tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14822583229373786322024-03-13T16:49:03.867-07:00Philosophies of Men Mingled With ScriptureAn attempt to reconcile the claims of religion with the ideas and discoveries of science and philosophy.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-4348451736486499122013-04-01T19:31:00.002-07:002013-04-04T22:01:06.840-07:00The Argument from Divine Hiddenness: Why It’s a Knock Down Argument Against the Existence of a Theistic God, by Tristan D. Vick<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: solid #4F81BD 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
Argument from Divine Hiddenness<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitleCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span class="SubtitleChar"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Why It’s a Knock Down
Argument Against the Existence of a Theistic God</span></span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As
the Christian theologian Luigi Giussani so eloquently stated, “A human being
faces reality using reason. Reason is what makes us human. Therefore, we must
have a passion for reasonableness.” (Religious Sense, 1922) I couldn’t have put
it better myself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
One
of the things which theologians as well as nonbelievers agree on is that if God
existed in reality, then it is by our capacity to reason by which we would be
capable of detecting him, or it. Although there have been hundreds of arguments
for the existence of God, some of the most familiar being the ontological
argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and so on and
so forth, it seems that the atheistic arguments against the existence of God are
rarely ever given a fair shake. This is why I like the Problem of Divine Hiddenness,
or the Argument from Non-Belief as it is also known. It’s a strong argument
against the existence of a theistic God, and one which I think most believers
ought to contend with if they truly want their beliefs to hold any meaning.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Anslem
of Canturbury was one of the first theologians to grapple seriously with the
Problem of Divine Hiddenness (PODH for short). As Anslem observed, we have
never seen the physical presence of God. And if <i>seeing is believing</i>, then wouldn’t be nice if our doubts could be put
to rest if only he made a simple appearance? After all, Jehovah did it for
Moses, why not do it again for us?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In
this essay, I will examine why I believe the <u>Problem of Divine Hiddenness</u>
is a sturdy argument against the commonly held belief in the existence of the Christian
God, why it complicates the general belief in a theistic God, and why it is a
strong argument for atheists since it validates non-belief in most theistic God
concepts.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Cristofer/Desktop/The%20Argument%20from%20Divine%20Hiddenness%202.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-fareast-language: JA; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>The Premise of the
Problem from Divine Hiddennness<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
idea behind the argument is this, if God would put our doubts to rest then
there simply would never be any doubting Thomases, nonbelievers, or different
religious faiths. All belief in God, including religious belief, would be
universally the same since they would all be able to (independently) study the
same God instead of different interpretations of various, often times diametrically
opposed, God-concepts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In
his article on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.jp/2011/03/argument-from-non-belief.html">Cristofer
Nobel Urlaub</a> offers the PODH in the form of a syllogism. This is a good way
of framing it, so it’s worth repeating here.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
1.
If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
2.
If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable non-belief does not occur.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
3.
Reasonable non-belief occurs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
4.
No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
5.
Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
He
goes on to add:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
“Not
many theists would argue against the first premise. Many theists describe the
God of the Bible as a personal God of unconditional love. In addition, no
objective person would deny the existence of reasonable non-belief. Theists may
not agree with atheists, but one must admit that some of their arguments are,
at least, well thought out.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
I
have to give Cristofer some much deserved credit, for he isn’t just beating
around the bush, but he’s giving some serious thought to the issue. I hope to
compel him to think perhaps a little more upon the subject before simply coming
to any set conclusion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
very existence of non-belief, and I would add contrary beliefs as well, all
contradict the hypothesis that God is all-loving. Why? Because as Cristofer
points out, “a perfectly loving God would want everyone to know he exists, in order
to be saved, and would also have the power to bring about a situation in which
everyone knew he existed.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
question which arises is this: <i>if there
is a loving God, then why are there non-believers?<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Not
only atheists, mind you, but those who believe in different gods, goddesses,
spirits, and supreme beings, or even new age magic? Why are there polytheists
and pantheists for that matter? Why are their wiccans and Scinetologists? All
forms of divergent-belief, or non-belief, in God signify that God has, in most
cases, not made himself known to the majority of the human race.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
It
was Friedrich Nietzsche who once observed that “a god who is all-knowing and
all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his
intentions—could that be a god of goodness?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Indeed,
this seems to be a direct consequence of PODH. God, if he exists, in all
probability isn’t a loving being. Like Nietzsche pointed out, if God was indeed
all-loving, then he must, by his very nature, be compelled not to sow confusion
