Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Unbelievable Truths About islam
First, I am going to stop apologizing for not posting very often. My life has been insane, so I hope you can deal with that. At least you don't have to deal with my insanity directly.
I just finished reading a book called 'Leaving islam' (Edited by Ibn Warraq), which is a collection of first-hand stories of apostates - people who left islam. What I learned from these people about the 'cult' of islam is absolutely unbelievable.
What struck me first is the fact that islamic children, during their religious instruction, are taught to read and recite the koran, but are not taught what the words mean! They are told that simply reciting the words brings you closer to allah - you do not need to know what you are saying. A local imam provides interpretations, and the most well spoken and charismatic imams are the ones that garner the largest followings.
The first thing each of these apostates (that is what islam calls them - I call them HEROES), did when they began to question their faith was to read the koran from cover-to-cover (translated into their own language) - for many of them, the first time they had ever done so.
All the people who gave their stories in this book had a similar response to the literal reading of the koran - horror.
Here are a few of the statements that were common among all the stories;
1) There is nothing of any moral consequence in the book. All moral statements made in the koran existed in previous years.
2) Most of the koran focuses on the rites and rituals of the religion and the punishments to be enacted for those who do not follow the rules.
3) The book allows islamic soldiers the right to enslave and rape any women who are captured during war. He can do this and still be faithful to his wives.
4) When the koran discusses freedom of religion, it only means if you are not a muslim. Once you convert to islam you are never allowed to leave. You can be killed without consequence if you have been proven to be an apostate.
And the historical record of Muhammad tells an interesting tale as well;
1. Muhammad was a sadistic and vengeful person who ordered the assassination of anyone who so much as disagreed with him, even his closest and most loyal supporters.
2. Muhammad took a 6 year old girl as a wife, and consummated the marriage when she was 9.
3. He openly sanctioned the killing of all Jews.
4. Mohammed did not leave any instructions for how to carry on the religion after he was gone. The moment he died a power struggle ensued, creating the first initial rift within the religion.
So basically, the leaders of islam today have built a group of followers who believe in a book that they have never read, and trust their religious leaders to interpret it for them. I believe the last time that happened on a large religious scale was during the Spanish inquistion and the crusades. The truth is, this religion was designed exclusively to conscript and maintain a loyal and fierce army.
I hear people talk about a 'new' islam, or the 'true' islam, but the fact is that there is only one islam, and it is a violent cult bent on complete subjugation of the entire human race. Those who follow it have been brainwashed because they have never really read the Koran; they have only been told what it says. But, despite the grim reality of this religion, we are not allowed to discuss religion, good or bad, for fear of hurting someone's sensibility, or actually make them think about their beliefs. We give religious organizations far too much exemption from the rules that the rest of us must follow.
islam is a religion that preaches tolerance only until conversion can occur. Until someone is converted to islam, they are no more important than a common farm animal. The koran openly and flagrantly states that those who cannot be converted must be killed or enslaved.
To those who believe that islam can be a peaceful and tolerant religion, I disagree. People and individuals may be good and tolerant, but the religion as a whole is the most insidious type of cult that I have ever seen, and it terrifies me. Those Muslims who are tolerant and kind do not follow the true nature of islam, but their own interpretation of it. To those people, I say the goodness is in your heart and not in any book, for that is where all goodness comes from.
A brief quote from one of the authors of this book;
I was shocked to learn that the koran tells Muslims to kill disbelievers where ever they find them(II.191), to murder them and treat them harshly(IX.123), slay them(IX.5), fight with them(VIII.65), to humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax even if they are Christians and Jews(IX.29). I was shocked when I learned that the koran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity, and says clearly that no other religions except islam is accepted(III.85). I was shocked when I learned that the koran says: “as for the disbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bows and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (XXII.21). I was shocked to learn that the book of allah says that women are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (IV.34), and that woman will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands(LXVI.10). I was shocked to learn that the koran maintains that men have an advantage over the women (II.228); that it not only denies women equal rights to their inheritance (IV.11-12), but it also regards them as imbeciles and decreed that their testimony is not admissible in court. This means that a woman who was raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness.
And, for those who have any further doubts, read the accounts of those who survived the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971, where 2 million people were murdered in the name of Allah by the Pakistani army.
The stories in this book made me physically ill, and brought me to a point where I am done giving the benefit of the doubt to any religion for any reason. I am convinced that none of them have any redeeming social value at all, if they ever did.
Is anyone else tired of pandering to these people?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
their invisible sky daddy is just crazy
unlike the invisible sky daddy we prefer over here, ours used to be crazy, turnin' chicks into salt pillars for looking at a town being laid waste by fire and brimestone. (I can't help stare at a car wreck I'd have to take a peek at that action. I'd also want to know what a brimestone was and how you trash a town with it.) But those days are behind him, because our invisible sky daddy had a nice talk with the doctor and now he's on a heavy dose of lithium, prozac and heroin. And there's the problem, their invisible sky daddy went to see Dr. Phil, and if you were stuck talking to that douche bag you'd want to become a martyr too, and taking lots of others with you.
That was random. The truth is I, like most folks here, don't care for any of the religions. I am far from an expert on any of them but from my limited knowledge it seems that christianity and islam are both quite violent at their roots, islam maybe a little more so, the difference is that christianity had its violent rise and is now comfortably number one. Islam on the other hand is trying to de-thrown christianity, the problem being christians were violent when soldiers carried swords and axes while maybe riding a horse. Islam is violent in the era of WMDs, which is obviously a grave concern for anyone who is a fan of not being dead.
Oh and Jim I just printed off your book, BTW thanks for making it available now I just gotta figure out how to get it out of the office without anyone noticing the large stack of papers under my arm....
I agree with most of what
I agree with most of what you have to say. I don't think the roots of Christianity are much more peaceful than Islam, so much as Christianity has become more tamed by enlightenment philosophy. However I do think Islam has more of a tradition of keeping beliefs as they were in the past, since it's more directly based on the immediate teachings of its founder. I think this has kept the religion closer to what it was initially and made it harder for it to evolve as the world changes.
Islamic teachings weren't always as rigid as they seem to be now though, so I think it's reasonable that it can change again to a more moderate form. Nature actually had a kind of interesting article recently about this. It was directed towards Islamic science, but I think the general ideas are applicable to a wider range of ideas. For anyone with access the article is here
good call
My greatest fear is that fundamentalists of both these religions are preparing for an all out war. My hope is that when the dust settles and the bodies are buried reason might finally prevail, but I've been accused of being an optimist before, and a cynic, not sure how I pull that one off.
