight for it.
But these fundamental values, are they rationally determined or not? How is it rational to value anything?
If you value your religious beliefs, you will act to preserve them. If you value money, you will do what you can to accrue wealth. If you value dominance, you will push others into submission. If you value power, you will fight to get it.
Does it all ultimately come down to people valuing what is good for them? And what if a person doesn't value himself? Or if they take one value out of proportion to others?
If they value amusement over all else, they will fall into a state of unbridled hedonism. If power or money over all else, it follows that the person may find it reasonable to murder those who threaten it.
Are values rational? If not, then how can one judge another's set of values? The power-hungry murderer may threaten our values, but just the same we threaten his. Who is right?
If you value human life, then you will act to preserve it. If you value justice, you will pursue it. If you value liberty, you will fight for it.
But these fundamental values, are they rationally determined or not? How is it rational to value anything?
If you value your religious beliefs, you will act to preserve them. If you value money, you will do what you can to accrue wealth. If you value dominance, you will push others into submission. If you value power, you will fight to get it.
Does it all ultimately come down to people valuing what is good for them? And what if a person doesn't value himself? Or if they take one value out of proportion to others?
If they value amusement over all else, they will fall into a state of unbridled hedonism. If power or money over all else, it follows that the person may find it reasonable to murder those who threaten it.
Are values rational? If not, then how can one judge another's set of values? The power-hungry murderer may threaten our values, but just the same we threaten his. Who is right?
Monday, August 22, 2005
In Liberty We Trust
A common argument one hears about the quality of the United State's government and God is that the "In God We Trust" motto found on US currency only started being printed under the Eisenhower administration to make a statement against the godless communist atheists of the USSR during the cold war in the 50s.
While that does have a bit of truth in it, it was only first printed on paper money in 1957 and it has only been the national motto since 1956, but the fact is that the phrase "In God We Trust" has been used in US coins since 1864 due to issues raised by the Civil War and worries that future generations might think the US a heathen nation if she were to be destroyed and all that was left for future archeologists to discover was the godless coinage. See here.
And even if we were to ignore the blatant "In God We Trust" motto, why should we ignore the "Annuit Cœptis," latin for "He [God] has approved our beginnings" which is on reverse of The Great Seal of the United States, which has been on the one dollar bill since 1935 and which has been used as the seal of the United States since 1782. Not to mention the all seeing eye of Providence which appears above the unfinished pyramid right below that phrase.
The truth of the matter is that the 1950s was not a break in America's character at all, but actually a continuation of God being a part of the national character since basically its inception. There are those atheists who argue that such national expressions of God are actually religious declarations of religion and are therefore unconstitutional, but I think they'll have a hell of a difficult time proving that given the significant historical connection between the United States and God. Though, of course, no sign of what kind of God it is, but still it would appear that some kinds of theistic notions are implied.
Will the trusting in God by the government ever be deemed unconstitutional? Maybe. But why bother? It would be far better to secularize the idea and make the God of Providence and the one in whom "we trust" into the same sort of deity as the Goddess of Liberty found currently en large in the New York Harbor. Why reject what we can always incorporate?
While that does have a bit of truth in it, it was only first printed on paper money in 1957 and it has only been the national motto since 1956, but the fact is that the phrase "In God We Trust" has been used in US coins since 1864 due to issues raised by the Civil War and worries that future generations might think the US a heathen nation if she were to be destroyed and all that was left for future archeologists to discover was the godless coinage. See here.
And even if we were to ignore the blatant "In God We Trust" motto, why should we ignore the "Annuit Cœptis," latin for "He [God] has approved our beginnings" which is on reverse of The Great Seal of the United States, which has been on the one dollar bill since 1935 and which has been used as the seal of the United States since 1782. Not to mention the all seeing eye of Providence which appears above the unfinished pyramid right below that phrase.
The truth of the matter is that the 1950s was not a break in America's character at all, but actually a continuation of God being a part of the national character since basically its inception. There are those atheists who argue that such national expressions of God are actually religious declarations of religion and are therefore unconstitutional, but I think they'll have a hell of a difficult time proving that given the significant historical connection between the United States and God. Though, of course, no sign of what kind of God it is, but still it would appear that some kinds of theistic notions are implied.
