is anyone out there?
Even if you disprove, at least in your mind, that Christianity is illogical and therefore the Christian god is an illusion…that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. You may be familiar with it (Christianity) but you are not familiar with all 4,200 religions and their gods. So, why are you even an atheist? (chicagoja)
I thought this question I was asked earlier today over at Ark’s spot was worthy of a whole post, rather than clogging up the comments over there with too many words.
Finding the ‘true religion’ may well be a starting point for many recent deconverts leaving the faith of their culture behind them. I certainly thought at some point that I’d have to study other religions to find the true one!
I can’t deny that there’s a tiny, tiny chance that one of the other religions in the world is true. But there are four main reasons it’s logical to dismiss them all without spending the rest of my life trying to find out for sure:
1. Even with a basic understanding of just a few religions, we can be fairly sure that they developed to fill gaps in our knowledge and their existence can logically be explained by our need to assign agency. They are essentially superstitious stories that developed structure over time.
2. The stories demonstrate some common themes (invisible powers making things happen that we can’t explain, thinking outside of ourselves) yet have enough differences to show they don’t come from a unique external source.
3. On the 0.01% (or near) chance that the above is wrong and there are creator gods out there, it would be clear from what we have in front of us that there are natural explanations for everything here – that must be part of the ‘design’. It would also be clear from the mess of assorted religions that have developed that the gods don’t really care about sending a useful or even coherent message.
4. So many people have spent so much time dedicated to these questions and all of them have come to different conclusions. Either there is no truth, or the truth doesn’t need to be found.
I think anyone who is interested in history and psychology should spend time finding out more about all the religions humans have developed. It would be fascinating in many respects. But given the chances of any of it being true, and given the amount of time that has already been wasted on these questions, I’m quite sure it won’t be a path to the Truth about our existence.
I think Dr David Eagleman summed it up best, ‘we do not know enough to rule out there being some sort of god, but we know way too much to believe in the deities of any of the known religions’
LikeLiked by 5 people
Oh, and I wasted that whole post on it! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 4 people
Peter,
I’m sure Krauss appointed himself as King Physicist so he could speak for all physicists.
Why do atheists always turn over their brains to self-appointed authorities.
I know!
It’s so you won’t have to think for yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! Well, there is the pot calling the kettle black. Meanwhile in reality, some atheists that are outspoken are better at forming the ideas that many atheists hold into words, that they get to be quoted more often by atheists. As is with physicists, cosmologists, historians, doctors, or any brand of experts on just about any field that can be examined with any even remotely reliable method (the scientific method) regardless wether these people are atheists or not. That is, rather than taking them as actual authority, like the relgious take the ritual expert such as a shaman, priest, pastor, imaam, mulla, ajatollah, or the pope as authorities on what gods think. Really – what gods think?!! How could they possibly even have a clue, when they have no means of even verifying that any of these gods exist. Do they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rautakyy,
Just because you and some famous dude believe in the same thing means absolutely nothing.
NOTHING.
Atheism is such a vapid religion that the peons have to jump up and down and point to some famous dude who is a member of the same vapid religion and exclaim,
“That famous dude over there believes exactly like I do therefore atheism is true!”
Rautakyy, that is just dumb.
And as far as the pot calling the kettle black, well that is just a very intentional lie on your part.
Get a clue:
Learn how to explain atheism in your own words.
Not a one of you can explain how everything just happened all by itself.
And that is exactly what atheism means.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree Silenceofmind. Just because I, you, or any famous dude (like the pope for example) believe something, it means absolutely nothing. Now, that this has been (finally) established we may actually be getting somewhere. That makes religious faith pretty much worthless, now does it not?
I also agree that your strawman atheist who thinks atheism is true because a famous person believed it, is indeed dumb. What does that make you?
I however also disagree with you. Atheism is not a religion. Where did you even get that? Prove your empty assertion or adimit your error. Provide evidence, if you possibly can. But you can not, because from religions atheism is not only separated by the fact that it does not have any tenets, nor doctrine at all, but most severely the fact, that it is just a single position on a variety of empty claims about gods. Now, try to remember that you are an atheist in regard to Allah and Odin, are you not? This might make all this easier for you to come ot terms with. Further more, atheism is separated from all religions by the actual fact, that it does not claim to be a religion, as religions do.
