Blog Comment: Faith

Faith is defined as belief without evidence. The reality is that it (at least today) is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. If you're a religious person you're fine with this because, after all, faith means that you don't need evidence. If you're an Atheist, you're also fine with this because you basically have "faith" in the idea that God doesn't exist (and don't require any evidence to prove it).

If you're Agnostic then, yes, it is fair to demand evidence -- but, as far as concrete scientific evidence goes, there is far more evidence to show that God doesn't exist than that he does. That is why most Agnostics lean towards Atheism.

Source: http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/06/forgiveness.html

Blog Comment: Judeo-Christian Morality

Morals are relative to the current day and age. There are so many things in the Bible that quite simply are not morally acceptable today – slavery, suppression of women, killing of homosexuals, and child abuse to name only a few. If readers are to take anything from it, they are left to pick and choose the pieces that fit in today's moral boundaries. The problem is that the Bible does not provide a guideline for which is which – so what happens if somebody misinterprets the context and assumes one of the bad things to be good?

The bottom line is that, on any given moral dilemma, you can randomly sample people from all religions and find a consensus of what is right and what is wrong. That fact seems to indicate that humans have a moral intuition that is derived from something other than religion.

Source: http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/06/judeo-christian-morality.html

"Pale Blue Dot"

Source: http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

Information

The ENIAC was the first truly programmable computer. It was unveiled in 1946. That was about 61 years ago – 4,569,999,939 years after planet Earth was first formed (give or take a few million years). In those 61 years the computer has allowed man to travel to the moon and to send a land rover to Mars – a planet that is more than 35 million miles away. If you glance through the Science Channel’s 100 Greatest Discoveries you will find that many of them were made possible by the computer. This wonderful machine has allowed us to expand our intellect at an astonishing rate. My point is that, as a species, we have just begun to unravel the mysteries of the Universe. When you truly consider the big picture you can see that we are only in the infancy of discovery. There is so much that “we don’t know we don’t know”. We will one day be able to scientifically determine the origin of the Universe.

I use the advancement of the computer to illustrate how quickly information changes and advances. The reality is that we really have no choice but to base our beliefs and way of thinking on the information made available to us. Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. Before then people really had no source of information to base their religious beliefs – other than what was provided by the Church. By the time that book was published Monotheistic religions had been around for more than 4,000 years. That is a long time for people to form their beliefs from a single type of informational source – and to pass them from generation to generation. Darwin’s theories have unequivocally been proven countless times since then and yet most religious people are still in denial. Evidently, changing a mindset that has been engrained into people over four millennia is not an easy task.

Origins of Morality

How do we know right from wrong? I believe it is a combination of multiple things but, at the core, we just naturally know. Our morals require a certain level of cultivation and most of them are specific to our society and culture. But, overall, I believe that humans possess an instinctive ability to know right from wrong – especially about things that relate directly to survival of our species. This ability has been embedded in our brains and today truly is natural (at least for most of us). It, by no means, explains the reason for every human action but I believe it generalizes the origin of human morality.

Homo sapiens have been on planet earth somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 years. Their only real competitor was Homo neanderthalensis, who was last seen on planet Earth some 24,000 years ago. The late versions of Neanderthals were highly evolved physically and did not vary all that much from Homo sapiens in terms of appearance. They did however lack creativity and did not possess the mental capacity to produce useful tools or create projectile weapons. Their demise was inevitable. Homo sapiens of the day most likely had no desire to help Neanderthals survive since there was nothing to be gained from doing so. The two species could not communicate with each other and Neandertals were not intelligent enough to follow examples laid forth by Homo sapiens. In the end, keeping Neandertals around would only hinder the chances of survival for Homo sapiens. Why would they have wasted resources on Neanderthals when they would not receive anything in return? The common theory for the extinction of Homo neanderthalensis is that Homo sapiens out-competed them for the same resources. Indeed Homo sapiens (humans) are selfish in their desire to survive.

Humans have always lived in groups (as pack animals) out of necessity for survival. Surely it would not have been in the best interest of a group to constantly be engaged in confrontation with other groups in the same geographical area. Other pack animals in nature exhibit this behavior as well. Simply killing off your competitor (or trying to) would only have caused turmoil for your group – therefore distracting your abilities to meet your primary goal of survival.