Wow...all 600 pages?
You printed off all 600 (or whatever it is) double-spaced pages? Yeah, that is quite a stack. I figured most people just read it on their computer (now over 3500 downloads of it). But look at it this way...you won't be lacking for scrap paper when you're done.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
oh...
The PDF said it was just under 300 pages, if it was actually closer to 6 that would explain why the stack seemed quite a bit bigger than I was expecting. I don't have a computer at home so I figured printing it off would be less wasteful to the company then spending the next week of work reading your book. Instead I spend my time reading and writing blogs, much more productive. My job kicks ass.
1 mohamed islam
SOME OF THE SAYINGS
OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD
According to Muslim scholars the following four sayings of the Prophet are indispensable for the religious guidance of man and contain the summary of Islamic Law.
They are:
1) Verily actions are guided not but by the intentions underlying them and verily for every person is nought but that which he intended. 1
2) The proof of a Muslim's sincerity is that he pays no heed to that which is not his business.
3) No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
4) That which is lawful is clear, and that which is unlawful likewise, but there are certain doubtful things between the two from which it is well to abstain.
The following utterances and actions by Prophet Muhammad are authentic, translated from the two books of "Hadith" (Prophet's Sayings and Traditions)-Sahih AI-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. All the Prophet's sayings recorded in these two books were ascertained either by the Prophet's Companions who were in direct contact with him or transmitted by reliable people after quoting many other sources. Each saying mentioned in these two great books is narrated after mentioning the authority for the trustworthiness of the statements of narrators.
The Prophet warned the Muslims saying: "Do not misquote me. Whoever does so will
have his abode in Fire".
As Prophet Muhammad's sayings constitute the second and complementary part of Islam, it becomes imperative for Muslims not to accept the sayings except those transmitted through reliable sources. As stated by Muhammad Ibn Sirin, "This science (Prophet's Traditions) is the religion, so be earful in receiving it." The Prophet also warns: "Whosoever brings in an innovation in these affairs of ours (the religion) which is not there, it is to be rejected".
The following sayings are chosen from many, only to illustrate either the teachings, wisdom and ethics of Muhammad, or the barbarous manners of the people among whom he was born and lived. Some of them are meant to guide the Muslims and other peoples who like to lead a good and welfare life either here or hereafter.
the sayings of Muhammad are here given subjectwise
Yes, the majority of Muslims
Yes, the majority of Muslims can't actually read the Koran. That's because it is considered blasphemy to translate it into another language, and blasphemy to read it, because in translating it the translator might accidentally misinterpret the holy words of the profit(sp?). "To translate is to betray" as the old saying goes. However the language is an archaic version of Arabic language, even for a native speaker of the Arabic tongue it would be like asking your average high school student to read Beowulf in the original old English (and I've seen passages from Beowulf in the original old English, it is not happening). That's not even getting into the people who can't even speak modern Arabic. So the result is quite a few worshipers have to trust that what their Imams tell them is the truth. But then, it's not that different from the gobbledygook in the King James bible that people have the nerve to call "English", where most modern kids aren't going to be able to understand it without "help". But then, that's probably why the fundamentalists insist that the King James bible is the only true English translation (that and they probably think that the people writing the new English translation are purposefully rewriting the bible to further their own agenda, imagine that).
Of course, the inability to read the Koran does offer a pro as well as a con, given time Islam will shape itself by whatever the people who follow it do and teach (that's both a pro and a con), and that people will inevitably forget and deny the uglyness of their past.
So wait, Christians and Jews should be able to expect special treatment that shamanic polytheistic tree worshiping infidels don't deserve? Somehow I don't think that's fair. If they're going to be burned alive than the Christians and Jews had better be there screaming on the pyre too.
Pretty much anything you can say about Islam...
With 1 bn people, pretty much anything you can say about Islam would be true, except this:
Not true of any major religion. But (as per Webs' example) in our attempts to be fair, it is easy to overlook the large portion of Islam that is about at the level where Christianity was during the crusades and inquisition. Egypt just got 'round to outlawing female genital mutilation, and it'll be generations before the practice becomes uncommon. Pakistan has hundreds of madrassas. You can be beaten up by the religious police in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for being gay is worse. In country after country, church and state are the same. Iraq, for example, cannot have anything in the constitution that is contrary to the Koran. That goes double for Afghanistan, where teaching girls in school can get you killed.
There's some gruesome language in the Bible, too, but Islam has managed to align itself with death threats and bombs in a big way. Not obscure cult leaders in little backward rural communities, but leaders of national repute laying plain death threats on authors and cartoonists. We get an abortion clinic bombing once every year or so in the US, but read the Times Of India or the Jerusalem Post or any number of other newspapers from areas where Islam has reached critical mass.
I think Islam exists so Christianity won't be the worst religion.
best quote in a while
HA! Thanks old fool, I needed that.
Really?
I second what Jsn said and would like to add the following...
The actual Muslim friends I have that grew up in Arabic countries, one from Iran, one from Palestine, and one from Syria (whom consequently is an atheist and was never killed for dropping his faith) were all taught about what they read in the Koran and were not taught to just recite.
I think what the apostate's were referring to were groups that practice a fundamentalist form of Islam. Every religion has fundamentalists and just because they do it doesn't mean that entire religion is a cult of fundamentalists. If that were true the world would seriously be in trouble since there are over 1 Billion Muslims.
If this were true anyone that enrolled into one of the many Marxists schools in the Arabic countries would be killed. And for that matter how are the schools still standing? According to these folks from the book those schools should be shut down and burned no?
Hmmm, if that were true we'd all be fucked since there are 6 billion other Muslims in the world.
My atheist Arabic friend put it to me this way (I am paraphrasing here):
The Koran having violent and brutal parts is no different than the Old Testament. There are passages in the Old Testament about raping, sacrificing, etc. Are we to suddenly believe Christianity is the second or first most dangerous and bloody religion because of what's written there? And that those that follow this religion are some kind of terrorist by association? No because a small minority of Christians take what's written in the Bible as literal in all walks of life.
I was shocked when I read the bible too, what's the difference? As are most people that sit down and actually read it.