You really think I lied to you? How on earth did you reach that conclusion? Let me assure you, I did not lie to you – intentionally, or otherwise. I would like you to either take the insult back or provide evidence for your assertion. Do you not take the doctrine of your religion about gods based on the authority of the ritual experts of your religion, or at very least based on the authority of the (famous) writers of the scriptures? If not, what do you base your beliefs on your particular branch of Theism?
I do explain my atheism in my own words. Most often at least. So, your appeal for me to learn something I already do (and by now you should know this much about me) seems rather lame. Does it not?
Most things in the universe just do happen all by themselves, do they not? How do you assign agency on an asteroid colliding with a comet? How do you assign agency on the tide? How do you assign agency on the biological evolution (you might want to explain this in your own words, or alternatively borrow some reasoning from John Paul II who recognized evolution, but still wanted to think it was a product of a very particular divine agency)?
We do not know how everything happened, nor will we propably ever be able to know all about everything. An honest man acknowledges what they do not know, and does not try to add to their knowledge by mere faith. Do they? Claiming that we know a particular god did it is just nonsensical, since we both should be quite able to recognize, that even if it was true, we would have no way to investigate wether this was so. Or would we?
However, what we have been able to investigate and how we have learned it to be, is that as far as we know, all agency (again of wich we actually do know) arises through biology and biological evolution. Therefore it is highly unlikely, that there was some sort of agency to make anything happen before biological entities had reached a level of any form of agency and in that order of things all things prior to that moment did happen as it were all by themselves. Simple really, if you think about it. Is it not? What is it, that makes all this seem so hard for you to accept?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
You completely missed the point which is not surprising at all.
Here it is dumbed down for you:
Since celebrity or status or occupation has nothing to do with an argument, they cannot be used as evidence for the rightness of the argument.
Good arguments are established through reason and the facts.
Your version of history was written by a man named Zen who was an anti-American communist.
Unfortunately his history books are now standard fair in the public schools.
Leftists ALWAY rewrite history to suit their never ending quest for domination.
This never ending quest for domination can occur in government or right here in a simple conversation.
Also, your comments are just too long I they are so full of gibberish that I can only get through the first few sentences.
LikeLike
Aww, Silenceofmind, I am sorry, that my comments are too long for you. That explains a lot. Do you have a short attention span? Now, try to focus. It is not that hard. You can do it. I give you a free hint: Try to answer my questions one by one. If not here, then at least to yourself. But answer them directly instead of trying to insult me, or go on an evasion, as you are in a bit of a habit to do.
Oh I got the point all right, and as I already said, I agree, that celebrity status has nothing at all to do with an argument, but professional capacity gives a certain level of authority to an opinion as an expert. Does it not? That is quite a different thing compared to authoritarianism on wich religions are based on. Or for example the pope having an opinion on what a particular god thinks, when he has no means to investigate what said god really thinks. Is it not? I bet you would prefer the professional opinion of a doctor over the opinion of your priest if the issue was your health. Not so much based on the merit of their arguments about your health, than on the professional expertise of the doctor in the matter at hand. Would you not?
Now, if you like to argue against the argument made by Lawrence Krauss, that gods are irrelevant to physics, that is fine by me, and propably for Peter just as well. I do not expect even Lawrence Krauss for you to accept the notion, by the mere authority of his professional capacity. He, after all, is all about skepticism. But if I had to assume one of you two are right by mere declaration on opposite opinions on physics, I would naturally assume that the actual physicisist is the one more likely to be right.
Do you really believe there is some weird leftist conspiracy led by an American communist historian, that has deluded the wider consensus on historical facts all over the world? Did I get that right? What a silly idea? Now, I give you my word, I do not even remember ever having heard the name you mispelled in your comment. (Howard Zinn, was it?) Thus, it is quite unlikely, that his teachings had anything at all to do with my view on history. I think this is a typical error people from the US make all the time, they see their nation far more influential than is the reality. It is typical to any empires, that they produce such selfimportant view on the world. The varying different parties on the left have their agendas in the open. Why would you even think there is some sort of conspiracy behind them. Political parties and ideologies are not about dominance, but about communities, sense of justice and social organisation. Both on the left, as much as on the right. Libertarianism and anarchism are two distinct, yet very similarly childish fantasies of a society, that is not a society.