and doubt in the minds of others. Was it not St. Paul himself, who in the
presence of the Spirit, proclaimed “God is not the author of confusion” (1
Corinthians 14:33)? Allowing for atheists is one form of confusion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Allowing
for those who profess belief in a DIFFERENT god is a type of confusion. It’s
not only a confusion, but also it follows that variant belief systems create
doubt as you have to ask which, if any, is the correct belief? Soon you have
believers doubting themselves. Maybe I’m wrong? Maybe that guy over there is
right? Or maybe that guy? Multiply this confusion by the number of different god
beliefs there are, have been, or ever will be along with the number of
non-believers which exist, and this creates one undeniably massive amount of
confusion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
God,
by his loving nature, however, would not want his creatures to be so confused
that they stopped believing and worshipping him. Certainly not the Christian
God, who invented Hell especially for those so confused, which, when you think
about it, denotes an underlying malevolence (but I digress). Through love, God
would be compelled to reveal himself to us in a way which would diminish all
doubt. I am the ONE true God—and I love you—so I shall prove it! Tah-Dah! But,
no. God does not make himself known to us in a way whereby we might share a
universal experience of him. And this is a huge problem for theists.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
If
we could all see the elephant in the room there wouldn’t be different forms of
God-belief. All peoples, all religions, would unanimously agree on the same God
as we would have a common denominator of experience to relate back to, and
therefore belief in God would be universal and the same. There wouldn’t be many
variant, dissimilar, or divergent religions, no, there’d be just the one! If
God were real, there’d be the ONE religion based on the ONE true God. Furthermore,
there wouldn’t be non-believers, since, knowing the existence of God would be
like knowing the existence of apples. We’d just accept it as something which
existed beyond a reason of a doubt and move on. But the opposite seems to be
the case. Non-believers exist, variances in God belief are so superfluous as to
be ridiculous, and the only thing which is certain is nobody can be certain
about anything when it comes to the existence of God. There is confusion. And
this denotes a less than loving God or no God at all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
This
is the crux of the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Related
Considerations: God’s Properties Obscured <o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Now
there are several considerations we could assume in light of the above
realization that there does, apparently, seem to be confusion as to the
existence of God and there does seem to be a rather problematic implication
that God may <i>not</i> be all-loving. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
These
additional considerations are:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
1) Either
God is not all-loving because he authors confusion by not making himself known.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
2) Or
God is not all powerful as he continually fails to reveal himself to us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
3) Or
God may be indifferent and indistinguishable from a naturalistic universe with
no God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
4) Or
finally, God is altogether non-existent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Let
us look at these considerations in more detail, shall we?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>1) God is Clearly the
Author of Confusion: Therefore Cannot be All-Loving<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
So
why do people believe in different Gods? Why not the same God? Well, it seems
it is because they are confused as to the truth of which God is the real God.
Holy Wars have been fought over this. People have died! Would a loving God
allow such atrocities?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
If
you believe in an all-loving God, then your answer would have to be: no. So why
has God still not revealed himself in a way which would make himself perfectly
known to all those who are afflicted with confusion and doubt as to his
existence? Wouldn’t this resolve all the conflicts and turmoil generated over
the question of his existence?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As
Cristofer Noble correctly states, “This argument is similar to the problem of
evil because it claims the idea of God is inconsistent with what we observe in
the world. In fact, since ignorance of God would seem to be a natural evil,
many say that the problem of divine hiddenness is an instance of the problem of
evil.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
But
like the Problem of Evil, the consequences are less than desirable for the
theist. God is either malevolent, since he <i>allows</i>
evil, or indifferent, <i>because</i> he
allows evil, or non-existent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
Philosopher Stephen Law has posited the Evil God Challenge to believers based
on this precise revelation. He comes at it strictly from the problem of evil
perspective, evil exists, and therefore evil God must be an equally valid
assumption as good exists, therefor loving God. I’ll let you be the judge of
whether his arguments <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.jp/2011/10/notes-for-responding-to-craigs-possible.html">are
convincing</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>2) God Continually
Fails to Reveal Himself to Us Therefore Could Not be All-Powerful<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Perhaps
God is all-loving, and would like to reveal himself to all, but due to whatever
limitation, simply cannot. Maybe God isn’t all-powerful.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Suddenly
we have to re-evaluate what the theologians have said about the properties
attributed to God. If an all-loving and all-powerful God existed, then the
answer is yes, he would have the power to bring about a situation where
everyone came to know him. It would simply be in his nature to do so, and having
the capacity to do so, he would do so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Not
having done so, as is our observation, we have to ask which of the properties
