HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 14, 2006 John Water's latest article which mentions me is sort of an odd one. He seems to have an issue with how I express my philosophies, yet agrees with many of them. He likened my signature at the useless-knowledge forum to the Red Baron, implying, what, a negative image? He also called it old, as old as a triplane. That quote from Epicurus isn't merely old, it's ancient. Triplanes? How about no planes, no cars, no electricity [great, now the Gilligan's Island theme is in my head], and no steam power. It goes to show you that the idea of a loving god or set of gods and an evil world are inconsistent. It takes no technology, calculus, computer models, or quantum mechanics to figure out: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? --Epicurus, 341 BC – 270 BC John seems to agree that evil [morality?] is relative. John also seems to agree there aren't specific gods. He agrees that science and technology are required to save mankind (I'm almost sure he does). What then is his exact issue? John seems like someone who knows he is an atheist, but is unwilling to take the final step and admit it to himself. It seems clear from his writing that John likes that folks believe, but isn't especially concerned with the specifics of what those beliefs are. Many atheists fall into this group. Many think religion is required to keep the masses moral and hopeful. The line between agnosticism and weak atheism is subtle and transparent, depending on how one frames the argument. Agnosticism claims that we cannot know if gods exist or not. Weak atheism claims that we don't have enough evidence to suppose any gods exist. Weak atheism is skepticism, without rule-breaking or without allowing for special circumstances or safe zones. Most will recall safe zones from their childhoods – if tag is played in the living room, the couch is safe. That couch, by sheer will, defies the rules of tag. If you are touched while on the couch, you are still not “it”! Many skeptics will disbelieve in ghosts, and demonic possession and a host of other phenomena, but will not cross the “god line”. Perhaps John doesn't like the implications for his own Yoggic forces – perhaps that is his “god line”. If he goes too far to the skeptical side, he may have to confront certain truths. Artificial lines such as these are defense mechanisms – self imposed, imaginary boundaries which protect cherished belief. If we begin with the premise that we accept as little as possible going into any argument, then gods must have verifiable evidence like any other phenomena. Thus a true skeptic, or a weak atheist, won't say that we don't have enough evidence to make a determination, but merely that we have no evidence to believe at all, taking as an initial position that the world is devoid of the supernatural. We can see an implied “yet” in there, and no real weak atheist would suggest otherwise; we may find evidence for gods in the future, but we don't give the existence of gods a special place – this is why weak atheists and agnostics differ. Atheism isn't anti-theism, though some atheists, in my experience, are anti-theists based primarily on the evil that religion has caused. Is that such a strange position? I see rocks which don't laugh, objects remain at rest when I set them down, and my bushes don't cry when I trim them – a set of rules seems to be at work in daily life and the supernatural seems oddly absent. In any case, going back to the Epicurus quote that I use, John supposed that killing is “good” by being useful, that gods must have had a reason for allowing evil. This is also a paradox – if gods are supreme beings with infinite power, than gods could allow a world with free-willed people sans any suffering at all. Gods have, after all, infinite choices. Gods chose, instead, to have a world where killing is required and normal, where hurricanes and other non-man made disasters kill children, where babies are born with defects which kill them long before they have the brains, literally, to consciously sin. Gods may indeed exist, or, nature, or the universe itself is alive and god-like, however, they seem to care little for our welfare. The paradox seems to be that gods aren't what they claim to be – either they are not moral, or they are not all-powerful, etc., depending on which track you choose. Or, if they are not conscious, as John implied, if we just take the universe itself as being a god, then the end result is still the same: the major monotheistic religions of today are simply wrong. Looking closely at John's piece then, and ignoring his issue with my quote, his view seems oddly familiar to a quote by humanist Carl Sagan: The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. Thanks John for yet another opportunity to paste Sagan quotes – I think you and I agree a whole lot more than we disagree, for what it's worth. Anyway, here are a few more: The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself. The Universe forces those who live in it to understand it. Those creatures who find everyday experience a muddled jumble of events with no predictability, no regularity, are in grave peril. The Universe belongs to those who, at least to some degree, have figured it out. Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Science is a way to not fool ourselves. I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions. It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. And here's one about humanism for you, John, another idea you seem to agree with yet somehow resent: Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together — surely a humanizing and character building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