Conspiracies happen all the time, but the wider the scale, the harder they are to hide from the general public eye. I do not condemn you for being a conspiracy theorist, and I do not throw that out as an attempt to insult. Why one of my pet peeves is that the entire resurrection debacle in the New Testament was most likely what one could call a small scale conspiracy orchestrated by Joseph of Arimathea. Since a small scale conspiracy is by far more likely explanation, than an actual supernatural miracle, especially in such a case where there were no eyewitnesses to the actual alledged miracle. How do you like it?
Do you feel dominated by me? That is strange. Is it not? Let me assure you, I do not try to dominate you in any way, rather I am trying to have a discussion, but you keep referring to me as a liar, a fascist, a dumb and what ever else you seem to think might insult me. Exactly like you were having some childish tantrum, when ever I show your errors. Do not fear errors, it is best that our errors are shown to us as soon as possible, that we do not go around making asses of ourselves, because we believe something silly. Is it not? You never explain why you think any of those insults would apply to me. Instead you go on a ride of tangents to evade my most simple questions. Have you noticed this yourself? Is it because you feel dominated by me or the political left? Is that sense of being dominated actually driven by the fact, that you are unable defend your values and opinions with reason and facts? Should not such a situation lead you to re-evaluate your values and opinions, rather than just go on a tantrum and a course of evasion?
LikeLike
Also, Rautakyy,
The reason you don’t like Christianity is because you don’t know what it is.
Arguments from ignorance are also invalid.
LikeLike
I have to say SOM, I don’t appreciate you wasting Raut’s time, but sometimes your comments are hilarious! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
I am absolutely positive that you are laughing with me, not at me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I meant to say American historian Howard Zinn.
Sorry for the spelling error.
LikeLike
Again, Silenceofmind, I agree with you absolutely, arguments from ignorance are indeed invalid. Therefore, because I can not possibly know what caused the universe to exist, the explanation can not be a specific Middle-Eastern god concept, simply because it is the one explanation from my cultural heritage, as such an argumet from ignorance is totally invalid. Is it not? Do you have a better one?
Now, how well should a person know Christianity to accept it as the one and only truth about the nature of reality around us, or even to like it? Is it sufficient, that one has been living all their life in a culture of a country that has been Christian from the late 13th century? I have. How long Christian tradition does your country have? Is it sufficient, that one has actually read the Bible from cover to cover? I have. Have you ever read it through? How many Christians in the world have actually read it? Is it sufficient, that one has studied the archaeology and cultural history of ancient Levant, Hellenist culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, the history and culture of the Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire, the archaeology and history and culture of various parts of medieval Europe, the Crusades, the spread of Christianity in Europe, and later in the Colonial period to the wider world. I have. That one actually has attended relgion studies and methodology in the university, as I have, or what? What on earth do you think could ever give me a better understanding of Christianity? It is you who is spouting out gibberish now, my friend. Is it not?
Or do you think that the only way to know what Christianity is, is to be born Christian and/or blindly accept all the claims a particular branch of Christianity asserts? To be literally indoctrinated to it? To believe nonsense about some unnatural miracles, that are never ever verified on any even remotely reliable level? You do realize that, if that is the case, then it applies equally to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Asatru, Scientology and countless other superstitions as well. Do you? Do you dislike Islam, because you do not know what it is, or do you have a better understanding of Islam, than I have of Christianity? How did you manage that? Or maybe you do like Islam as much as you like Christianity. Do you?
LikeLike
Rautakky,
If you can’t figure out how the universe came to be, there is no reason for me to read the encyclopedia you just wrote.
LikeLike
Well, if you do not dare to engage in a conversation, and you fear what I say might cause you to suspect the foundation of your world view, you are perfectly right to hide behind such a nonsensical excuse, just as any other excuse will do. Any.
I am sorry, that the subject at hand may require more than your attention span can handle, but there is very little point to say anything, if it can not be properly discussed. Is there? Lakonian skills do not lead us anywhere, do they?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
There is no way to shake someone’s faith in the obvious.
And it is because you can’t see the obvious that you are able to swallow so much nonsense.
