As I've written about before, I've been exploring Buddhism a bit lately. Well, last night I discoved a mindfulness group in Louisville that meets on Sundays a good 45 minute drive from my house (that is, I found their website, http://www.sanghalou.org/. Isn't the internet a great thing?). It's a bit far to drive, but I'm thankful that at least there is one within driving distance. I went today and it was really great. I think I'll go back next Sunday.
I could just go on meditating in the mornings on my own, but it's really great to meet with like-minded people. My social urge has even caused me to consider going back to my folk's church, but I have a few problems with that. For one thing, I would feel really uncomfortable talking about my experiences with meditation in Sunday School . . .
Anyhow, it's been a wonderful Sunday for me. Looks like I've finally found my sangha :)
*A loose translation of the word would be "community". Often it means something deeper than that, but I'll stick with that translation for now.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Monday, September 19, 2005
The Religious have no Monopoly on Charity
Today I was reading the letters to the editor in the Courier Journal, and felt a strong compulsion to reply to one of them which was entitled "Where's the ACLU?". The author only specifically mentions the ACLU as apparently doing nothing to help Katrina victims, in contrast to all the help given by various religious organizations (that the ACLU supposedly opposes). I don't know specifically what the ACLU has done in this situation, but I take issue with the idea that only the religious are interested in relief efforts. Here is the letter that I wrote and sent in:
In the Monday edition of the paper, A. J. Edwards mentioned a few religious
organizations that have been helping with the Katrina relief efforts. This is a
good thing! But the point of his letter was that Secular and Atheist
organizations (represented by the ACLU in Edward’s letter) are not interested in
helping. What do godless atheists have to do with charity work anyway?
The Universist Movement: Hands on Humanity (http://www.handsonhumanity.org/) is
organizing help for Katrina victims in the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center.
See their website for more information.
American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/) has a list of
secular organizations contributing to relief efforts. They also have ad space on
their main page for their members who are in the affected areas and wish to
help, such as an atheist business owner in Houston who is offering work to
people displaced by Katrina.
The Council for Secular Humanism and the Center
for Inquiry (http://www.secularhumanism.org/) is
working to collect donations for AmeriCares (http://www.americares.org/).
I expect that there are many secularists out there, including myself, who have
contributed to the relief efforts without trumpeting the fact that we are not
religious and our motives have nothing to do with any gods. The religious do not
have a monopoly on charity.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
checking in
Been a while since I've posted, mainly since I've been busy reading and writing for school and otherwise too lazy to write in the blog. But here is what has gone one since I last wrote. I'm in a break between classes so I have to make it quick.
I have managed to work a 15-20 minute meditation time into my mornings. Right about 7 am I invite my virtual bell to ring (http://www.mindfulnessdc.org/mindfulclock.html) and sit and breathe, basically. Sometimes I do a guided meditation, observe my thoughts or feelings without being caught up in them. I've already seen improvements in my general attitude about life. I love it, and miss it if my schedule gets messed up and I don't get my sitting time (as I call it).
Have to get to class now.
EDIT: In case anyone is interested, I've been using the book Beginning Mindfulness by Andrew Weiss for instruction and the guided meditations. It's a great guide to meditation and mindfulness practice for people like me who have regular job and family responsibilities. Highly recommended. It's also non-sectarian and doesn't assume any particular religious beliefs, which helps.
I have managed to work a 15-20 minute meditation time into my mornings. Right about 7 am I invite my virtual bell to ring (http://www.mindfulnessdc.org/mindfulclock.html) and sit and breathe, basically. Sometimes I do a guided meditation, observe my thoughts or feelings without being caught up in them. I've already seen improvements in my general attitude about life. I love it, and miss it if my schedule gets messed up and I don't get my sitting time (as I call it).
Have to get to class now.
EDIT: In case anyone is interested, I've been using the book Beginning Mindfulness by Andrew Weiss for instruction and the guided meditations. It's a great guide to meditation and mindfulness practice for people like me who have regular job and family responsibilities. Highly recommended. It's also non-sectarian and doesn't assume any particular religious beliefs, which helps.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
The God Who Wasn't There
I ordered the DVD and soundtrack from the official website
www.thegodmovie.com
and it arrived a couple of days ago. I think it was put together very well altogether--the soundtrack, visual effects, and content are all very good.
It starts with the question that if the church was wrong about the solar system, could it be wrong about something else, namely Jesus?
Next there is a brief overview of the story of Jesus, making use of some footage of dramatizations of the gospels. A brief, but thorough and accurate overview, as I remember it. Except for the comments that Jesus mysteriously "disappeared" for most of this childhood and then from when he was 12 to when he was 30, this bit could have been put together by a Christian.
