Stiff Upper Lip

104 years old and still harmful? We report, you decide...

2006-12-04T15:44:00.000-07:00

A great conversation about the utility and harm of religion. Start with the news story about the 104 year old man and then read the discourse that ensued...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15548443/

From: Wiseclam

> "I'm not a strong believer in retirement. I don't think retirement is
> in the Bible. Maybe it's there, but I haven't found it.”

Too bad myth and superstition are a source of his drive, though.

Reply From: Voooov

I'd have to say though, it's gotten him through 104 years of some tough times - - WWI and WWII, the Great Depression, and the deaths of virtually everyone he has ever known. He's one of those guys I mean when I say to you and Iota that I have no problem with people who use religion as a source of internal strength and who do not try to push their views on others.

Voooov

Reply From: IOTA

>>He's one of those guys I mean when I say to you and Iota that I have no problem with people who use religion as a source of internal strength and who do not try to push their views on others. <<

In general I agree. It seems that faith of the kind that Mr. McBurney has can be beneficial, and there doesn't seem to be much gain in depriving him of it. That's a fair point.

However, I do think it is wrong that only *certain* religions and internal beliefs are treated with this kind of reverence, while others are not. For example, had Mr. McBurney said, "I thank the space aliens who placed me here and gave me my advanced anti-aging genes for my long life" instead of talking about the Bible, the reaction among the vast majority of people would be far different. Amusement or even pity would be typical, with assumptions of senility, and perhaps even derision among some. You'd definitely have fewer people saying, "what's the harm, as long as it gives him comfort?"

So, while I understand and agree with the view that we should respect people's internal beliefs, whatever they may be and as long as they are not harmful or forced on others, I do criticize the arrogance by which faith in the Bible (and other Holy books) is given a pass, but by which other equally irrational (though perhaps less harmful) beliefs are branded as "weird". In my view, if faith in religion is something to be admired, because of the internal strength it gives, then let's at least be consistent and accord the same respect to all such internal beliefs, so long as they are not born of some abnormal neurological malfunction. Personally, I'm more open to the opposite but equally fair view: If you believe something irrational and you express it, it's fair game for *criticism*.

As it stands now, I'm quite sure that many of the people who would applaud Mr. McBurney for his particular faith would be first in line to demean him had he revealed a non-socially acceptable form of internal comfort. I find that to be arrogant.

God is to Free Will as Square is to Circle - Not!

2006-12-02T12:56:00.000-07:00

I’ve always struggled with the idea that God cannot create man with a truly free will. Now of course I don’t even believe that God exists as there is quite clearly not sufficient evidence to hold such a belief. But I’ve never understood the argument – from either the theist or atheist – that an all knowing God cannot exist simultaneously with human free will.

My views on this are quite simple: God is cable of creating a being (humans in this case) that has complete free will EVEN THOUGH God is also all knowing. The logical bridge to this conclusion is clear, I think. I’m assuming that God’s knowledge of how any individual human WILL choose does not necessarily negate the purity of that human’s freedom to choose.

The counter argument usually proposes that God’s knowledge of the pending choice renders that choice something other than a free choice. But why is this necessarily so?

Consider my definition of free will and that the “freeness” of any choice is measured only by the perception of the chooser. The human being exercising her free will, for example, only needs to feel that her choice is made freely, without barriers or constraints, in order for it to qualify as a free choice. God’s prior knowledge of HOW she will choose does not force her to choose a particular way nor does it constrain her choices in any way. At least not as far as she knows, which for all intents and purposes renders her choice free.

I understand the counter. God knows how she will chose therefore it is predetermined – and if the choice is already predetermined then it clearly IS constrained and not free. But God’s foreknowledge does not necessarily require the choice to be predetermined. This future choice we speak of can be made freely by the chooser – and God can simply know how the choice will be made.

Imagine that our protagonist has any number of choices in exercising her free will but eventually settles on one choice. Determining the “freeness” of this choice is quite simple (and it is aided very much by the lack of evidence for a knowing or especially intervening God - but that's another post).

Let’s ask her to choose between receiving one million dollars in cash or a new minivan. The obviousness of this choice not withstanding, can we say her choice is truly free even if one of the options isn’t a real choice (e.g., say the first option of one million dollars won't really be granted - but she doesn't know this)? Of course hers is still a free choice. The point being that her lack of an ability to ACTUALLY receive the deliverable does not make the choice any less free. The same is true for any of the myriad of options the chooser may have when exercising her free will. That only one is *known* by God to be the ultimate choice does NOT render her choice any less free.