LikeLike
Possibly the same reason why Christians turn themselves over to a book that can’t even get its main character’s final words right at its most important moment. It’s something people have a tendency to do.
LikeLike
Jason,
Christians do not turn themselves over to the Bible.
What is in the Bible is sufficient for a lifetime’s worth of thought and contemplation.
LikeLike
True enough, most just pick and choose the parts they like.
But it’s amazing how many believe so strongly in it when it can’t even get significant details of its main event straight.
LikeLike
Chicagoja is to theology what Daniken was to visiting aliens, and he thinks along similar lines.
Enough said, I reckon
LikeLike
I know, she/he was one of the first bloggers I came across and it took me a while to work out what was going on. I thought the question had merit though and reminded me that I had thought that very thing at one point in my deconversion.
LikeLike
Merit in what way?
LikeLike
Merit in that it was one of my first deconversion thoughts. And I’d still like to know more about other religions.
LikeLike
Then read up on them. A quick half hour on Wiki will give you the basics of the major ones.
LikeLike
Obviously know that Ark. I’m talking about properly studying ALL religions.
LikeLike
Aaah… ‘scuse moi. Er …. how many lives do you have? Best you start with one that believes in reincarnation in that case if I were you. You’ll need it.
However , I suspect you will find a large element of commonality that runs through most, especially those with a central deity as the creator of it all.
John mentioned one from Africa that has a weird name, a Trinity and many similar traits and also cultural specifics. Not sure if his god requires people to cut bits off their willies and wotnot? Many do for some reason.
Penis fetish perhaps?
One of the stupidist is called Christianity. You could start there?
These idiots believe some ancient Jewish rabbi was born of a 14 year old virgin after being impregnated/raped by a deity. He eventually dies and comes back to life. He also walked on water, messed with the weather and was quite likely homosexual. However, there is doubt he even existed so, you pays y’money y’takes y’chances.
Have fun.
😉
LikeLike
You didn’t read the post at all, did you?
LikeLike
What? Am I in the doghouse again?
LikeLike
You’ve just asked the question i answered in the post and then gone on to say what the post says. Just observation, no judgement. I’m getting bad at doing that these days…
LikeLike
I must confess, I have a terrible habit of skip scanning, and answered the initial question from the drop down without paying close attention to the details of the post.
I merely answered your statement about studying ALL religions.
I shall now stand in the corner for two mins then go back and read the post properly….
LikeLike
Where did you get the figure of 0.01%?
Is this accurate?
LikeLike
Yes, all my statistics are from the Source of All Truth. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aaah … right!
LikeLike
Truly hilarious.
God is irrelevant to physicists. A laff a minute.
That’s why his life is consumed trying to prove God is irrelevant. Just like the atheists on this blog and friends.
Maybe the physicist or atheist can provide water, air, or food from the lab.using nothing but math or godlessness.
Tks for the humor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that consideration of the gods described in human religions is irrelevant to the study of science. If your god exists, it has created an explicable world and it would surely want its creation to investigate and understand as much as possible.
LikeLike
If we can avoid the 6th extinction long enough to develop our knowledge and technology, monotheism and all it’s spin off fairy tales will be broken forever by one or more of the following events:
A human clone.
Finding life elsewhere in the Universe.
Medical breakthroughs that prolong life indefinitely.
Of course new gods will be found in that process, as long as mankind remains afraid of what he can’t in the moment explain, and today’s strain of apologists will have to figure out how to carry on after the collapse of support for their current infantile regressions.
LikeLike
I totally agree that new gods will be found in the process. People are so prone to making up answers based on ‘feeling’ or finding comfort in someone else’s answers based on ‘feeling’. We’ll never know everything, so there’s always room for gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All religions that depict gods, that require worship from humans have introduced an immoral and arbitrary god concept. Religions that do not depict gods as requiring any form of worship from humans have introduced an irrelevant god concept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 2 people
The famous atheist Sam Harris became rather worried about morality so he wrote ‘ The Moral Landscape’ . Sam suggested well-being might be a good yardstick to measure the moral effect of our actions. If an action increases the well-being of others it is good . Interestingly we have our own well-being to consider and we may think it far more important than that of strangers. So perhaps the golden rule is superior : do unto others as you would be done by. Being raised in the Christian tradition my first thought is the parable concerning who is my neighbor. All passed on the other side except a compassionate stranger.