Next he deals with how the history of the early church came together. He makes the point that there is a few decades gap between when the Gospels were supposed to have taken place, and when they were written. Also, he talks about Paul and how we know nothing about the history of Christianity other than the letters of Paul in those decades. And that Paul only saw Jesus in a "vision" and that he appears not to have even been aware that Jesus was ever a flesh and blood human being. I dunno if this is accurate, I'd have to check the sources.
The only complaint that I can think of is a verse from Hebrews (8:4) that was ripped from context to be used as evidence that Paul didn't know Jesus was ever an actual human. This is problematic for me since I've heard that Paul didn't even write Hebrews (I think no one knows who did, which is problematic in itself.) Anyway, this point was the only bit of the movie that I objected to. Mainly because any evangelical Christian who watches this movie would probably latch onto that objection and simply not see the rest of show . . .
Because the rest of the show is great! My favorite bit is the comparison of the story of Jesus with the conventions of folklore hero stories, and with the stories of pagan god-men that came before him. Even stuff like being a son of a God, having virgin birth, being crucified, and being raised from the dead, and then ruling with a God figure are found in mythologies of pagan god-men like Dionysus. As far as I can tell, this is the best evidence that the story of Jesus is mythological. For more information try the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth link (in the sidebar to your right).
The rest of the movie is mostly an inditment of the fundamentalist church in America. Things like fundamentalist rants by people like Pat Robertson about how America must be brought back to God, and by someone else about how homosexuals ought to be put to death, and a book burning are shown. There is also an interview with the webmaster of www.raptureletters.com, and one with the principal of the fundamentalist Christian school in which the director of this film was taught to love God and fear hell.
This was a great film! For it's controversial subject matter I even found it to be very well reasoned and respectful. This is no ranting diatribe against Christianity, just an expose of historical evidence and the personal experience of the director which is contrary to what the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity.
www.thegodmovie.com
and it arrived a couple of days ago. I think it was put together very well altogether--the soundtrack, visual effects, and content are all very good.
It starts with the question that if the church was wrong about the solar system, could it be wrong about something else, namely Jesus?
Next there is a brief overview of the story of Jesus, making use of some footage of dramatizations of the gospels. A brief, but thorough and accurate overview, as I remember it. Except for the comments that Jesus mysteriously "disappeared" for most of this childhood and then from when he was 12 to when he was 30, this bit could have been put together by a Christian.
Next he deals with how the history of the early church came together. He makes the point that there is a few decades gap between when the Gospels were supposed to have taken place, and when they were written. Also, he talks about Paul and how we know nothing about the history of Christianity other than the letters of Paul in those decades. And that Paul only saw Jesus in a "vision" and that he appears not to have even been aware that Jesus was ever a flesh and blood human being. I dunno if this is accurate, I'd have to check the sources.
The only complaint that I can think of is a verse from Hebrews (8:4) that was ripped from context to be used as evidence that Paul didn't know Jesus was ever an actual human. This is problematic for me since I've heard that Paul didn't even write Hebrews (I think no one knows who did, which is problematic in itself.) Anyway, this point was the only bit of the movie that I objected to. Mainly because any evangelical Christian who watches this movie would probably latch onto that objection and simply not see the rest of show . . .
Because the rest of the show is great! My favorite bit is the comparison of the story of Jesus with the conventions of folklore hero stories, and with the stories of pagan god-men that came before him. Even stuff like being a son of a God, having virgin birth, being crucified, and being raised from the dead, and then ruling with a God figure are found in mythologies of pagan god-men like Dionysus. As far as I can tell, this is the best evidence that the story of Jesus is mythological. For more information try the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth link (in the sidebar to your right).
The rest of the movie is mostly an inditment of the fundamentalist church in America. Things like fundamentalist rants by people like Pat Robertson about how America must be brought back to God, and by someone else about how homosexuals ought to be put to death, and a book burning are shown. There is also an interview with the webmaster of www.raptureletters.com, and one with the principal of the fundamentalist Christian school in which the director of this film was taught to love God and fear hell.
This was a great film! For it's controversial subject matter I even found it to be very well reasoned and respectful. This is no ranting diatribe against Christianity, just an expose of historical evidence and the personal experience of the director which is contrary to what the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Coincidence? Who cares!
I've taken quite an interest in Buddhism lately. Dunno yet if this will be a long-term thing for me, or if it's just another one of my tangents. But so far, it really looks like it could stick.