I’m very open to considering counter arguments. I believe my view on this topic is in the minority. What are your thoughts? One counter argument I can think of is that my example is framed within the environment in which free will doesn't exist in the first place, so it cannot apply. Please comment.

That their is no God renders this debate the intellectual equivalent of arguing over the question, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", but still, it is in interesting philosophical and logical debate.

"Delusions" of Grandeur

2006-11-27T21:14:00.000-07:00

Murrough O'Brien's wildly overwritten review ("squirts this sachet of puerile pap"?!?) of Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" must at least approach the high-water mark of smugness among reviews of the book. Consider the following counter-argument, which O'Brien apparently thinks is a devastating blow to Dawkins:

[Dawkins] writes: "The designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer." The short response to that is a simple "why?" The long one goes something like this: the question "Who made God?"only makes sense if one assumes that the Divine nature is subject to a kind of inverted evolutionary process by which the complex is preceded by the still more complex, but why on earth should we assume this?

The short response to O'Brien's long response goes something like this: If God Himself doesn't require a designer because He could have arisen without one, then the Universe itself, being far less complex than God, requires a designer even less, making God unnecessary. In other words, the designer hypothesis itself proposes that anything of sufficient complexity must have been designed. If so, then God must have been designed. On the other hand, if God is exempt from the designer hypothesis, then the Universe, being far less complex than God, would be even more exempt.

Not content with merely overlooking the obvious, O'Brien later engages in a bit of special pleading. Okay, make that a lot of special pleading:

Dawkins also can't resist whipping out Russell's Teapot Paradigm. To explain: we cannot definitively prove that a teapot is not at this moment orbiting the earth but the balance of probability weighs against it. For teapot, read (of course) God. Oh dear. The analogy fails spectacularly because it's predicated on the fallacy of "all things being equal", that "all things being equal" we should have no reason to suppose that a God existed. But all things aren't equal: to think otherwise is to indulge in counterfactuality. To put it another way, the "delusion" of God is here opposed by the illusion of a human history devoid of religion. The fact is that a belief in transcendent powers of one sort or another is, so far as we can tell, as old as humanity, and has been upheld by some of its greatest minds. So no, a teapot won't do really. Some otherwise intelligent people seriously believe that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays of Shakespeare and, were all things equal, they would have a case. But, again, all things that matter remain obstinately unequal: you've got to explain why it isn't Shakespeare before you attempt to prove why it is the earl of Oxford. An old tradition may be false, but in your way it lies.

This might seem like a well thought out response, until one considers that it is apparently only the atheist that bears O'Brien's burden of having to disprove the beliefs of other "traditions". We don't (nor are we likely to ever) hear O'Brien chastise the Christian, for example, for not having disproved Hinduism, Scientology, and all the other incompatible traditions that "lie in the way" before asserting that a monotheistic God exists. If it is not incumbent upon the Christian to do any disproving at all, in the face of so many competing traditions, then why is it a great offense that the atheist fails to do any disproving?

Imagine what it would be like if O'Brien's "disproving argument" was applied outside its usual domain of religious apologetics. Consider for a moment what the list of explanations for infectious disease must have looked like only a few hundred years ago. On that list we'd certainly find such things as demonic possession, witchcraft, the divine will of a variety of Gods, and many other "traditions". Of course, each of these explanations had its strong supporters, and there were undoubtedly some who insisted that anyone who dared to disbelieve in all of these traditions was arrogant, or a fool, or both. As it turns out, none of these explanations was the right one after all. And we owe a tremendous debt to those few who insisted that none of these explanations sufficed, and that there must be some other as-yet-undetermined cause, whatever it may be. We now write the biographies of these people who withheld their belief in the absence of sufficient evidence, while the stories of the well-intentioned but ignorant believers are found in the footnotes.

History is full of such competing traditions that sought to explain chemical reactions, the motions of the planets, sexual reproduction, weather, and on and on. And it was those who refused to accept any of these traditions who finally found the right answer. How far behind would we be today if all of these doubters had been burdened with the task of having to disprove all of these other traditions first?

Why no Fundamentalists in Eastern Religions

2006-11-16T13:42:00.000-07:00

I have noted for some time that most fundamentalists seem to come from either the 'Religions of the Book' (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) or the ethnic religions (Hinduism, Judaism). I cannot recall hearing of fundamentalists in Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, or Taoism. I have also read that the religions and cultures of the Middle East and northern India derive from very ancient cultures that originally swept out of the steppes of central Asia where they typically worshipped, all-powerful, warlike and violent male supreme dieties. Can there be a relation between the ancient warlike proto-gods of the steppe culture and the existence of fundamentalism among certain derivative religions?