Will the trusting in God by the government ever be deemed unconstitutional? Maybe. But why bother? It would be far better to secularize the idea and make the God of Providence and the one in whom "we trust" into the same sort of deity as the Goddess of Liberty found currently en large in the New York Harbor. Why reject what we can always incorporate?
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Zoroastrianism and Judaism
"Zoroastrianism teaches many of the concepts found in the majorAbrahamic faiths, such as Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and the coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits. According to the Gathas humans are free and responsible beings. Predestination is rejected in Zoroastrian teaching. Humans bear responsibility for all situations they are in and in the way they act to one another. Nothing in the Heavens and Earth has the power to force a being to do evil. Reward, punishment, happiness and grief all depend on how the individual lives his life. Good befalls the people that do righteous deeds. Those that do Evil have themselves to blame for their evil-doing. Humans possess a great power. They can improve their way of living and the living conditions of others. This power is called Charitas. After death, the person must walk through the Path to Judgement or Chinvat Peretum to bear responsibility for his actions when he was alive."
http://tinyurl.com/875e8
"Whether Zoroastrianism is older than Judaism is uncertain. Nevertheless, it has had an undeniable impact upon Western religious belief. Examples include a tangible, active force for evil (Angra Mainyu, or Satan); a judgment of souls after death; and afterlives in heaven and hell. None of these ideas are present in original Judaism. It is possible that the Jews heard them at the end of the Babylonian Exile, under the Persian emperor Cyrus (Zaehner, 20-21). Also, according to Nesta Ramazani, "Islamic institutions such as waqf (religious endowments) and madreseh (a theological school attached to a mosque) have their roots in Zoroastrian traditions" (Ramazani, 21)."
http://tinyurl.com/9p7fz
The influence of Zoroastrianism on the eschatological aspect of Judaism is also noticeable in the post-exilic scriptures. In the early Hebrew writing joy in the hereafter was at best vaguely expressed. For the first time in IInd Isaiah one sees expressions as follows:
"Your dead ones will live.. they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully....The earth will bring those long dead to birth again" (verse 26.19).
These expressions are clear overtones of the Zoroastrian revelations in this area. As concluded by Prof. Boyce, ".. it is difficult not to concede to Zoroastrianism both priority and influence; the more especially since elements cf Zoroaster's teaching can be traced far back in the ancient Indo-Iranian religious traditions, whereas those of Jewish apocalyptic first appear after the time of contact with the Persian faith".
http://tinyurl.com/a6qu2
Food for thought. Read up.
http://tinyurl.com/875e8
"Whether Zoroastrianism is older than Judaism is uncertain. Nevertheless, it has had an undeniable impact upon Western religious belief. Examples include a tangible, active force for evil (Angra Mainyu, or Satan); a judgment of souls after death; and afterlives in heaven and hell. None of these ideas are present in original Judaism. It is possible that the Jews heard them at the end of the Babylonian Exile, under the Persian emperor Cyrus (Zaehner, 20-21). Also, according to Nesta Ramazani, "Islamic institutions such as waqf (religious endowments) and madreseh (a theological school attached to a mosque) have their roots in Zoroastrian traditions" (Ramazani, 21)."
http://tinyurl.com/9p7fz
The influence of Zoroastrianism on the eschatological aspect of Judaism is also noticeable in the post-exilic scriptures. In the early Hebrew writing joy in the hereafter was at best vaguely expressed. For the first time in IInd Isaiah one sees expressions as follows:
"Your dead ones will live.. they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully....The earth will bring those long dead to birth again" (verse 26.19).
These expressions are clear overtones of the Zoroastrian revelations in this area. As concluded by Prof. Boyce, ".. it is difficult not to concede to Zoroastrianism both priority and influence; the more especially since elements cf Zoroaster's teaching can be traced far back in the ancient Indo-Iranian religious traditions, whereas those of Jewish apocalyptic first appear after the time of contact with the Persian faith".
http://tinyurl.com/a6qu2
Food for thought. Read up.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Latke Says...
The only thing that separates us from the animals is superstition and mindless rituals. --Latke (Andy Kaufman)
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Got God on the Tongue
There are so many phrases in our common language that involve God in them. The most common is probably the "God bless you" so often quoted after a person violently expires air from the nose and mouth. But there are other ones like before a great voyage or adventure people will say "Godspeed!" to the voyagers.