While I was in the public library about 3 weeks ago, I was just browsing the religion/philosophy section. I happened upon a book called Beginning Mindfulness: Learning the Way of Awareness by Andrew Weiss. It looked interesting, and I had a bit of time on my hands, so I picked it up and took it over to the reading area to have a look at the intro. It is a sorta 10 week guide to meditation. I've been interested in meditation before but never had very good guidance. So I decided to give it a try and checked the book out. Anyway, this was the start (and least I can mark it as a starting point . . .)
Much of the stuff in the book comes from a a Vietnamese Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh. I'd not heard of him before (or so I thought) had a bit of trouble with the name because I had no clue how it should be pronouced. Anyway, while I was sitting in the hospital with only my Aunt Dee and Uncle Harvey in the room (see my previous post), Dee was talking a bit about her spiritual leanings and such and made a comment that a friend of her's had said that maybe she's a Buddhist and didn't know it. At this point I commented also that I'd been thinking the same of my self (at this point I'd been reading BM and following the instruction for a couple weeks). Then Harvey mentioned something about Thich Nhat Hanh and a book he was reading by him called Living Buddha, Living Christ. The name recognition got my attention--I'd heard of the book but never paid attention to who wrote it.
On Saturday the family was all over at Grampa's house. Probably due to the previous conversation, Dee brought a book she had (actually a compilation of sorts) by Thich Nhat Hanh to show to Harvey. I was interested and asked if I could borrow it for a few days and she said that I could.
Anyway, now I'm finally getting to the interesting coincidence that I mentioned in the title. This morning I was reading a bit of the book that I borrowed--a section called something like "call me by my real name." I was very touched by it--I'll post more about it later--and sorta got the urge to go to the Unitarian Church that I'd not been to for a couple months. I supposed I just decided I wanted to go to a church, and that was the only one that I had any desire whatsoever to go to. I didn't even look up what the sermon would be about before I left, like I usually do.
When I entered the sanctuary, I accepted a hymnal and order of service, and sat down to look over the order of service. I was rather amazed by what I saw. The readings were all from Thich Nhat Hanh! A couple of them were even ones that I'd read from the book. Now, it's nothing unusual in this church for the readings to be taken from the writings of a Buddhist monk. But the timing of it, and the idea that I had just gotten the urge to go after reading stuff from the same monk.
This may be an exceptionally odd thing for an atheist like me to say, but do you ever just get the feeling you are being led?
While I was in the public library about 3 weeks ago, I was just browsing the religion/philosophy section. I happened upon a book called Beginning Mindfulness: Learning the Way of Awareness by Andrew Weiss. It looked interesting, and I had a bit of time on my hands, so I picked it up and took it over to the reading area to have a look at the intro. It is a sorta 10 week guide to meditation. I've been interested in meditation before but never had very good guidance. So I decided to give it a try and checked the book out. Anyway, this was the start (and least I can mark it as a starting point . . .)
Much of the stuff in the book comes from a a Vietnamese Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh. I'd not heard of him before (or so I thought) had a bit of trouble with the name because I had no clue how it should be pronouced. Anyway, while I was sitting in the hospital with only my Aunt Dee and Uncle Harvey in the room (see my previous post), Dee was talking a bit about her spiritual leanings and such and made a comment that a friend of her's had said that maybe she's a Buddhist and didn't know it. At this point I commented also that I'd been thinking the same of my self (at this point I'd been reading BM and following the instruction for a couple weeks). Then Harvey mentioned something about Thich Nhat Hanh and a book he was reading by him called Living Buddha, Living Christ. The name recognition got my attention--I'd heard of the book but never paid attention to who wrote it.
On Saturday the family was all over at Grampa's house. Probably due to the previous conversation, Dee brought a book she had (actually a compilation of sorts) by Thich Nhat Hanh to show to Harvey. I was interested and asked if I could borrow it for a few days and she said that I could.
Anyway, now I'm finally getting to the interesting coincidence that I mentioned in the title. This morning I was reading a bit of the book that I borrowed--a section called something like "call me by my real name." I was very touched by it--I'll post more about it later--and sorta got the urge to go to the Unitarian Church that I'd not been to for a couple months. I supposed I just decided I wanted to go to a church, and that was the only one that I had any desire whatsoever to go to. I didn't even look up what the sermon would be about before I left, like I usually do.
When I entered the sanctuary, I accepted a hymnal and order of service, and sat down to look over the order of service. I was rather amazed by what I saw. The readings were all from Thich Nhat Hanh! A couple of them were even ones that I'd read from the book. Now, it's nothing unusual in this church for the readings to be taken from the writings of a Buddhist monk. But the timing of it, and the idea that I had just gotten the urge to go after reading stuff from the same monk.