Dog Jesus and other musings. Read backwards. Or in reverse. Or from the bottom. Whatever.

2006-11-16T07:46:00.000-07:00

Great topic!

What if cow Jesus was sacrificed as hamburger meat? Was He resurrected three days later in people's stomachs as 400 McDonalds cheeseburgers across the country? Do the various animal Jesi attack each other as they do in the real world? If Great White Shark Jesus encounters Harp Seal Jesus, is the outcome as one would expect?

I would also assume that the Original Sin was "species-appropriate" - Did Dog Eve drink from the toilet bowl in the Garden of Eden?

P.S. We are all SO going to Hell!

-----Original Message-----
From: [Lover of OLAS]

You are on to something big and theologically significant, [Wiseclam]. Each 'Animal Jesus' would need to have his own form (and I do mean 'his' - - God's a man and people had better just get used to it - - read the Dog Bible if you doubt it) of sacrifice. A squid might lose it's ink for squidkind.

A squirrel might sacrifice his nuts (mind OUT OF THE GUTTER, [IOTAJAR]!) for squirrelkind. A Thompson's Gazelle might slow down as the herd was being chased by lions to give his hide for the herd. I'm not certain what a Sea Cucumber would do, but I do believe fervently that his actions would be 'species-appropriate'.

[LOLAS]

-----Original Message-----
From: [Wiseclam]

I like "dog Jesus". Every animal deserves salvation, right?

How was dog Jesus "scarified"? Probably not crucified, right? Maybe He stepped out in front of a car on purpose to save the other sinner dogs?

Sinner dogs. Great name for a band. You could even use the whole dog Jesus thing as a back story and write songs about dogs in heaven and hell.

-----Original Message-----
From: [LOLAS]

[My wife] and I have a concept we call 'The Dog Jesus'. By it, we mean that every species has its own Jesus that it needs to believe in to earn eternal life. We have never speculated what sins a dog or any other animal might have to commit in order to lose its shot at Dog Heaven, Squid Heaven, Syphilis Spirochete Heaven, etc.

As far as our little five-year old friend (let's call him 'Billy'), I'd say he's just sh*t out of luck. If little Billy has a stupid question like that, then he'd better learn to keep it to himself. God hasn't got time for whining smart-alecks.

[LOLAS]

-----Original Message-----
From: [Wiseclam]

I guess the question is... is there a hell for dogs?

If there is, what is it like?

[LOLAS] told us yesterday of the 5-year old (played by himself) who asked about God visiting earth. I wonder if the occasional 5-year old - who is surely told that little Spot goes to doggie heaven when he dies - asks about dog hell when they learn about the terrible and eternal consequence of failing to believe the Jesus story?

-----Original Message-----
From: [LOLAS]

Oh [IOTAJAR] - - I need to clear up a misconception that has obviously crept into our discussion. I DO believe that Dakota is up in heaven, chasing balls and eating fresh squirrels daily (the squirrels will have their own heaven later, kind of a heaven-once-removed). I just don't believe that I'll be able to see him there since I'll be going to a very real, literal hell.

I have been very wicked in this life, openly scoffing at the creation story, the parables of the talking donkey, floating axe head, and water-walking, as well as touching myself improperly in thought, word and deed. Oh no, my friend, we have earned our places in Hell - - how much clearer could God's inerrant word be on that point?

[LOLAS]

-----Original Message-----
From: [IOTAJAR]

>>As far as virulent fundamentalism - - if very privately held, then of course we'll never know. The minute any knowledge of that type of belief becomes public, then it probably deserves critique.<<

Agreed. I'd guess that it would be hard for a person who has virulent fundamentalist beliefs to keep them private, since those beliefs are likely to affect their actions, which I think are even more open to criticism.

Unlike your innocuous belief, the fundamentalist that hates gays for example will have a tough time not acting on those beliefs in some fashion, such that their behavior is open to criticism, whether or not they explicitly state their beliefs.

Bottom line: [LOLAS] belief that his dog is in Heaven makes him hate.

-----Original Message-----
From: [LOLAS]

[Wiseclam] - - who knew you were such a virulent dog hater? You remind me with your vitriolic attack of John Kerry in Viet Nam when he ran over entire packs of dogs with his pink-hued swift boat while he and his coke-snorting gay crewmen burned American flags and spit on copies of the Ten Commandments.