Sam has moved on to a realm of madness he now declares free will and the self are illusions. Recently there seems to be some evidence to support this from neuroscientists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh boy now you did it Kertsen. You just angered all the atheist neuros- lol
Yeah, maybe we should ask them if THEY could design the human brain, since they say God did not… lol
LikeLike
I guess it all depends how we choose to frame it. Free will discussions are a nonsense hangover from religious contradictions. I am my choices, they aren’t mapped out even if they become largely predictable.
LikeLike
The golden rule of Christian tradition is just one of many attempts to simplify us as the social species of animals that we are. Obviously it is not sufficient. If it were, Christians sincerely believing it was a good base for morals, would not have tortured other Christians for believing slightly differently about their religious doctrines in order to get them to confess their error, so that after they had been burned alive they would be saved by an alledged god to an alledged happy ever land in the netherworld.
Most of the time the well-being of one individual is in no contrast with the well-being of other individuals, or even the environment the individual and the species is ultimately dependant on. When it is, the well-being of both requires a compromise to be achieved. That is the road to a more morally objective world, not to expect other people to hold similar expectations one happens to have about arbitrary demands alledgedly made by this, or that god.
It seems the entire free-will discussion is very much an American or at most Anglo-American problem. Maybe it has it’s roots in the individualism of the US cultural heritage. The idea of the self made man, that lives as a sorry myth in the western country with least social mobility between economic classes seems to have affected the free will discussion especially in punishment of criminal (exessively selfish behaviour). The false dichtomy seems to be, that if a person is “destined” by the movement of atoms to not have a free will, then they hold no responsibility of their actions. It is a nonsensical confusion of social issues and physics.
We all – the biological agents – make choises all the time. Even the fish in the sea makes choises based on it’s free-will, that is agency, when it chooses wether to swim to the left or right in case it does not simply follow some instinct to go after food, shelter or reproduction. Yes, the atoms of the universe have somewhat predestined even that choise to be more likely one or the other, for example by giving the fish a previous experience of prejudice to prefer turning one way or a nother. It might still choose not to follow the prejudice and that experience might change the way it chooses the next time. There also is chaos in the universe. We rely much on order to survive the rather chaotic nature of the universe, so we prefer a level of order. However, we also like chaos, at least as much as it provides us with a level of freedom in our choises. Our brains are marvellous random engines.
The entire issue of free-will is similarly nonsensical as the discussion between nature vs. nurture. The reality we live in is such, that there are far too many variables for us to claim there is a predestination by wich we could predict the choises of even a fish to a great extent, let alone those of a human being. Wether or not something we could call free-will actually exists is a moot question. We are able to make choises that give other agents better experiences for them to make better choises.
The free-will seems to be lingering in the discussions about morality only because the Theists think they have come up with an explanation to their god to be both benevolent (as they would like to think) and the creator of this world, that does not appear to be designed, nor built by any especially benevolent force. It keeps surfacing again and again, even though it is the worst possible excuse for that. They never reply directly when asked wether there is free-will in them heavens they would like to think they themselves at least live happily ever after for an eternity. Since if there is such there, why does the so called free-will create evil in this world, but alledgedly not in them heavens?
LikeLike
To dismiss the golden rule as insufficient is highly dangerous if the world population followed its precepts an enormous stride forward would be made. At the moment we have largely a free for all world with enormous differences in lifestyle. In India there are twenty million people who have no toilet and defecate outside. Because the history of Christianity is blackened with brutality and violence gives us no reason to dismiss its attempts to improve mankind’s general behaviour. The pre-christian age was no different and nor is the post-Christian one proving better.
The problem lies with us we are tribal by nature , go to any football match to verify that fact, and in the past it was a means of survival . Religion attempts to teach us that homo sapiens is one race not many competing tribes. The human conscience also gives us the same message hence the word humanitarian. Steven Pinker in his book ‘ The Better Angels of Our Nature ‘ makes a detailed case to prove we have become less violent , but he spoils the excitement by saying it is because violence does not pay. Mr Pinker believes we carry a huge evolutionary baggage and we are not blank slates. I can only hope man’s conscience will triumph over his selfish desires and improve the future for us all.