This may be an exceptionally odd thing for an atheist like me to say, but do you ever just get the feeling you are being led?
My Grandma died about a week ago.
It's been in interesting couple of weeks . . .
She had a massive stroke on Wednesday the 3rd this month, and it was soon known that she was very unlikely to wake up. And that even if she did wake, she would not be the same person, so to speak. When I saw her, the only reason she was alive was the ventalator--she was not breathing on her own at all. After all of the family had arrived and gotten a chance to come to terms with the situation, the decision was made to turn of the ventalator on 1pm Friday. According to what I heard (as I was not there), she died instantly.
I've known for a few years now that she may not live much longer, but it was still a shock to find out about it. I was in the hospital all day Friday as family members came in from as far as Oregon and Arizona--it was quite a family reunion. My sister even flew in from Oregon, and I got to meet my baby neice for the first time. :)
This was a sad time for me, especially since this is the first time that I've been though the death of anyone who has played a big role in my life. I do feel a sort of peace about the whole thing though. For one thing, is this not the way it is supposed to happen? She was 89, she lived a full life, and had a sharp mind all the way to the end. She had just arrived at her 64th wedding aniversary the day before her stroke, and I am very glad that I decided to visit her along with my parents. When someone has lived a good life, right up to a ripe old age, and then dies of natural causes, I can't quite think of it as a tragedy. But I will still miss her greatly.
It's been in interesting couple of weeks . . .
She had a massive stroke on Wednesday the 3rd this month, and it was soon known that she was very unlikely to wake up. And that even if she did wake, she would not be the same person, so to speak. When I saw her, the only reason she was alive was the ventalator--she was not breathing on her own at all. After all of the family had arrived and gotten a chance to come to terms with the situation, the decision was made to turn of the ventalator on 1pm Friday. According to what I heard (as I was not there), she died instantly.
I've known for a few years now that she may not live much longer, but it was still a shock to find out about it. I was in the hospital all day Friday as family members came in from as far as Oregon and Arizona--it was quite a family reunion. My sister even flew in from Oregon, and I got to meet my baby neice for the first time. :)
This was a sad time for me, especially since this is the first time that I've been though the death of anyone who has played a big role in my life. I do feel a sort of peace about the whole thing though. For one thing, is this not the way it is supposed to happen? She was 89, she lived a full life, and had a sharp mind all the way to the end. She had just arrived at her 64th wedding aniversary the day before her stroke, and I am very glad that I decided to visit her along with my parents. When someone has lived a good life, right up to a ripe old age, and then dies of natural causes, I can't quite think of it as a tragedy. But I will still miss her greatly.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Sunday, July 17, 2005
thoughts on honesty
Damn, I was moody last week. LOL Much better now.
Anyway, I've given a bit of thought about the importance of honesty. I seem to have gotten these mixed messages about honesty all my life. On one hand there was the "honesty is the best policy" side. But then, in everyday life what I saw was that it is fine to lie, or at least not speak the truth, in little situations all the time. If so-and-so calls, tell them I'm not home. Or "that haircut looks great on you". Or on a much more serious note "I believe in God the Father . . . "
I've spent a lot of my life afraid to speak the truth on a variety of issues, because of fear of offending having someone diapprove of me. Or of hurting someone's feelings. And sometimes I'm afraid of just being too blunt in an honest negative opinion of someone. Anyway, I've had a few experiences last week, even today, where I've risked telling people things about myself or things I've done or thought when I knew that they would not like it. But it's been worth the risk. I've found that it is much better to have a thing in the open, than it is to try and conceal it and act like there is nothing there.
Anyway, I've given a bit of thought about the importance of honesty. I seem to have gotten these mixed messages about honesty all my life. On one hand there was the "honesty is the best policy" side. But then, in everyday life what I saw was that it is fine to lie, or at least not speak the truth, in little situations all the time. If so-and-so calls, tell them I'm not home. Or "that haircut looks great on you". Or on a much more serious note "I believe in God the Father . . . "
I've spent a lot of my life afraid to speak the truth on a variety of issues, because of fear of offending having someone diapprove of me. Or of hurting someone's feelings. And sometimes I'm afraid of just being too blunt in an honest negative opinion of someone. Anyway, I've had a few experiences last week, even today, where I've risked telling people things about myself or things I've done or thought when I knew that they would not like it. But it's been worth the risk. I've found that it is much better to have a thing in the open, than it is to try and conceal it and act like there is nothing there.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Love Bites - Def Leppard
[I love this song. And it fits with what I feel like today. Not all the lyrics fit, but the general mood definately does.