[LOLAS]

-----Original Message-----
From: [Wiseclam]

[IOTAJAR] - very well stated.

I am in complete agreement on this. In practice, I would be one of those that says "That's nice". I have no desire to take away a person's hope and happiness.

However, if there was even the slightest hint that such a belief was offered to me in the hopes that I would agree - or worse, in the hopes that we should ALL agree (and set public policy based on the belief) then this is where I would challenge the claim.

-----Original Message-----
From: [IOTAJAR]

On the continuum of beliefs, that one is pretty innocuous, I have to say. And I'm guessing this belief would be largely private, and that if you do believe this, you only offered it publicly because you were pressed to do so by me. As you've alluded to, you don't define yourself and other people by this belief, and you don't go around saying "Hey you! My dog Dakota is in Heaven and I'll see him again."

If you were to offer these beliefs up to others, would it be fair for them to criticize these beliefs? Sure, most would probably smile and say "That's nice", but it seems to me that if a person offers up an idea, it is fair to challenge it. People still have the option of believing whatever they want without being challenged by not expressing those beliefs to others.

I know of no fair principle by which a person should be able to publicly express their beliefs unchallenged.

-----Original Message-----
From: [LOLAS]

Here's a quick pop-off answer to your last question:

"I believe (and I don't) that someday I will see my dog Dakota again in Heaven and that we'll run and play together."

Let me further define this scenario by saying that when I have this belief that I am 93 years old and am facing an imminent death. I just want some comfort.

Would that kind of scenario be what you are looking for? It's simple -- "I'll see my old dog again", it's beneficial - - 'it helps me sleep at night and makes me smile to think of it', and it has no negative impact - - 'no one else has to believe that I'll see Dakota again and no one is being killed by suicide bombers who insist that all believe that I'll see Dakota again or they'll die for their apostasy'.

[LOLAS]

-----Original Message-----
From: [IOTAJAR]

Well said (written) - Agreed.

Claims about what happens when you die or that there is a guiding intelligence operating in the universe are statements about The Way Things Are. If we allow people to assert these beliefs without criticism (and that's all that's being proposed - not laws), then the idea that we can know The Way Things Are without any evidence whatsoever will likely spread into beliefs that are not so warm and fuzzy anymore.

Can you give me a more specific example of a belief that you think is simple, unobtrusive, and beneficial without having any negative impact elsewhere?

-----Original Message-----
From: [Wiseclam]

My views are shifting on this topic. Sam Harris makes some good points on the matter and since I have a predisposition to loath everything religious it is easy for me to make this change.

The idea here is that any kind of thinking that is not rational thinking - any conclusion made that is not based on evidence and/or where a non scientific approach is taken - is dangerous if for no other reason than it enables this failed methodology.

Now keep in mind that this standard does not apply to non material claims like "I love my wife" or "This scent makes me feel happy" (the latter, of course, might be explainable in the near future - by science of course). I would not wish to take away a person's right to subjectivity.

But claims to gods, the origins of the universe and man, what happens when we die... these claims are so often made without any rational basis - and still clung to as if they were derived with certainty.
Making such claims without evidence can be quite dangerous. If nothing else the methodology here is the same methodology used by the fundamentalists - and perhaps this is what we should be attacking.

-----Original Message-----
From: [LOLAS]

At first I was tempted to line up squarely behind your last statement, [IOTAJAR]. Then, upon some reflection, I still oppose the criticism of ALL faith (not sure you called for that, but that's the take I am responding to). I still feel that decent, honest people can have a simple, unobtrusive faith that colors their actions in a beneficial way (for them and their circle /community) without infringing upon the rights or actions of others. To criticize them for a non-rational approach is, to me, unnecessary.

What's gained under that scenario?

[LOLAS]

PS - - I am likely to have missed your main point or to have responded obliquely to your comment. If that is the case, then I will apologize as a modern Republican politician might apologize:

"I am sorry that you misunderstood my innocent actions / comments through a combination of your own ignorance and diminished moral integrity."

-----Original Message-----
From: [IOTAJAR]

I agree that any fundamentalist dogma, or fervent belief without evidence, is dangerous, regardless of the background. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Hindus, but I am not surprised that they would have beliefs that conflict with more modern values, or that they'd be causing problems.

These are the reasons why Dawkins and Harris, among others, are increasingly advocating that people with modern values not refrain from criticizing religion. A person's faith, especially if it affects their actions, is fair game for all manner of criticism.