might be wrong? We’ve already considered option A, that God might not be all-loving,
so that leaves us with options B and C. B being God might not be all-powerful.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
So
although God could very well be all-loving, he simply may <b>not</b>, as Cristofer says, “have the power to bring about a situation
in which everyone knew he existed.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>3) God is Indifferent
and thus Indistinguishable from a Naturalistic Universe<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Actually,
I should point out that most naturalistic arguments against the existence of
God can often reduce themselves to the Problem of Evil or, at least, relate
back to it. This is because in a naturalistic universe, the random and arbitrary
amount of suffering looks indistinguishable from a universe governed by a
malevolent and capricious God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Another
way of stating it would be: A universe created and governed by an evil God
would contain more or less the exact same amount of suffering and evil as we
already see, so whether the universe is created by a God or not, the very
indifference of the universe could reflect the precise indifference of God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
This
would mean that God is super-hidden, because we would have no way of discerning
his acts from the natural world, and if this be the case, theology is a waste
of time as nothing could ever be definitively known about God through his
actions, or rather lack thereof.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>4) God is Nonexistent<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
This
one seems fairly straight forward. If God didn’t exist, we would still have all
the same amount of confusion regarding him, but this confusion would be
predicated on confused terminology, competing God concepts, and the
untrustworthiness of human experience and our habitual capacity to continually
be mistaken in these experiences. Meanwhile, the universe would behave
naturally, and be indifferent in its actions, as it always has.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
So
the above four considerations all fall out of the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Addressing Some
Counter Objections to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Some,
like Alvin Plantinga, have postulated that we may simply not know, or
understand, the reason for why God allows confusion, suffering, or evil. In
other words, it may be beyond our comprehension.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
This
line or reasoning, however, pushes God dangerously to the edge of no longer
being a Personal being. It is for the theist to tread dangerously close to
deism only to salvage the belief in God because, well, the atheistic argument
was just too good.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
I
don’t think I really need to attack such a position, because to me it seems to
be a defensive one that is admitting that God is not exactly like we have
imagined, therefore we throw our hands up in the air and say, oh well, we give
up. We couldn’t possibly understand, so instead of demanding to *see proof of
God, we’ll just accept it on faith that he is beyond our comprehension. But if
so, how could we ever comprehend enough about God to supply a definition? On
faith alone?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
I’m
sorry, but I find it a weak and defeatist position. So I don’t necessarily feel
I should devote too much time trying to rebut it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Another
possibility for why God might stay hidden is that his deliberate attempt to
demonstrate his own existence would impeach everyone’s free will, and if God
has designed us with free will, he cannot contradict his own unimpeachable
laws.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Actually,
I find this rebuttal extremely unsatisfactory. If <i>free will</i> at all existed as theologians describe, then we would
still have the free-choice to deny the existence of God in the face of
overwhelming evidence.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
It
would make us willfully ignorant, sure, but this would be the basis of
delusion. Once thing I do not think we can say is that all atheists and
nonbelievers are delusional. After all, are they not the ones who are demanding
to see the evidence? It seems to me, to truly embrace a delusion you would have
to believe in something with unwavering conviction despite evidence to the
contrary. And if this were true, then there wouldn’t be such a thing as a
nonbeliever or atheist. So you see, the mere existence of atheists is a thorn
in the theologian’s back-side!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
There
is a strange theological consideration dealing with accountability. Cristofer
explains in detail:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
“If
the God of the Bible actually exists, and He made himself absolutely known to
the entire world, then the entire world would then be held accountable for that
knowledge. The idea that we are only accountable for knowledge we possess is
shown in Jesus' saying to the Pharisees, in John 9:41, “... If ye were blind,
ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
“If
the Biblical account is true, then the Christian God must be a reality. The infectivity
of a personal appearance is then an indication that some people are prepared to
accept this reality, and some, for whatever reason, are not. Those who are not
able to accept this truth would then be subject to judgments that would not be
just, or which could have been avoided if they had been allowed more time to
prepare.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Personally,
I only see this as sort of a variant on God is not all-loving consideration,
again. You see, the idea clearly entails that God would have to willfully dole
out unjust deserts (judgments). A loving God could not do this, but a more
sinister sort of God would have no such qualms. So I do not think presuming
accountability is the reason God remains hidden nor is it adequate enough to
resolve the issue, as it can once again point toward a less than loving God,
and then we’d be back to one of the initial consequences of PODH.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
So
it seems we always come down to one of two assumptions. God is either not
all-loving, or he doesn’t exist. One of the implications of PODH states that if