These phrases are very common. Oh my God, Goddamn, thank God, only God knows, God-awful, godforsaken, godsend, God's gift, God forbid, act of God. This is hardly an exhaustive list but they are what come to mind.
Anyway, I mention them to discuss the issue of how many atheists find such phrases somewhat offensive and refuse to use them. I have to admit that at first I had that reaction myself, but what's the real harm in simply using the word God? Those phrases don't actually mean anything about God, but mean other things altogether. When people say "thank God," they aren't actually thanking God, they are saying that they feel relieved. When they say "God forbid" they aren't actually invoking God to not allow something, they are expressing their distaste for some suggestion.
We have idioms like this of all sorts that are used and wherein the literal meaning is not believed in by the people who use them. When a person wakes up on the wrong side of the bed are you suggesting that malevolent spirits which dwell on the left side of the bed bothering the person? Does crossing your fingers mean that you think making the sign of the cross will protect you? When you are giving the third degree are you giving credence to the medieval natural philosophy involving the four elementary quality of bodies? When one kills in cold blood, are they acknowledging the validity of a relic of medical theory where excitement was thought to actually heat the blood. When you're unsure and in limbo, do you see yourself as literally being in purgatory?
Given all these examples, why then do atheists get so bent out of shape with the idioms regarding God? Sure, the literal object of the idiom may currently be taken seriously by some people, but that's no reason to care or be offended by their usage. The word God is not offensive, nor is the idea of a superior being even a threat to skepticism, nor does saying them imply any belief in the literal meaning of the phrase. So for God's sake, stop being so sensitive.
These phrases are very common. Oh my God, Goddamn, thank God, only God knows, God-awful, godforsaken, godsend, God's gift, God forbid, act of God. This is hardly an exhaustive list but they are what come to mind.
Anyway, I mention them to discuss the issue of how many atheists find such phrases somewhat offensive and refuse to use them. I have to admit that at first I had that reaction myself, but what's the real harm in simply using the word God? Those phrases don't actually mean anything about God, but mean other things altogether. When people say "thank God," they aren't actually thanking God, they are saying that they feel relieved. When they say "God forbid" they aren't actually invoking God to not allow something, they are expressing their distaste for some suggestion.
We have idioms like this of all sorts that are used and wherein the literal meaning is not believed in by the people who use them. When a person wakes up on the wrong side of the bed are you suggesting that malevolent spirits which dwell on the left side of the bed bothering the person? Does crossing your fingers mean that you think making the sign of the cross will protect you? When you are giving the third degree are you giving credence to the medieval natural philosophy involving the four elementary quality of bodies? When one kills in cold blood, are they acknowledging the validity of a relic of medical theory where excitement was thought to actually heat the blood. When you're unsure and in limbo, do you see yourself as literally being in purgatory?
Given all these examples, why then do atheists get so bent out of shape with the idioms regarding God? Sure, the literal object of the idiom may currently be taken seriously by some people, but that's no reason to care or be offended by their usage. The word God is not offensive, nor is the idea of a superior being even a threat to skepticism, nor does saying them imply any belief in the literal meaning of the phrase. So for God's sake, stop being so sensitive.
Unscientific Design
The Intelligent Design movement is not just an effort that raises issues about the theory of evolution. Anyone can do that. The staunchest evolutionists do it and so do the only intellectually interested.
ID pretends to be a scientific theory through selective critiques of professional scientific papers. Raising questions is good, evolution is no sacred cow, but then they jump ahead of the gun and call evolution's weaknesses their strengths. Whatever evolution cannot answer, they can.
That's convincing for those unfamiliar with science, but ID has no positive evidence of its own. It depends on our ignorance of the minutiae of evolution to bolster its claims. But even if the theory of evolution fell tomorrow, that still would not mean that ID was right or supported by the evidence.
ID is literally a deus ex machina explanation.
It is wrong to take any scientific theory as dogma. All theories are always only as far as we know and as far as the evidence supports it. Skepticism (right on MN) is built in.
Suppose that there were real merits behind the Dembski-style questions of probability (under the current understanding there isn't, but for the sake of argument...) then that would mean there is something about the theory that we haven't got right.
Most of the theory is correct through other evidence, but it would seem that for the theorized mechanism we're missing some information.