LikeLike
I do not try to dismiss the golden rule as such. It or something very similar has been presented in many cultures and religions throghout human history. For example both Buddha and Lao Tze presented the notion long before Christianity. I simply do not think presenting it as a religious maxim has changed much of anything. Not for the Indians, Chinese, or Westerners. The fact that the history of Christianity as long as it was only led by religious maxims, that is, before the advent of secular values in western societies, it had been assigned a very different meaning. Just like it has been seen in very different light by Christians in the US and those in the Nordic countries even today. The golden rule is so vague, that people project onto it what they already belive to be true, because of practical secular things in their lives. For example, the average US citizen seems to get very little for their taxes – they do not feel the police has sufficient strength to protect them from crime, the government does not provide general healthcare, and a lion share of their tax money is spent on enourmous military budget, that still seems insufficient to protect them from the enemies of the state. The Nordic people have exactly the opposite. Hence, the Nordics think, that paying taxes is the best way for the golden rule to become an actual reality, while the US citizen on average hardly can even see any connection between the taxes and the golden rule. The economic imbalance between most Westerners and most Indians is not the result of different religious beliefs, but that of both modern and historical politics and capitalism.
I agree, that humans have an inherent tribal nature, but in my view, religions only tap into that, to turn us into bigger and stronger tribes not unlike nationalism, wich you can also bear witness to in a football game on the national level. (Are we not lucky, that different religions do not support their own sports teams 😉 But they support their own nations and armies of those nations. Got Mit Unz! As it said on the WWII belt buckle of the German soldiers.
I do share your hope, in the sense, that I hope we as societies can see reason and that it will make us not accept the rampant selfishness of capitalism, dictatorships, or any other form of anti-social behaviour. For if we shall not, we will surely perish and before that by the greed of the few shall many suffer as has been much of our history before and after the advent and rule of Christianity been and still is. But I see that hope, because secular logical social behaviour has been on the rise all over the planet since the birth of the ideals of enlightenment, humanism and socialism. Even though we do get the occasional set back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is true religion has failed to change us even throughout the century’s , but has the scientific revolution or the enlightenment done better? We have advanced greatly technologically but that has increased our problems such as climate and now antibiotic resistance. The problem lies in human nature which seems to place a lot of emphasis on survival of the fittest. The result is a pyramid of wealth with the elite at the top and the destitute at the bottom. I see religious practice as a help to society if it combats selfishness and encourages personal improvement. Not the narrow judgemental fundamentalism that can lead to radicalisation but the open-hearted tolerant acceptance of our neighbor’s with all their diversity.
LikeLike
Well, obviously the enlightenment and science have done better. We would not even have antibiotics, that you mention without science. We would not have vaccinations, chirurgy, nor psychiatry without science. We would not have the internet, that makes it possible for you and I to exchange ideas without science. We would not have general literacy, democracy, nor human rights without enlightement. Of course there are the occasional set backs, but we can only face problems as they arise. If there is one even remotely reliable way to predict problems and come up with solutions to solve them, it is the scientific method. Is it not?
The survival of the fittest seems to be widely misunderstood concept. I guess it is the legacy of fascism in rampant capitalism, that has tried to twist it to mean the survival of the individual, when the biological concept refers more heavily to the survival of the fittest species. There is also a lot of religious propaganda against the evolution theory, and this strawman version of ultimate selfishness attributed to the concept of survival of the fittest. We had the pyramid of wealth at the top before the advent of enlightenment and it is generally referred to as feodalism. Capitalism has taken the place of feodalism and presents a similar model for the society. Both of these have been supported with the application of religious maxims and doctrine. The problem about religious maxims and doctrine is that one is not even supposed to have any doubts about it. The idea seems to be, that world is as gods have orchestrated it. The king is annointed to position of power by the divine and the capitalist is rich because of the divine provinence. The solution to the pyramid scheme of feodalism and capitalism is socialism.
In the survival of the fittest species some of us mammals have developed a usefull and practical trait of becoming social species. Family groups that support each other. Extended family groups form tribes and extended tribes form nations. Extended nations are presently forming humanity. It remains to be seen, wether this is too late for our own good, because our cultural heritage, that enabled us humans to take the path of becoming “fitter” to survive as social groups and intelligent animals that are able to use reason and science to deduce what the reality is like, it has littered us also with all sorts of anti-social behaviour models, such as nationalism, religiousness, tribalism, capitalism and Fascism. However, the fact that such a numbscull like myself has been able to figure this out, gives me hope for the rest of us.