I agree religion has no social value at all. But I still firmly think it is people that do bad things. Not a construct or abstract creation. The idea that a religion breeds or creates violence is similar to saying that guns murder people. I am all for the abolition of religion, but it will never happen. So to be realistic I would rather go after the fundamentalists than the religion itself. One is more productive than the other.
There is a difference
Between Christianity and Islam in the present day. Not of intent perhaps but certainly of degree and 'execution'.
For instance considering the 'crime' of apostasy:
From the website http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35507.htm, we find this -
It was not that long ago that there was a fellow in Afghanistan who was threatened with death for converting and had to claim insanity to get out of it.
When was the last time that the vatican executed someone for apostasy? The last time the heart of Islam i.e. Saudi Arabia, killed someone for it was 1996.
Does anyone think that the threats to the lives of Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists were idle threats and would not have been carried out had there been an opportunity to do so? In what country are there Christian religious police like the Muslim religious police in Saudi Arabia? Is there any question of the religion followed by the hijackers of 9-11?
Given a choice between publically avowing my atheism on the streets of Rome or on the streets of Mecca it would be an easy choice to make. I don't think I'd last a minute in Mecca.
The distinction is similar to two viruses. The virus which causes the common cold doesn't kill many people. The AIDS virus does. I am going to be very distrustful of any declared muslims unless they disavow all of those passages in their holy book which call for burning me alive. It is simply a matter of self preservation, because in these times I think that some muslims given the opportunity to burn me alive, would, just like their book tells them to. Not millenia ago, not hundreds of years ago, not decades ago. Today.
But what if ... ?
Imagine this scenario:
A group of Muslims are getting ready to burn you alive for being an atheist, and it turns out nobody thought about how to light the bonfire. Someone says "Abdul, run over to Pat Robertson's house and see if he's got some matches and gasoline!"
Do you think Brother Pat would say no?
Depends.
...on whether you were a fair-skinned atheist or a dark-skinned one, I'd guess with Brother Pat. He hates him some Muslims, might say "no" just to spite 'em if you were fair-skinned.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
maybe
personally I think he'd bring matches and some home made BBQ sauce, hmm... nothin like some good heathen hot off the fire. He's a southerner, he knows its all about the slow cookin' so the meat just falls right off the bone, which also means you get those screams lingering in the air for that much longer. Ok Pat's twisted but I honestly doubt he'd eat a heathen, he doesn't want to be tainted.
I think
That the Christians prefer to keep their cannibalism symbolic. Anyway I'm pretty white so I might be okay. I do hope never to have to test it though.
How different is this from
How different is this from the children who recited Catholic Mass in latin?
Hell, teaching any kids to recite biblical text in their OWN language is the same since much of the words are beyond their comprehension. Even simple language can be misunderstood and sung out with gleeful abandon, such as the hymn about " Gladly, The Cross-eyed Bear."
Any indoctrination of dogma at an age before the ability to reason or reason complexly, makes it that much harder to extricate those interwoven ideologies later in life, even with cognitive dissonances sounding in their heads. Arguing with adults raised in the church has proven the old adage, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time...and annoys the pig."
The business of religion is to get 'em while they're young so they'll parrot ideological nonsense till they die.
Also, check out "infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The book "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali would probably interest you as well.
I'll second this recommendation
I just finished reading Infidel and it is great. I read it in about two days because I couldn't put it down. For people who claim that religious belief is benign, this book is a real eye opener.
Belief systems
Would you be of the opinion that all religious belief systems are, by their very nature, malignant?
-Col.
Shared Reality
Colonel,
I saw your post a few days ago and had to think about it for a while. I was inclined to say "yes, all religions are bad". But that would have just sounded like a canned response. After giving it more thought, I remembered that many religious institutions do a great deal of charity work. I also thought of the way Black churches have been historically the only means of community and political organization. So, there are two examples of positive things churches/religion can do for people. Help me out if you can think of more.
However, I still think religion has major problems. Here is a quote I took from the website God is for Suckers that pretty much sums up my feelings toward religion: "Is all religion harmful? Ultimately, yes, because it keeps us from having a shared, legitimate sense of reality. It forces us to choose between sharing and reality, which is an awful choice. It also, of course, forces us to make arbitrary and often ill-fated decisions about with whom we can and cannot share."
Religion can have some positive effects on people, but it can also have some horrid, hateful and even deadly effects. I think people should look for a better way than religion to organize and make their lives better. Hopefully they can find something that doesn't require a person to ignore logic and reason the way religion does.
Dirk
Great picture!
I like your new photo, although I'm a bit jealous I don't look as good!
I appreciate your thought-filled response, Dirk. Clearly you rolled it around. I'm inclined to agree with you about "religion" per se, which is why I tend to always put it in quote marks. Clearly, it has done a lot of harm.
But "religion" shouldn't be the fulcrum point. Truth should be--at least for those of us driven by its pursuit. So if it happened to be, just for the sake of argument, that one of the "religions" turned out to be true, then we would have to speak about the values of that particular worldview as well as how, sadly, corrupt men have hi-jacked it on occasion. For me, that would be the true line of demarcation: what was the original intent of this (hypothetically) true "religion" and in what ways has it been twisted by either evil men or good men that had misunderstood their world and its God.
I think, for example, of Mark Buntain, a man I've known and heard. He spent his life in the hell-hole of Calcutta India carrying home sick and dying children. He built a hospital there, because in the state-run facility, rats were eating the new-born babies. Obviously, this doesn't make his religion correct, nor does it mean that there weren't blights like the Inquisition. But neither does 19th century slavery mean that the American form of government is inherently wrong, either.
Clearly, it is a deeper and far more multifaceted issue than one might think at first blush. Your response indicates you have wrestled with that more than those that just spout propagandist tag-lines. I wish others would apply their minds as well.
Can I get the same make-over surgeon you had? You look great!
-Col.
Truth is tricky, but yes
Agreed. Truth and or reason should be the what we all seek and share. The tricky part is how do we all agree on what "truth" actually is. Religious leaders and politicians are masters at bending so-called "truths" to their agenda. That is why my position as a skeptic has been to trust only the cold hard facts. It has always been impossible for me to blindly trust anothers perception of reality. I have to experience things for myself.
Interesting hypothetical. I guess if I could actually see and hear god for myself, I would have no choice but to believe. Mind you, I set the bar pretty high for what I would consider a god. The thought is interesting, because if there were such a diety, I think he/she would have revealed themselves by now. The fact that the supernatural remains hidden to skeptics means it doesn't exist, to my mind. It says god only exists inside the heads of man.