So, an intelligence coming in at choice moments to start up evolution is _one_ answer, but there could be any number of others. A lack of explanation for something in evolution does not mean it is evidence for Intelligent Design.
All it means is that we have an unanswered question for the current theory.
The current reigning cosmological theory, the Big Bang, has a number of unanswered questions: where is the missing mass? Why was the universe bumpy? Why was there more matter than antimatter? And so on.
But all these questions are evidence for is that they are questions for the theory. They don't imply any other theory in themselves. Now, you could also answer with a Godidit for those questions, but that's not science.
See Richard Dawkins say it in his own words. Hat tip Jewish Atheist.
ID pretends to be a scientific theory through selective critiques of professional scientific papers. Raising questions is good, evolution is no sacred cow, but then they jump ahead of the gun and call evolution's weaknesses their strengths. Whatever evolution cannot answer, they can.
That's convincing for those unfamiliar with science, but ID has no positive evidence of its own. It depends on our ignorance of the minutiae of evolution to bolster its claims. But even if the theory of evolution fell tomorrow, that still would not mean that ID was right or supported by the evidence.
ID is literally a deus ex machina explanation.
It is wrong to take any scientific theory as dogma. All theories are always only as far as we know and as far as the evidence supports it. Skepticism (right on MN) is built in.
Suppose that there were real merits behind the Dembski-style questions of probability (under the current understanding there isn't, but for the sake of argument...) then that would mean there is something about the theory that we haven't got right.
Most of the theory is correct through other evidence, but it would seem that for the theorized mechanism we're missing some information.
So, an intelligence coming in at choice moments to start up evolution is _one_ answer, but there could be any number of others. A lack of explanation for something in evolution does not mean it is evidence for Intelligent Design.
All it means is that we have an unanswered question for the current theory.
The current reigning cosmological theory, the Big Bang, has a number of unanswered questions: where is the missing mass? Why was the universe bumpy? Why was there more matter than antimatter? And so on.
But all these questions are evidence for is that they are questions for the theory. They don't imply any other theory in themselves. Now, you could also answer with a Godidit for those questions, but that's not science.
See Richard Dawkins say it in his own words. Hat tip Jewish Atheist.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The Dishonorable Dov Hikind
Dov Hikind, our very own local representative in the New York State Assembly, apparently has no respect for Israeli law. He, along with several thousand anti-disengagement protestors, has snuck into Gaza after the Israeli government had cordoned it off as closed to non-residents. See here.
This isn't really surprising behavior given his regular activity of misusing public funding (yeah, our money) to organize (and sometimes pay for) trips to Israel - which he has gone jet-setting back and forth every other month or so this year so far. Isn't it great to see him spending his time going all over the world and representing New York State's interests in foreign countries and not, oh I don't know, spending his time in Albany and actually doing his job.
But what's also great to see is Hikind using again public funds for his staff to work on events in foreign politics for which he really should just not be sticking his public nose into. But that's classic Hikind. Big mouth, media whore, and not really doing much for his constituents in Brooklyn. What's the last thing he's done? Oh, yeah, getting the MetroCard machines to understand Yiddish. Wow.
Update: The Jerusalem Post article that I linked to above had originally been titled "Dov Hikind: International Scofflaw" but it seems that the title was too apt for the tastes of the JP and now the title reads a more mellow "NY assemblyman sneaks into Gaza." Very lame JP.
This isn't really surprising behavior given his regular activity of misusing public funding (yeah, our money) to organize (and sometimes pay for) trips to Israel - which he has gone jet-setting back and forth every other month or so this year so far. Isn't it great to see him spending his time going all over the world and representing New York State's interests in foreign countries and not, oh I don't know, spending his time in Albany and actually doing his job.
But what's also great to see is Hikind using again public funds for his staff to work on events in foreign politics for which he really should just not be sticking his public nose into. But that's classic Hikind. Big mouth, media whore, and not really doing much for his constituents in Brooklyn. What's the last thing he's done? Oh, yeah, getting the MetroCard machines to understand Yiddish. Wow.
Update: The Jerusalem Post article that I linked to above had originally been titled "Dov Hikind: International Scofflaw" but it seems that the title was too apt for the tastes of the JP and now the title reads a more mellow "NY assemblyman sneaks into Gaza." Very lame JP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