I have no quarrel with religious behaviour as long as it restricts itself to helping the neighbour, wether the religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism, or any of the others – and they all do that too. However, I also see it as a hindrance, because all religions are based on equally empty claims. The Stalins and the Maos of this world are simply the people who have called that bluff, as there never were any gods who would have interfered in any of their actions, and as they had no better reasons than the religious superstitions to behave, they did not. Religion impedes us from seeing why we really should act accirding to our “better nature” and though the make up reasons of religions may fool many, it would be better that all of us would learn actual reasons to do good. That is where humanism steps in. Or if it does not, we are pretty much doomed.
LikeLike
Far from exclusively religious free will also dominates scientific thinking especially deterministic science. My past , says the deterministic scientist , determines my future , my decisions are not free but predetermined. Some atheist philosophers like Daniel Dennett are very unhappy with this reasoning. Dennett is a friend of Sam Harris and I confess he is not easy for me to follow like many clever men.
Professor Roger Penrose does not believe computers will ever be conscious since he thinks consciousness is linked to quantum mechanics.
We must remember that human self consciousness is in a league of its own and very difficult to explain. Darwin’s co-evolution discoverer Alfred Wallace could not bring himself to believe the human mind could have been created by natural selection — hence Wallace’s Paradox.
Let me say I’m a uneducated layman with some interest in theses matters and I rely on the experts in their fields to help me grasp difficult concepts.
LikeLike
We can list things we would not have and pick the ones we like. I could say but for science we would not have the car which has caused such pollution. It hinges on human nature again as always , a knife can be useful but it can kill. Radio activity can create electric power or atomic bombs. Everything depends on us whether we use knowledge for good or evil. So what has science to say about human nature? It certainly does not say it’s always good and the evidence of history confirms this. Has it been changed by technology ? I suspect little has changed in our natures. Socialism is the only way forward but is it possible in such a world as this? That brilliant expert in human nature Freud , summed up the human struggle ‘ we are at war with ourselves ‘.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I agree Kertsen, that thechnology is only as good a thing as the purpose we use it for. What science tells us about “human nature”, is that it is the product of of our evolution and like everything else, in nature it is not perfect per se. But science is not just about technology, nor just about the natural sciences of physics and chemistry and their sub-appliances, like biology, geology, or for example cosmology. Scieces also include abstract science, like mathematics and humanist research, such as the study of history, sociology and psychology. And all these interlap wich each other on one field or a nother. The humanist sciences tell us a lot about how we should and should not behave, if our aim is to become moral as human societies but they intermixed with the study of, let’s say biology, also tell us how we should be moral about ecology. The only actual question, that remains, is wether we want to live in a moral society or not. That is not decided for us by any gods, rather it is something we need to figure out on ourselves, wether if there are any gods or not. The reason why we value human rights, or democracy does not come from any particular gods or religions, it comes from our human nature. From our very nature to need to live in co-operation, rather than in conflict. A democracy is only good, if the majority understands, that each member of this or that majority also represents some minority. At the very least the minority of being the individual they are. The person who is part of every majority group is such a rare thing, that they are a minority at that.
How we determine good or evil is our choise, but if we want to come to as objective as possible view on it, we need to include each other, much like the golden rule tries to teach us. Morality is all about the wellbeing of us all and each one of us as members of our society. We all do want to have wellbeing for ourselves at the very least. The best way to get it as a member of a society is to provide it to all members of the society. Religious moralism is all about following arbitrary rules as set by authoritarian dictates of beings, whose very existance can not be verified in any mutually reliable manner. That is why religious maxims do not offer universal or reliable base for morality as such.
LikeLike
Pingback: IS ANYONE OUT THERE? THE BIBLE HAS AN ANSWER – Citizen Tom
Pingback: IS ANYONE OUT THERE? THE BIBLE HAS AN ANSWER | Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach
Pingback: The Field is the World #3 Germans leaving the State Church | Bijbelvorser = Bible Researcher
Here try this:
BIBLE HANGAROO
LikeLike