-----Original Message-----
From: [LOLAS]

I am listening to an audio book on the way to work these days about democracy - - particularly about failures in democracy. I had not realized this but currently, India's democracy is under siege. Do you know what the source of the siege is? It's a strong fundamentalist Hindu wave in the country that by some estimates has set parts of India (Uttar Pradesh for example) back 200 years in economic and political terms. The three of us frequently discuss Christian fundamentalism and its impact on America.

We sometimes broach the topic of Islamic fundamentalism, but I have never really thought much about Hindu fundamentalism. I think the general theme is that fundamentalism, with its focus on exclusivity of truth and irrational nature, is a danger wherever it exists, under whatever creed it hijacks.

Hell in a handbasket? You decide...

2006-11-16T07:15:00.000-07:00

In response to my suggestion that my two friends deserve to be sent to a place of eternal torment - for eternity - I received this reply:

That is so Calvinist, [Wiseclam]- - and oh so true. We all deserve God's rightful wrath so much, yet for some inexplicable reason, God has chosen to pre-ordain that certain people will be saved. Others are absolutely f*cked
- - right out of the chute! That's what I really like about Calvinism - - it takes all the pressure off - - if you're doomed you're doomed, nothing you can do about it and if you're not, then great news - - you can't lose it! Free Pass City versus Eternal Divine Sodomizing.

[IOTAJAR], I think your notion of Hell is vastly different from mine. You seem to envision a lot of horrible torment and constant rending torture. I see Hell more as a series of never-ending disappointments.

Hell Day 1:
You're supposed to go to Elitch Gardens all day but on the way there, your bus breaks down outside the gates. You have to stay with the bus while a guy slowly repairs the engine while you watch the people having fun at the park. To make up for your having missed the fun all day your guardian demon tells you that you'll get ice cream after supper - - and then forgets to give it to you.

Hell Day 2:
You are awakened to a phone call from the front desk. "Please hang around your room from eight until noon - - someone's coming by to install cable TV." You wait all day around the room, missing the rumba lessons, coke floats at lunch, and afternoon story time. About 5:30 a guy comes by to install cable but finds out he needs an adapter. He says he'll call you back later in the week to reschedule.

Hell Day 3:
Your guardian demon tells you excitedly that you're going to get a new neighbor moving in across the hall - - "I think it's a former stripper".
Later that day, Rush Limbaugh moves in across the hall. He leaves his front door wide open and you note with a wave of disgust that he's doing a slow-motion strip tease while looking in your direction.

Hell Day 4:
You're told after breakfast that you're going to get a new Sony Play Station 'right after morning vespers'. Later that afternoon, someone finally comes around and delivers a 1986-vintage Atari pong machine - - it's preloaded with only one game - - the Micro Saint / Atari Fishing Simulator.

That's what Hell is like my friend!

[Lover of OLAS]

Come on? How much harm can religion do? I mean... really?

2006-09-19T16:58:00.000-06:00

This is great commentary from the upper northwest...

I love the fact that the Pope quoted a 13th century Byzantine emperor. The Papal See is making headway. Usually, they quote either a 3500 year old text - - the Old Testament - - or a 2000 year old text - - the New Testament. The Pope has dragged the Catholic Church kicking and screaming into the 13th century. What’s the rush? Why did he skip over the wisdom of the 6th century, for example? Why rush willy nilly into the Middle of the Dark Ages?

If the Catholic Church and the Moslem world were to switch the topic to the weather, would it have to be the 13th century understanding of weather? For example, would they talk about how failure to tithe can result in ‘poisonous vapors’, ‘misbegotten miasmas’, or a plague of frogs?

This is the kind of battle between fundamentalists that concerns me. These guys have the power to launch things that can very adversely affect millions of people in the short and long term. Muslim clerics are calling, in some parts of the world, for true believers to indiscriminately kill Christians. How will this do anything to counter the Pope’s ill-chosen words? Of course, certain Christian sects will call for the indiscriminant killing of Moslems - - as if that finally will be the panacea we’ve been seeking.

I don’t have a problem with religion per se. For me it’s all about these fundamentalists - - they are the ones that worry me.

First post

2006-09-19T15:19:00.000-06:00

Why stiff upper lip? Can't really say. Just a random thought.

Purpose of the blog? Just a place to have a private conversation in public?

What will we talk about? Religion. Politics. Philosophy. Sex. And other important worldly topics. We're very sophisticated people.

Who is posting? That's for us to know and you to... not know, I guess.