As for the hi-jacking part, that is also evidence for my position. Examples of truly good, righteous people are few, examples of bad people using religion/god to further their agenda are many. It seems like every religious person is a hypocrite waiting to be exposed.
I know it's a cliche, but if you haven't read the bible and become an atheist, you aren't reading it right.
This is a paradox I will never understand about the religious. It would seem to me that a meer human could never understand a diety's will or intentions. What I see are people using their religions to further their own purposes or views. I can't think of a single religion on this planet that is completely benevolent. Perhaps Zen Buhddism is the closest?
You've been here on UTI long enough. I think it's about time you put up a picture of yourself or some sort of avatar. It's so easy a cave man could do it.
Dirk
Ahh. A Picture.
I'd have to think up something other than a photo. I don't want to scare the poor people that log on here.
I think we have all had unique experiences of how "religious" people have treated us, or how we have viewed their national input, etc. My own experience is that I could produce easily several hundred well-intentioned, sincere, "godly" people for every vicious hypocrite I've met. It sounds as though your experience has been otherwise. That's pathetic on the part of those hypocrites.
As to truth, yes, it can be slippery to find. I trust you are not offended when I say that I think I am as ardent a truth seeker as anyone at uti. If my position were ever proven wrong, I would change. I couldn't go on as I do. But, as an example of the other shoe/foot, I witnessed an egregious example of the opposite once. I mentioned to Jim that I had been a part of a four-hour debate held at a secular university between a well-known atheist and a Christian. The subject was, "Which is more rational, Christianity or Humanism?" The students voted 551 to 129 that the Christian scholar won. It was actually more lop-sided than that. But what was to the point I'm referring to was that after the debate, people could go to the microphone and ask either presenter a question (they had one minute to formulate it). After that, the person that was asked had two minutes to respond, then the other scholar had 1 minute to rebut. During this time, the atheist was asked, "If, for the sake of argument, it was shown to the full satisfaction of your own mind that the Christian God were real, would you bow down to Him?" His immediate and forthright answer was, "Nope! I want to be an autonomous person."
You could hear the dissatisfaction murmur through the arena. Students didn't like that at all. They were there seeking truth, and here was a guy saying truth didn't matter to him, he just wanted to do his own thing. They felt it was hypocritical.
I do believe there are honest truth seekers from nearly all worldviews. I believe there are very honest atheists in this regard. This is why honest dialogue (not demagoguery) is so vital. Not everyone is like the hypocrites you've met, nor is everyone like that atheist I witnessed. There are those who truly want the truth, and they deserve it.
How do I go about putting up an avatar? I'm evidently more stupid than a caveman.
-Col.
Colonel-
Colonel-
It's not so much my personal experiences, it's more watching the behaviors of the publicly pious. Tammy Faye, Vitter, Foley, Haggard, all of the TV preachers, etcetera. It seems like the more outspoken the theist, the more skeletons in their closet. My personal experiences have been mixed. My old mans best friend from college became a Jesuit priest. Great guy, however I suspect he is a homosexual. I can't be sure, and really don't care, but he would freak if I brought it up as if it is some big sin to be ashamed of. Also, I really liked my former pastor, but knew he was insane about the Lutheran religion he tried indoctrinating me into. And eventually he proved himself a hypocrite by divorcing his wife and leaving his family high and dry. Anyway, you shouldn't worry about those people. Don't try speaking for a whole religion. It doesn't work like that. Just say "I" did this or "I" think that.
I am not offended. I am glad to hear your opinion. However, I disagree. I think you ignore the obvious
natural processes of the world and suspend reason and critical thinking when it comes to the existence of a supernatural being. You don't believe in unicorns or pixies, but you do believe in god. Strange. Seems like you've been brainwashed.
I agree. If my position is proven wrong, I will adjust. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. Anecdotal evidence, hear-say, and gut feelings aren't going to cut it.
Again, the world seems full of evidence of natural explanations. Fossils, bones, evolution, DNA. Almost everything the ancient tribesman thought about our world has been proven false or natural explanations have been found. From my point of view, you have been proven wrong over and over and over, yet you still are in denial. Wishful thinking is more important than science to your mind. Sorry. Not trying to be mean, but there is just no way of sugar coating it.
Which university and atheist may I ask? To me it seems, the more educated/intelligent the person, the less likely they are to believe. I know this is not always the case, but atheists seem to be the smartest group I can think of besides Mensa. I also am suspicious of the debate. A good talker can win a debate. Preachers are often good orators and know how to manipulate the crowd. That doesn't mean their position is correct. An atheist biologist or physicist would win in their respective fields, but bore the snot out of the crowd.
Lastly, I have to agree with the atheist, that I would not bow down to a god. Why would I? The god would have to promise me special powers or 72 virgins or something really great. I am not an ass kisser. I am a leader not a follower. Why should I be the one to bow down? I don't need his morality-I am probably a better citizen than most of the people you know of any religion. Look at the accomplishments of humanity. Has god built sky scrapers? Cured polio? Sent a man to the moon? If there were a god, I know a lot of people who
would want to beat the shit out of him for allowing the suffering of the innocent.
I just agreed with your atheist speaker. Do I sound hypocritical to you? I don't care for what the Christian god is selling. Why would an all powerful god need me to worship him? What an ego. What kind of god would allow all these people to exploit others in his name? As you can see, I would not be his biggest fan if he were real. I think there are much better ways to achieve world peace and prosperity without gods help.
Agreed. You seem different than most theists I know. I hope we here at UTI make a better impression than the atheist speaker you talked about.
Dirk
Explore your universe
Thanks, Dirk:
I don't have time this morning to respond completely to what is quite a number of issues you raise. But quickly, the atheist was Henry Morganthaller from Canada, the theist was W.L.Craig of the University of Higher Philosophy, Belgium, now residing in Atlanta. But that is largely immaterial, these debates have been going on with some frequency, and secularists themselves have lamented their rueful record. Gary Habermas, J.P Moreland, Michael Martin, Antony Flew, Quentin Smith, Burton Mack and Kai Nielsen are some of the names.
Actually, your feeling that smarter people head away from theism is, in our day, simply on its head. Cosmological studies since Einstein and particularly since the COBE explorer have had an unmistakable anti-atheistic flavor, freely spoken about by some of the most critical minds on the planet, to include even Hoyle, Crick and, frankly, most others. Mathematics prize winner Griffiths stated that today, "If we need an atheist for a debate I’d go to the philosophy department; the physics department isn’t much use.”