Speaking of music . . . I just subscribed to Yahoo music. If you really want to hear what I like, check out starseyer's station.]
If you've got love in your sights
Watch out, love bites
When you make love, do you look in the mirror?
Who do you think of, does he look like me?
Do you tell lies and say that it's forever?
Do you think twice, or just touch 'n' see?
Ooh babe ooh yeah
When you're alone, do you let go?
Are you wild 'n' willin' or is it just for show?
Ooh c'mon
I don't wanna touch you too much baby
'Cos making love to you might drive me crazy
I know you think that love is the way you make it
So I don't wanna be there when you decide to break it
No!
Love bites, love bleeds
It's bringin' me to my knees
Love lives, love dies
It's no surprise
Love begs, love pleads
It's what I need
When I'm with you are you somewhere else?
Am I gettin' thru or do you please yourself?
When you wake up will you walk out?
It can't be love if you throw it about
Ooh babe
I don't wanna touch you too much baby
'Cos making love to you might drive me crazy
[Repeat Chorus]
[guitar solo]
Ooh yeah
[Repeat Bridge]
Love bites, love bleeds
It's bringin' me to my knees
Love lives, love dies
[Repeat Chorus]
If you've got love in your sights
Watch out, love bites
Yes it does
It will be hell
Speaking of music . . . I just subscribed to Yahoo music. If you really want to hear what I like, check out starseyer's station.]
If you've got love in your sights
Watch out, love bites
When you make love, do you look in the mirror?
Who do you think of, does he look like me?
Do you tell lies and say that it's forever?
Do you think twice, or just touch 'n' see?
Ooh babe ooh yeah
When you're alone, do you let go?
Are you wild 'n' willin' or is it just for show?
Ooh c'mon
I don't wanna touch you too much baby
'Cos making love to you might drive me crazy
I know you think that love is the way you make it
So I don't wanna be there when you decide to break it
No!
Love bites, love bleeds
It's bringin' me to my knees
Love lives, love dies
It's no surprise
Love begs, love pleads
It's what I need
When I'm with you are you somewhere else?
Am I gettin' thru or do you please yourself?
When you wake up will you walk out?
It can't be love if you throw it about
Ooh babe
I don't wanna touch you too much baby
'Cos making love to you might drive me crazy
[Repeat Chorus]
[guitar solo]
Ooh yeah
[Repeat Bridge]
Love bites, love bleeds
It's bringin' me to my knees
Love lives, love dies
[Repeat Chorus]
If you've got love in your sights
Watch out, love bites
Yes it does
It will be hell
Update
I'll start with professional life . . .
My job is going well. Currently I'm working on the analysis and design stage for an internal web application for handling an invoice payment service. Learning a bunch about asp.net in the process--basically training myself as needed. It's a pretty nice arrangement for a devolper fresh from college like me.
About personal life:
I've been dating more this year than I have in my entire life. LOL I would like to find a long term relationship as a goal, but I don't feel quite ready for a commitment yet. Sometimes dating leaves me confused a bit--lol just how many personal details do I want to post on this blog?
Let's just say that, at the moment, it feels like my hormones, emotions, and reason are all pulling me in different directions. I may explain later, if I decide to spill that sort of personal stuff on the web for all to see.
My job is going well. Currently I'm working on the analysis and design stage for an internal web application for handling an invoice payment service. Learning a bunch about asp.net in the process--basically training myself as needed. It's a pretty nice arrangement for a devolper fresh from college like me.
About personal life:
I've been dating more this year than I have in my entire life. LOL I would like to find a long term relationship as a goal, but I don't feel quite ready for a commitment yet. Sometimes dating leaves me confused a bit--lol just how many personal details do I want to post on this blog?
Let's just say that, at the moment, it feels like my hormones, emotions, and reason are all pulling me in different directions. I may explain later, if I decide to spill that sort of personal stuff on the web for all to see.
Friday, June 24, 2005
My Birthday!
I turned 25 yesterday. So that makes me a quarter of a century old. And that my car insurance rate goes down, finally. :-p
Mom and Dad took me to the Outback Steakhouse since I'd never been there and wanted to try it. I wasn't disappointed either. I got the North Atlantic Salmon and it was just perfect. And after we talked a bit about drinks, Mom actually ordered me a shot of Maker's Mark. LOL And to think I was nervous about ordering drinks around them. I grew up so used to hearing that alcohol was evil to Christians that it's still hard to believe my folks have no problem with it, in moderation of course.