One can obviously see that a necessity for survival was for groups to get along with each other, to reciprocate generosities, and to help your fellow man in need. This concept is really the foundation of human morality. Simply put, getting along with competing groups in your area was an essential attribute of survival 200,000 years ago – and this way of thinking has been gradually engrained in the brains the countless generations of humans that have existed on planet Earth since then. Today, certain things can be considered innately moral or immoral. This can be seen by comparing the common actions of cultures from around the world. There is a natural sense of right and wrong and it has been programmed deep into the brain of our species.

Proof of God's Existence (or lack there of)

When I first read Thomas Aquinas’s Quinquae viae (Five ways to prove God's existence) I could not help but laugh. In 1265 Aquinas was considered a "model teacher" for those studying for the priesthood and he presented (as part of his Summa Theologica) five ways to prove God's existence. Here is one of them:

The argument of the first cause (ex causa):
1. Some things are caused.
2. Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
5. This causer is what we call God.

I agree with Richard Dawkins on the analysis of this "proof". He basically agrees with items 1-4 and says that you can not necessarily conclude (logically or otherwise) that the “causer” is God. What’s to say that it’s not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Big Bang? The leap that Aquinas took from item 4 to 5 is complete bullshit and doesn’t prove anything.

None of the so called “proofs” adhere to the logic required by any type of formal proof in use today –such as induction, transposition, or contradiction. Aside from their not allowing anybody to conclude anything, the main reason I find these "proofs" interesting is the thought of what they would mean if they actually did what they said – prove God’s existence. The concept of “proving God’s existence” begs clarification. To me, it’s one of two things:

1) Literal proof. 100% undeniable confirmation of God’s existence. Perhaps I am interpreting the point a bit plainly but wouldn’t proof for God's existence mean that God actually existed and that everybody (including atheists and agnostics) would be able to indisputably see that God existed?

2) Non-literal proof. This is a simple exploitation of faith i.e., belief without reason. The concept of proof is provided only as a feeling within one’s self. With this proof, you are blessed with the feeling of ultimate contentment knowing that God exists. You will spend the rest of your life being the model servant of God and looking forward to eternity in heaven. You will never question your own faith due to your possessing 100% confirmation (at least in your own mind) of God’s existence.

Item 2 is just more religious mumbo jumbo and is basically what most religions try to shove down your throat. It illustrates the goal that most religious people are trying to reach in their life. Faith, per se, really is the ultimate trump card for any religion. It is the perfect method of control.

Aquinas obviously could not have meant literal proof (Item 1) because if we could scientifically prove God’s existence wouldn’t that make faith itself obsolete? With reason to believe i.e., 100 percent confirmation of God, all humans on planet Earth would of course worship the almighty Lord since the alternative would not be as appealing (spending eternity in Hell).

Most people probably fell for Aquinas’s bullshit in 1265 (and most believe it still today) – but that doesn’t make it true. To me it’s just another example of a religion trying to confuse and control the people. Perhaps a confused member of the flock is one that can be more easily guided.

Rambling Preamble - My Purpose

The blog will hopefully provide me with a place to express my thoughts and ideas regarding atheism, agnosticism, and religion. My overall purpose is to simply write about things that I find interesting and to help promote atheism and agnosticism (I will probably write about my reasons for wanting to do so in a later post). I am not writing to anybody in particular and, to be honest, I really don’t care if anybody reads this blog. Blogs about the aforementioned topics are “a dime a dozen” as they say – so if you happen to stumble upon my little contribution to the blogosphere then great! Since these subjects really are personal in nature I’m sure that, whoever you are, you have your own beliefs. I believe that, at the end of the day, a person has to come up with their own answers. I pity you if you do not have questions. I can only hope to convey my own personal beliefs to you as a reader. I will consider it “icing on the cake” if you happen to take something from them.

Many readers may find what I write to be offensive. So be it. I make no apologies and I’m really not here to pull any punches. One of the best parts of the Web is that when you come across something offensive (as you inevitably will) you can revert to your previous state of being with a click of the mouse. I welcome any comments that you might have – scathing as they may be. I assure you, my feelings will not be hurt by anything you have to say.