There are plenty of unthinking theists--no doubt. It's pathetic. However, it is clear that doesn't abrogate their position anymore than some goof-ball of an atheist nullifies yours. In all honesty, I think uti contributors sometimes far underestimate the actual cogency of theistic thinking simply because they've known some straw men. It also seems that emotion often plays a part not just for some theists, but for some atheists as well. The responses here about bowing to a Creator were largely resistant, whereas a philosopher will speak about the "incommensurate good" of being able to know Him. It isn't all about the Creator as though you have to "kiss His butt", it is also about what is in it for mankind.
It's interesting to mull over, though, and I am honored that I'm allowed, in part, to do so here from time to time. Thanks for putting up with me.
-Col.
Contrary to observation.
Col., that's at least the second time that you've made the assertion that there's a growing (positive) relationship between intellectualism and religious belief, and further that leading scientists are now more likely to be believers than non. Do you have any support for that, other than anecdotal info? Because honestly, it is contrary to my own observations (being limited, admittedly, since I'm not in an academic environment). I know that broadly speaking, a belief in a literal bible drops off with education level, and it seems that most of the science-oriented stuff I read is written by people who are to a greater or lesser degree atheists. Sure, there are certainly scientists, even reknown ones, who are people of faith, but that doesn't seem to me to be the trend.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Trends
Thank, Jim.
Clearly not everyone in the sciences is a devout (pick your flavor) Christian. However, the move away from thoroughgoing atheism can be easily traced over the past couple decades particularly, and since the late 60s in general. The death of the old Steady State theory contributed greatly, as did the exponentially growing veracity of Big Bang cosmology. With the application of Einstein's General Relativity to such a cosmology, the three ground-pounders of George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawking showed that time was finite. Penrose is fond of saying, "We proved time began." With relativity now being beyond any real question (measured since 2002 or so as being accurate even in the presence of black holes, hypernovae, etc.) and with the oscillating models now on the junk heap, the escapes for atheism are, in the minds of many greats in the field, becoming more and more esoteric. Hawking's imaginary numbers are one example they might point to, as well as what appears to many physicists as desperations in various aspects of such ideas as M (string) theory, etc. It used to be that Christians were sometimes seen as retreatists—supposedly always retreating to some "God of the gaps." Now, this phrase is often used of strict materialists who retreat to, "Well, maybes..." to avoid the cosmos' beginning. Whatever one's position is on the "maybe ifs", there can be no doubt that a set of Big Bang cosmologies clearly holds the field today with the vast, VAST, majority of physicists. Since relativity has been proven to over 15 places of the decimal (making it, as Roger Penrose said, the most rigorously tested aspect of physics), "possible" alternatives are seen more as eccentric rather than accepted.
A somewhat early book (1980s) documenting a significant amount of this is The Intellectuals Speak Out About God. It interviews such minds as Jastrow, Wickramasinghe (Hoyle), Margenau, Eccles, and Jaki. The well-known quote from Griffiths that I sent to Dirk speaks of the grass-roots ground-swell in physics (Griffiths was the Heinneman Prize winner in mathematics). Henry Margenau (Yale, MIT) had some quite candid answers to some revealing questions: (*Is the idea of a beginning of the universe now accepted in science?*), "Oh yes, that's clearly accepted by almost everybody." "Science is much more tolerant nowadays to religious ideas than it ever has been before", and "Mechanism is dead except in a very limited domain." These guys don't only speak for themselves, but regarding others as well, such as Monad. It's been 20 years since I've read the book, but I remember being stunned by it.
One could go on to information theory and DNA data, or other disciplines, but none of us here can write a tome each log. It might be worth noting, however, that information became Flew’s Waterloo. He had kept up correspondence with his friend Gary Habermas ever since he was soundly beat by Habermas 20 years earlier in a debate over the resurrection of Jesus. A man who is obviously as erudite as Flew can’t be thought of as a hick. Obviously, people change sides all the time. My point, however, is that atheism does not own the intellectual high ground outright. Further, the ground they do occupy is harder to keep than it was in the 1940s.
Jim, as to the Bible picture, I know of no scholar—not one—that takes these Hebrew or Greek writings in a woodenly literalistic way. It’s why hermeneutics and exegesis are taught not only in law but alongside of ancient historiography and literature as well. A poster saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes” would no more make my point than your picture makes yours. The debate has gone beyond that.
Hope this helps. I could direct you to some other histories of the science trends, but they would be by theistic writers, so you might not care to see them. Let me know.
All the best~
-Col.
I unfortunately don't have
I unfortunately don't have too much time, but let me just chime in to note that the two substantive claims here -- that cosmologists/physicists are increasingly religious, and that there are good reasons to be on the basis of the Big Bang -- are factually incorrect. You'd be hard-pressed to find a religious person among professional physicists, although of course it's not impossible.
Here is a paper on why most cosmologists are atheists, and a blog post on why the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe.
Pardon me, your slip is showing.
Sorry. You're simply wrong. Partly because you confuse the language with terms that, for better or worse, are loaded for some people. What I mean is this; I didn't say that these men were or are "religious". My point was that atheism per se is being crowed out by the facts. Private blogs to one side, when you have atheist physicists like Geoffrey Burbidge lamenting that everyone (his words, not mine) was convinced by some form of the Big Bang, it goes a bit further than a paper or two. Further, the Griffiths quote is from the field, not the editorial page.
Again, in my original response to Jim, I was attempting to stick with broad strokes and with unquestioned names of authority. Anyone can write a paper. The fact remains, however, that inflationary Big Bang models hold the field today, and solidly so. There will always be "yeah, but" voices, and one of them may certainly be correct. But to hold to one when the absolutely overwhelming majority do not takes some faith. Big Bang cosmology is more secure at this moment than it was even in the early '90s with the COBE background radiation findings. This, probably more than any other single thing, has turned physicists' heads toward some form of beyond materialism thinking. As NASA's Goddard Space Institute's Robert Jastrow wrote (you may be familiar with the quote), "The theological implications are obvious. Theologians generally are delighted with the proof (sic!) that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
I would encourage us all to work with broad foundations, not isolated streams.
-Col.
You say you weren't trying
You say you weren't trying to claim that such men are necesarily religious, but it seems like I wasn't the only one that got that impression from your statements. In particular this paragraph seemed like you were saying that people involved with cosmology are becoming more theistic as a result of their discoveries.