After we ate they took me to Sears and bought me a pair of tennis shoes. Which I needed, cause my old ones were starting to fall apart.
I also got a $25 gift certificate for Barns and Noble from my sis, via e-mail. I used it to buy a book on ASP.NET--strange for a birthday present since it's mainly for work. But I'd been eyeing it, and the thing costs nearly $50. Now I'm just waiting for it to arrive.
It still doesn't feel any different at 25 than it did at 24. I'm still too young to be getting old. :D
Mom and Dad took me to the Outback Steakhouse since I'd never been there and wanted to try it. I wasn't disappointed either. I got the North Atlantic Salmon and it was just perfect. And after we talked a bit about drinks, Mom actually ordered me a shot of Maker's Mark. LOL And to think I was nervous about ordering drinks around them. I grew up so used to hearing that alcohol was evil to Christians that it's still hard to believe my folks have no problem with it, in moderation of course.
After we ate they took me to Sears and bought me a pair of tennis shoes. Which I needed, cause my old ones were starting to fall apart.
I also got a $25 gift certificate for Barns and Noble from my sis, via e-mail. I used it to buy a book on ASP.NET--strange for a birthday present since it's mainly for work. But I'd been eyeing it, and the thing costs nearly $50. Now I'm just waiting for it to arrive.
It still doesn't feel any different at 25 than it did at 24. I'm still too young to be getting old. :D
Thursday, June 16, 2005
argument for strong atheism
Today I was thinking about what it means to be an atheist. In philosopical terms there are two different types of atheists. "Weak" atheists do not have a belief in god(s). "Strong" atheists believe that there is no god or gods. A common argument against strong atheism is that it is an irrational and unrealistic position, since no one can no for sure that there is no god. However, this argument hinges on what you mean by the word "god."
What characteristics does a person have to have in order to be considered a god? Does a god even have to be a person? I wonder this because I hear of people talking about a being that is anything from "all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present" to one that is simply some sort of force that permeates the universe. There is no universally agreed upon definition of "god" not even among Christians of the same denominations!
What I was wondering about is this: If we were to find evidence of a "supreme being", how would it be distinguished from an advanced alien? A perfectly natural being or force, and a product of evolution just as we are? Can anything that has come to be though natural forces--even forces that exist outside of or prior to our universe--properly be called a god?
I contend that no being or force that comes from natural causes (or human imagination, for that matter) can properly be called a god. And until I see some real good reason to believe that things can come from non-natural causes (could the supernatural even have causation??) then a person is perfectly justified in being a strong atheist.
(And, of course, this is an argument aimed people who are already agnostic or atheist. Most believers, I've noticed, will just say that I'm not giving the possibility of the supernatural its due. And I never will, at least until you can tell be what it is beyond just it's being "other than what I am able to see or otherwise detect around me." )
What characteristics does a person have to have in order to be considered a god? Does a god even have to be a person? I wonder this because I hear of people talking about a being that is anything from "all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present" to one that is simply some sort of force that permeates the universe. There is no universally agreed upon definition of "god" not even among Christians of the same denominations!
What I was wondering about is this: If we were to find evidence of a "supreme being", how would it be distinguished from an advanced alien? A perfectly natural being or force, and a product of evolution just as we are? Can anything that has come to be though natural forces--even forces that exist outside of or prior to our universe--properly be called a god?
I contend that no being or force that comes from natural causes (or human imagination, for that matter) can properly be called a god. And until I see some real good reason to believe that things can come from non-natural causes (could the supernatural even have causation??) then a person is perfectly justified in being a strong atheist.
(And, of course, this is an argument aimed people who are already agnostic or atheist. Most believers, I've noticed, will just say that I'm not giving the possibility of the supernatural its due. And I never will, at least until you can tell be what it is beyond just it's being "other than what I am able to see or otherwise detect around me." )
Schiavo autopsy in
I first knew something about this when I got a Yahoo News Alert on my desktop at work yesterday. It said something about how the autopsy results are not inconsistant with a perminant vegetative state. And according to the New York Times, there were more surprises about Terri Schiavo which showed both that she was not "smiling at the camera" as her family claimed because she was blind, that her brain had deteriorated to about 1/2 normal size, and that the brain deterioration meant that she was encapable of feeling pain or emotion. Apparently all her "responses" were reflex actions. She had no hope of recovery.