I still think you're trying to claim to much. It seems like you're trying to make the claim that the universe had a beginning, therefore God exists. That is a really big leap. Just because it's consistent with god-belief doesn't make it supportive of god-belief, and a universe with a beginning has doesn't bother this atheist in any way.
I don't *really* understand string theory...
...because I just do not have the math to even begin to see how it works. And, as far as I'm concerned, 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' smell of so much phlogiston.
But I know who Sean Carroll is - he's a recognized authority in physics, astrophysics, and cosmology, and has authored a graduate-level textbook on General Relativity and how it applies to cosmology. So, no offense, Col. (and I'm not being coy!), but I'd rather accept Sean's evaluation of the state of belief vis-a-vis other scientists in his field than yours...since by the very nature of maintaining your anonymity, you are unable to establish much credibility in this regard.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Just got back.
Sorry, Jim, been away tonight. Had a good time, though! Just caught a bit of Bruce Willis. Amazing that men are actually able to jump onto F-35s out of semi-trucks. It's true! I just saw Willis do it!
I'll respond briefly here for all the posts above and below, since I "know" you a bit more than the others. I don't think you're trying to be coy, nor am I in the least offended. Primarily this is because these are not my statements. Let Carroll argue with Jastrow or Margenau or Jaki or take your pick of other illuminaries. Your disagreement (or better Carroll's) isn't with me, it's with them. Einstein also, against tremendous duress, after realizing that the universe was not eternal became an obdurate believer in a Superior Intellect. His trouble with a specified "religion" was philosophical not scientific, wrestling with such issues as Divine knowledge and free will. (I've read further on this since the last time you questioned his late-life worldview.) Thus, Carroll can argue with him as well. I think Albert knew a bit about relativity. I am going to have to be in his corner on this, not Sean's.
It does remain that an inflationary Big Bang cosmology, despite "yeah buts", is the firm establishment of the astrophysical community. Along with that is the inevitable tie with finitude (14.5 billion years) for the space/matter/time fabric. This naturally jars the minds of these men and women toward some kind of supra-physical Hypothesis.
The quotes and the vitae of the men I mention are easy enough to check up on. Why are they saying these things?
Heading for bed. The world is safe now that Bruce has rounded up all the bad guys.
-Col.
It does remain that an
You have this exactly backwards. I mean, you are precisely wrong.
The concept of a Big Bang means the Universe has a beginning. If that is true, then there is no need for God. Because then you have a very simple question to ask: if the Universe had a beginning, and therefore a creator, then who created the creator? And from there, it's turtles all the way down. This does not preclude the idea of God, but it does not support it either. Your basic premise is incorrect.
Moreover, the concept of a Big Bang has led to further investigation into a physical solution of extra-Universal hypotheses, like Brane theory, supersymmetry, and such. You said that oscillating Universe theories are "on the trash heap", but that's not quite the case. The old-style theories, yes, but there are new ones know being investigated such as the ones I mentioned, and soon will be testable.
Also, after the advent of the Big Bang model, more cosmologists were atheists, not fewer. You should read Sean's paper to which he linked.
I'm curious: other than finding quotations, do you know any astronomers or cosmologists? You might want to ask them about your thesis.
Actually, yes and no
Yes, I do know at least one cosmologist, but further, the ideas came from a broad set of contributors not just one—many of them hostile to theism.
No, the Big Bang does not in ANY way argue against a pre-existing, supra-cosmological Being. The fact that many in the sciences have been disgusted by the Big Bang shows the human mind naturally works in that trajectory and precisely in contradiction to your ideology. The "who created God" thing is, at best, comical to me. Please—I’m truly not trying to be offensive in any way, but it simply is. It is to me like saying, "Well, something can't go on forever distance-wise, so our universe must be infinite, not just 30 billion light-years wide."
The better philosophical answer is that such a Being, since He was available prior to time in the Einsteinian sense, would be operating on a different dimension of time, such as a line parallel to ours or even a plane or sphere of time. (After all, we thought we were dealing with a 3-space-dimension universe until just a few years back.) Better yet, for the theist such a Being is not materialistic, and thus not bound to the laws of material physics, Newtonian, quantum or anything else. I do find this far more rational and elegant than matter/time/space creating itself before it was there to do so.
As for the other models (infinite time, etc.), they are (1) being sought (often) for the very reason that a beginning most naturally means a Beginner and that is not liked by some narrow minds, and (2) as I said in the original post, one of them could one day pan out, but as of current the scientific community is thoroughly unpersuaded and firmly holds that the cosmos began. "Truth isn't determined by counting noses" but to place one's hopes in an eternal universe at this point in the game is an act of faith in spite of the best evidence, not because of it.
Best wishes~
-Col.
The church of Bruce...
...though I thought most people who used that were refering to Bruce Lee...
Actually, I like Willis. Because of his first 'Die Hard' movie I was introduced to Alan Rickman, who has become one of my very favorite actors.
Anyway, after thinking about it a bit, I think that I more or less have to agree with mcmillan @ 10:04pm - your initial statement in this vein seemed pretty clearly to imply that there is a growing theism among intellectuals, specifically scientists, on the basis of their scientific studies. You then tried to bolster this argument by citing both cosmological research as well as particular individuals involved in that field.
As I said, I know I am out of my depth in this area. So I went to someone who *is* a recognized scientist in the field, and asked him to offer either some advice or perspective. He did. And it contradicts what it seemed you were trying to say.
It is as though I asserted that oncology had established that more and more cancer researchers were becoming Druids, based on recent discoveries involving the use of tradition plant species found around Stonehenge to battle tumor growth. And then someone who actually works in that field of research came by to say "That's absurd. We're just interested in finding out how best to develop this treatment. Druidism doesn't have anything to do with it."
Part of the problem, as is so often the case in my experience, is in terminology. Specifically, what "God" are you trying to say these people believe in? You're no fundie, you're no Young Earth Creationist. You evidently believe in God as some kind of metaphor for a Superior Intellect which was (?) responsible for the creation of the universe some 14.5 billion years ago. If you wish to push that 'subtle' god far enough out there, then you'll probably find most of us here will eventually just throw up our hands and say "well, yeah, maybe such a being exists, but what's the point of worshipping him?" And I would add that such a philosophical being isn't really the "God" which the vast majority of religious believers think exists.