But the autopsy left unresolved the mystery, which haunted not just her
husband and parents but ultimately much of the nation, of why Ms. Schiavo's
heart stopped beating late one night when she was 26. The ensuing brain damage
left her able to breathe on her own but not, most doctors said, to think or to
have emotions . . .The autopsy also found that the brain deterioration had left her blind.That finding, along with the determination that the brain damage was
irreversible, caused some Republicans in Washington, who had pushed so hard for
federal intervention in her case, to have second thoughts. And Democrats cited
the autopsy results as proof that critics of the federal intervention had been
vindicated.
Here is the link to the NYT article.
Unfortunately, you have to sign in to read it.
Also, here is what Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State have to say on the subject. So much for the "culture of life" of the religious right.
"What is this "culture of life" anyway? Does it every actually apply to the living?" --quote heard on Freethought Radio.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Scopes Monkey Trial
Speaking of Inherit the Wind, here is an account of what happened in the real Scopes trial:
The Scopes Monkey Trial
The Scopes Monkey Trial
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Inherit the Wind
I finally saw Inherit the Wind (1999) today. I'd looked for it at a couple of local video rental stores without success, but today I was at the library and, while looking for something else, I noticed it on the shelf with the videos.
This is not a full review of the movie, but here are a few observations:
This is not a full review of the movie, but here are a few observations:
- I was a little surprised that very little of the movie has anything whatsoever about evolution. And this was because the court actually prohibited science discussion from the trial! I've read that this is a historically accurate detail too.
- The lawyer in defense of the teacher who was on trial for teaching evolution speaks very eloquently in defense of freethought--which turned out to be what the defense hinged on. Freethought vs. unthinking adherence to a dogma.
- The friendship between Drummond and Brady (the prosecuting lawyer) was fascinating. At the end of the movie Drummond even describes Brady as a "giant," even thought they disagree and fight each other like crazy in the courtroom.
- Two versions of atheism are presented in the film. There was Henry Drummond, the defense lawyer, who believed in a lot. In contrast to the stereotype of the atheist who believes in nothing, he holds truth and the ability of humans to reason to be nothing less than sacred. The contrast is provided by the newspaperman, the hardened and cynical atheist. Near the end of the movie, after the trial, they have an interesting conversation in which Drummond castigates the newspaperman for his cynicism and scoffing at other's beliefs.
- Also true to history, as I've heard, the teacher is found guilty but only fined $100. It was a technical loss, but an idealogical win. And Drummond mentioned an intent to appeal--I'll have to look up what happened as the appeal is not in the movie.
- This could be a hard movie for some Christians to watch, I think due to the portrayal of religious fanatisism and the grilling about the Bible that Drummond gave Brady when he called him to the stand. I, however, found that scene highly enjoyable.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
what's going on
This week I started on a new job. My first job where I'm actually what I went to school to do. :) I'm helping to redesign and manage the database system of a small telecommunications consulting firm. So far, so good. ;)
Also, due to a lack of interest (on my part) and a squeeze on my time from working full-time, I don't intend to finish reviews for the rest of the chapters of The Case for Faith. For one thing, I've gotten sick of it. I'm clearly not the target audience for the book--this was written for Christians and non-skeptical non-belivers. There is little here of interest to skeptics, and I'm getting tired of refuting the same types of arguments over and over. Also, Mom admited to me over a week ago that she wasn't getting anywere on the book I gave her (The Demon-haunted World) because she is just not open to what he is saying. She could read my opinions, sure, but not the opinions of someone like Carl Sagan. Oh well.
Wow, I've got to go or I'll be late for work!
EDIT: Name of employer has been removed at request, to protect the company from associations with religions and views on religions.
Also, due to a lack of interest (on my part) and a squeeze on my time from working full-time, I don't intend to finish reviews for the rest of the chapters of The Case for Faith. For one thing, I've gotten sick of it. I'm clearly not the target audience for the book--this was written for Christians and non-skeptical non-belivers. There is little here of interest to skeptics, and I'm getting tired of refuting the same types of arguments over and over. Also, Mom admited to me over a week ago that she wasn't getting anywere on the book I gave her (The Demon-haunted World) because she is just not open to what he is saying. She could read my opinions, sure, but not the opinions of someone like Carl Sagan. Oh well.
Wow, I've got to go or I'll be late for work!
EDIT: Name of employer has been removed at request, to protect the company from associations with religions and views on religions.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Chapter 4: God isn’t of warship if he kills innocent children.
Interviewee: Norman L. Geisler, Ph. D.