You're right, I don't mean this as any kind of offense. As I see your arguments more and more, it seems that you are like many of my friends of faith, who so want *something* out there that they can call God, but know intellectually that it cannot be the God of the common believer. That's fine...but be careful when you try and use arguments to authority which can be easily refuted. Be at peace with your more amorphus God - trying to pin Him down will just lead to grief.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Lots of agreement
Thanks, Jim; you write clearly and don't seem to have a perpetual young boy's chip on your shoulder.
I may well concede that I was not, myself, articulate enough initially. I should not have used "theism" if I did (haven't gone back to read what term I employed). Many of those in the scientific community didn't turn to theism per se, but away from thoroughgoing atheism. Many accepted a form of deism or perhaps a more or less eastern kind thing. Perhaps a difficulty here is the evolution of the English language. "Atheism" is what we use for a denial of ANY form of spiritual being(s)/force. But "theism" (it's anti- cognate) is a SPECIFIC type or form of any of the above god(s)/forces. At any rate, the discovery of a finite age for the universe has, indeed, had mammoth ripple effects in the astrophysical community, in part because it is so very broadly accepted that it is not an appeal to an individual authority. The Margenau quote and those of many others regard this, but since Griffiths is actually in the field as he makes his "science department isn't much use" quote, it seems more to carry the day.
I certainly do not hold to an amorphous god. In fact, many deities are ruled out or at least tremendously disadvantaged by the Big Bang itself. Any pantheistic or perhaps even panentheistic entity would come here, in that nothing can self create, even in quantum arenas. In that time is a component of the created order (not existing without space), the Creator would have to be outside of (our dimension of) time as well. This is classical theism.
I guess to crystallize, a set of inflationary Big Bang models by its very nature has pressed men toward metaphysical thought in quite a relentless way. I don't know who you went to, but the quotes of the (at least former) atheistic researchers is beyond dispassionate; it is actually evidence from antagonistic sources. As only a single (very early) example, I would give you Sir Arthur Eddington's words (Eddington experimentally confirmed Einstein's GR theory), "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He further stated, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."
This is the crux of the matter. There is not infinite time under the accepted Big Bang cosmology, and therefore the turning of scientific heads in supra-physical directions.
I'm sorry I didn't state myself better originally.
Actually, I used to know a guy that knew Bruce Lee as a family friend. I think the general thrust of the two Bruces is that Lee was a sabre, Willis is a battleaxe.
-Col.
Impass.
While I tend to agree (no surprise given my martial arts background), I think that it largely comes down to a matter of personal preference. And on that point, one can argue pro or con all day long...not unlike arguing with someone over what their favorite color is...or how this thread has developed.
I see that we're at something of an impass. In your comments to me and to Phil Plait, you seem to be using something of a tautology - saying that revolutions in scientific models argue *for* a non-scientific belief in some scientists, since the new models demand a revision of thought in other regards, and therefore God is a possible explanation. (There is probably a formal logic term for this exact formulation, but I haven't even considered cracking open a formal logic text in 30 years.) If I have mischaracterized what you're saying, forgive me. But the upshot of it is that you're saying that there must be some kind of deistic (using the term in the sense which it was understood at the time of the American Revolution) explanation, and that many scientists are considering this.
You might well be right. There may well be many scientists who are looking for supra-physical explanations caused by these changes in cosmological models, though that's not what I see when I read the works of people involved in this field currently, and you've labeled counter examples from working scientists as "aggressively antagonistic". Still, without getting inside the head of each and every scientist out there working in this field, I cannot say that they are not doing so. That old problem of proving a negative.
I will say this: appeals to a supra-physical entity are not science. They may be philosophically satisfying, but they're not demonstrable by either math or testing. And on that basis, I'd have to say that asserting that scientist A or B believes X just doesn't make sense then in assertions of whether or not there is a God (or whatever formulation). It's very much in the realm of saying "well, Pres Bush 41 hates broccoli, so therefore broccoli is bad". No, it's just a preference, it says nothing about the real value of broccoli.
(I hope this makes sense...I've been interrupted at least three times in the half hour since I started this post...)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Yeah. I think so.
Yes, I think, if I've read you correctly, that you have understood me pretty accurately. There could always be the minor quibbles: I would say "at least" deistic in the 1700s sense, but that is neither here nor there.
You framed it in pretty much the same words I was going to as a result of this interchange. (Positive results from dialogue, Hank!) Getting into individual minds is, as you say, impossible. Of course, each physicist could interpret his own interactions with others in different lights as well, so there is a certain amount of subjectivism. A better way for me, then, to relate my case would be to state more about cosmology (Big Bang) than to bring the cosmologists (subjects/persons) into it.
As to scientific method, you are, of course, correct in the strictest sense. God can't be in the test tube, repeatable, yadda, yadda. However, I don't think “scientific” in that strictest sense is always “scientific” or even always helpful. If we were to find, next to the space junk you've recently spoken about being tossed from the ISS, a piece of galactic hardware similar to ours but known to not be from earth, we would conclude it was from some form of extraterrestrial. In fact, SETI and much of the scientific community would be ecstatic! However, proving that in a test tube and with repetition (viz. all the scientific method) could very well be impossible. I would argue, however, (and I think you would, too) that such a conclusion would still be "scientific". This would be, of course, an extension of or adaptation of Paley's famous approach.
Further, even if my position is still, in your mind, "unscientific", I think that could partly be because the very structure of the scientific method can be self-limiting. I've not given an ounce of thought as to how it should/could be restated, so you have me at a loss here. But let me explain what I'm trying to refer to. I think it can be very much like the old joke: Two guys are looking with a flashlight on a very dimly lit corner at First and Oak. A lady walks by and asks what they've lost. One of them says a very small, rare and expensive ancient coin. She says, "Do you know about where you dropped it?" They tell her, "Yes, we think at the corner of First and Willow." She asks, "Then why are you looking here at First and Oak?" They reply, "Well, because the light is so much better here."
There is a certain circularity to saying science can only deal with the material world, therefore we won't consider anything else because that would be unscientific. If science is only XYZ, then it is only XYZ--a true tautology. We, in fact, live very different from that every day. This includes scientists. We deduce things automatically and naturally without the scientific method. We are sometimes wrong, but that is immaterial. We are not by the mere action of deduction unscientific.
By the way, haven't looked it up, but isn't impass, impasse? Hmm...doesn't look right either way.
-Col.
Wishful Thinking
The 'old joke' about the two guys looking for a rare coin was a good argument. Folks like me who put all of their "faith" in science, might be over confident in human ability. Even though we have accomplished so much in such a short time, it's obvious we have very far to go. It really is like looking at the universe with a flashlight right now, compared to what we will know in 100 years (or 1000 years if we survive that long). My limited lifespan and the fact that I will never know the secrets of the universe are the most frustrating things for my brain to deal with. I can see how 'wishful thinking' could overcome that of rational inguiry when trying to come up with answers to how it all began.
Glad you made it back, Dirk!
Did you figure out anything as to why you couldn't post?
Yeah, the universe is breathtaking. My old 3 pound brain has "not enough memory at this time".
I mentioned this some days back and Rick did as well; there are some great hi-res photos on the NASA site of cosmic stuff. Galaxies, novae, etc. You can check it out at
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/
The one today is just a chart, but they're normally amazing. You can go to the archives from the same page.
-Col.
The real impasse.
Yeah, it's "impasse" - I checked. My ability to spell is just about my worst skill - and that hasn't been helped by reliance on spell-checkers in word-processing software these last 25 years.
As an aside, this is basically the premise of my novel, set in 2052, though the artifact is found on Titan rather than LEO. The bulk of the novel concerns the ramifications of that as what it is and what it means plays out, so this is a topic with which I have at least a passing familiarity...
Anyway, I would take issue with the assertion that this would not be "scientific", since there would indeed be an artifact which could be subject to testing and examination.
Beyond that, and to address what I think is your central point: no, I do not think that all of life is defined by science. Hardly. I am not a scientist, at least not in a formal sense. However, the scientific method has provided an intellectual mechanism which has proven to be *very* powerful, and which spills over into our day-to-day lives more than you might at first think. I know this, in part, because I see what happens when someone loses the ability to do any kind of critical thinking of the basic "assumption (hypothesis) about how the world works, judge that (testing) against reality, and learn (conclude) how to proceed". My mother-in-law has essentially lost the ability to remember anything long enough to learn...meaning that she cannot go through that very basic process. And it makes for a life very different than what you and I experience. I have written about this previously, I'll see if I can gather together enough brain cells to remember where...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Very helpful interchange.
I think we are very nearly on the identical page in terms of understanding each other and of interpreting our world, artifacts, etc. Of course, my question then would be, what makes a piece of space junk more of an artifact that DNA? If the response is that DNA is living and can thus mutate, etc., etc., I could go on to things in the dead sciences that are incredibly information-intensive. Not just organized, but complex. In fact, more complex than any of our space equipment.
I'm not pressing you here to swallow a teleological polemic. I am asking why the two complexities are different; one an artifact and the other (things in the cosmos) not artifactual?
Yeah, the spell-checker thing. I used to be able to remember dozens of phone numbers, too. Dratted digital memory devices....
-Col.
What exactly are you claiming here?
Are you trying to assert that:
universe has a beginning = must be a god = god must be jesus?
If that is not what you are trying to assert then what are you trying to assert?
I think a fair number of Christians need to be treated for metaphor addiction.
Read closely
Ask Jastrow. Everything inside the quote marks is his. Jastrow is a self-proclaimed agnostic; if you want to chide him and other non-theists for your "metaphor" difficulty, he can be reached through NASA.
-Col.
Typical
I asked you what you were trying to assert. What argument you were trying to bolster by bringing that quote up. I suppose posing a straightforward question such as that was in the end an act of the purest optimism.
You were quite clear
Thameron, the little swing you took at those you hate was based on the very metaphor of the quote. Therefore, you were very, very clear that your question addressed the source of the quote not me.
If you're asking me, and you wish to dialogue in an adult manner, I would say that I never presented anything like your straw man response. That there was a beginning to the cosmos is the accepted cosmology. Since I am philosophically inclined to believe that nothing creates itself prior to it being there to do so, I and others very naturally deduct from this an Intellect outside of the cosmic order. You brought Jesus into it, not me. That would be something beyond the reach of pure natural theology, and would have to go to other disciplines.
Best wishes.
-Col.
Well Col
I could not help but notice that it was you who posting that quote and not the aforementioned author of it. I assumed you did this for some purpose and that it did not in fact happen randomly. If I misrepresented your views then you had only to state them clearly in order to dispel any confusion as to what they might be. I will surmise from the following statement -
that you believe that the beginning of the universe was caused by some intelligence. I have only two questions. Have you any evidence at all that an intelligence can exist extra-materially? That is an intelligence existing without the benefit of supporting neurons? And the other is the age old question: Where did said intelligence come from? Did it create itself?
Thank you.
Thameron, thank you for serious and mature dialogue.
Yes, I do have evidence for intellect without supporting materiality. Along multiple lines of approach actually, some of which you're likely not interested in, and in that I'm the only one at this site positing a position other than what everyone else holds, I'd prefer to stick with one subject at a time.
I commented on the "who created God?" detour elsewhere in the string.
All the best~
-Col.
Game over
Once you acknowledge the belief that some extra-cosmic intelligence created the universe the game is essentially over.
How do you know this intelligence is still alive? How do you know that the strain of creating the universe didn't kill it? How do you know if it was one intelligence or many? What if anything can you tell about its life cycle? What if anything can you tell about its properties? Did it personally have the power to create the universe or was it simply smart enough to use some other vast source of sufficient power? Did it use some extra-cosmic machine to do it? What if anything can you tell about its desires? Did it even desire to create the universe? How do you know the creation of the universe wasn't an accident of this intelligence? What if anything can you say about its origin? What can you know for sure about it? Answer: absolutely nothing. You with your comparitively miniscule intelligence have no way to prove that this extra cosmic intelligence isn't planting things, constantly changing the rules and basically screwing with you. You cannot say anything about it because you only know what it allows you to see. If however you assume that the universe came to be because of natural properties then you can discover meaningful things about the origin because the game is not rigged against you. The universe may be complex, but it isn't malicious. Time and patience will reveal its secrets as they have been revealed. This intelligence may very well be malicious. Believing an intelligence created the universe raises far more questions than it answers. Indeed it puts any meaningful answers well beyond reach.
It isn't a game.
You are, of course, ignoring all other possible data and/or disciplines to pontificate the way you do.
Actually, if random processes are responsible for your brain and mine, we have no reason whatever to trust them. They are just spinning electrons and so forth, possibly only running by the Heisenberg principle, if that. Our thoughts, therefore, may well be little more than random.
You're young, aren't you?
-Col.