Right off the bat, the title of this chapter is misleading. When I read it in the table of contents (as you will see in my pre-read impressions), I was thinking of the children who died in disasters and the tsunami and famines. However, what this chapter actually addresses is the problems of atrocities commanded by God in the Old Testament. The objection could have been better worded as “God isn’t worthy of worship if he commanded genocide and cruel acts.” And as it turns out, only about half of the chapter addresses this question, while the other half focuses on proofs of the bible’s reliability.
Strobel presents the objection very well.
“God’s image as a loving and benevolent deity gets called into question by stores of seemingly cruel and vengeful behavior. Do these brutal accounts disclose the true character of God? And if they do, does he deserve to be worshiped?”
I’m not going to pick apart each and every argument given by Geisler as to why the Old Testament stories are not as cruel as they appear. But here are the highlights:
In answer to a charge from Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason that the Bible contained “cruel and torturous executions,” Geisler says that the charge of torture is due to misinterpretation in the King James Version. In fact, what David really did was force his enemies to either submit to forced labor or be killed. (Neither Strobel nor his interviewee gives Biblical references so I’m not going to try to find the passages in question.)
In the case of the Amalekites, Geisler basically says that they were bad people beyond any hope of salvation and deserved to be utterly destroyed--right down to the smallest infant and all the animals. How does he know this? Because
And did you know that the children who were mauled by bears for making fun of Elisha? They weren’t really children. They were a dangerous gang that threatened Elisha’s life and reputation. This is what Geisler says, anyway. And God viciously killed them as an example for anyone who would dare malign God or his prophet, so that maybe the people would take the hint and avoid his later wrath. This still sounds more like a tyrant than a loving deity to me.
Next Strobel brings up the cruelty that is built into the food chain in nature. This bit, I think, is rather out of topic for the chapter and should have been addressed in Chapter 1. Anyway, Geisler’s solution is that all animals were originally herbivores, but then were converted to carnivores sometime later as a result of the fall. My main problem with this argument has to do with the fact that predators are so wonderfully designed to be killing machines. The idea of a lion gaining nutrition from grass and fruit is totally absurd in the light that their teeth, claws, and digestive systems are specially designed for the killing and digestion of animal flesh. And can you imagine sharks eating seaweed? If Geisler is right, the curse must have been a new act of creation in its own right! Another problem is that this makes it out that God punished all of creation for the rebellion of humans. I can’t see how this could be considered just.
Speaking of cruelty to animals, it would be more in line with the topic of this chapter if Strobel would have asked about the justice in God commanding David to hamstring the horses of their enemies. This can be found in Joshua 11:6-9. What was the point? More references to biblical atrocities can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml.
The rest of the chapter is concerned with arguments that the Biblical accounts are trustworthy. In the interest of shortening my chapter reviews, I’ll not address these arguments here—particularly since they have little to do with the topic of the chapter.
Verdict
Friday, May 27, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Chapter 3: Evolution explains life, so God isn’t needed
As good journalists often do, Strobel opens this chapter with a compelling story. He recounts the story of how Ronald Keith Williamson is wrongly convicted of a murder in
He then goes on to establish the link between atheism and evolutionism, citing Richard Dawkins as saying that
Spontaneous generation has proven impossible; therefore life could not have come from nonliving chemicals.
Miller’s “life in a test-tube” experiment was based on faulty data; therefore life could not have come from nonliving chemicals.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/2005040718746.html
I can’t blame Strobel for not mentioning this, since his book was published in 2000, and this press release came out in April 2005 (a month prior to this writing.)
Among the statements in the article are as follows:
Next Bradley goes on to discuss various ideas about the mechanics of how evolutionists say that life on earth evolved. He mentions The “Random Chance” theory (which no one believes anymore), “Chemical Affinity” (that the chemicals needed for life were inevitably attracted to one another), “Self-ordering tendencies” (that life formed from self-organizing matter), “Seeding from space” (the idea that life originated somewhere else and ended up on Earth. I quite agree with Bradley that this only postponed the question of how life came to be.), “Vents in the Ocean” (that life originated near hot-springs in the ocean), and “Life from Clay” (that live evolved in clay rather than in water—I don’t really get this one.) I’m not going to get into detail on these, as I don’t have the time. I’m going to skip to the real crux of the matter.
Not convinced. Actually, I don’t even think the objection for which the chapter was named was even adequately addressed. Most of the chapter was did not even address evolution, but abiogenesis—the origin of life. As I mentioned before, even proving a divine origin for life would not disprove evolution. It could still be believed that God just got the process started. Nor would proving a natural origin for life prove that no god exists. It’s just that such a proof would point towards the credibility of a belief that there is no intelligent creator, which is what I think Richard Dawkins meant when he said that
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)