God is not all-loving then he cannot be the God of Christianity. And this is
true. But he could be a deistic entity and still exist. All it would mean is
theologians are wrong about the nature of God. But still, the less confuddled
scenario is that God doesn’t exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
So the
question then becomes, which of the two assumptions makes more sense?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Occam’s
Razor suggests <b>no</b> God at all is the
more probable of the two, and I tend to agree. Loving, or not, God concepts
usually tend to be highly intricate. Ornate in their limitless possibilities,
but very much unnecessary. It’s all fanciful imaginative decorations twinkling
pretty, and although some people are attracted to such elaborate tinsel and trimmings,
I tend to think that the truth, whatever it is, is rather more like the
philosopher Wittgenstein proposed, namely that truth, in all its forms, is
rather mundane. What could be more mundane than the answer simply being: there
is no God?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Some Closing Thoughts<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Our
observations, based in the natural world, contradict God as he is claimed to
exist, and that by far is the greatest indicator that we are dealing with a
theoretical concept and not an actual tangible entity. I could be wrong,
however, but as an atheist I am still waiting for something compelling, some
argument or form of evidence, and so far, I haven’t come across anything which
could overcome extremely strong objections to God, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism">verificationism</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification">justification</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism">empiricism</a>, and the Problem
of Divine Hiddenness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In
his concluding statement Cristofer’s states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
“So
to those who wonder why a perfectly loving, personal God does not make Himself
known to us, I say that He is, though perhaps not in the way we might expect.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Having
re-examined the Problem from Divine Hiddeness a bit more thoroughly, I do not
think we can be at all <i>that</i> certain.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that God is working in mysterious ways
in which his conveyances are subtle, often unnoticed, or not fully understood,
but if so, what, I ask you, sort of God is this?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
It’s
certainly not like the God of classic Christian theology. A God which keeps you
guessing till the very end has more in common, dare I say, with Eastern
religions than Western ones. In which case, I would caution, maybe it is high
time theists start looking outside of their local God-concepts, which has for
centuries been trapped in the tight confines of their established theology, and
perhaps start looking for other signs of God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Once
we have applied reason and scrutiny to other competing God-concepts, let reason
discern which God among a pantheon of gods seems most plausible. I for one, think
you’d be hard pressed to prove any of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Ultimately,
if you should, like me, look elsewhere for answers but continue to see the same
problem of divine hiddenness, well, maybe then the idea of a non-existent God
won’t seem so controversial to you. Maybe, just maybe, it will start to make a
lot more sense.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
--Tristan
Vick<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<a href="http://www.advocatusatheist.blogspot.jp/">Advocatus Atheist</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Cristofer/Desktop/The%20Argument%20from%20Divine%20Hiddenness%202.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS Mincho"; mso-fareast-language: JA; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
I frequently refer to God as a concept. This is because we live in a
naturalistic universe which is governed by physical laws. Consequently, if
there is no direct (tangible) or indirect (causal) evidence which can be
measured and duplicated empirically by an objective third party, allowing God
to be demonstrated as real, then in all likelihood we are dealing with a
theoretical concept. It is alternatively called the God-hypothesis. In
philosophy, anecdotal stories of experience, such as the personal witness of
the Holy Spirit, are meaningless when it comes to proving the veracity of a
belief proposition. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of most believers
that claim they truly believe they have experienced the divine, there is a
difference in the methodology of how one goes about formulating a belief and
how one goes about demonstrating whether or not the basic assumptions of the
belief are true. I am concerned primarily with systems which can demonstrate
their claims, because if they cannot, then they are either merely theoretical
or else false. As the God concept has not yet been fully demonstrated, we must
overcome our religious biases and talk about God as a concept, something
theoretically devised, but which may or may not really exist. To do what theists
do and talk about God as real, without any rigorous demonstration, is to make a
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization">hasty
generalization</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-79439062514348618422013-01-09T22:12:00.000-08:002013-01-09T22:12:07.747-08:00Coming Out in the LDS Church<br />
<i>The author of <a href="http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/">(Gay) Mormon Guy</a> was kind enough to write to me sharing his feelings and experiences after revealing his identity to friends and loved ones, and how things have changed, or not changed, now that they know.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<br />
The most common question I’ve had since letting my worlds collide is this: “What has it been like? How have people responded?”<br />
<br />
The answer is different from what I expected it would be.<br />
<br />
Not much has happened, and not much has changed.<br />
<br />
I guess I should add some caveats to that statement. Most people who have contacted me were surprised when I shared this part of my life, and a handful of close family members were concerned when they realized that I was sharing it publicly – for the whole world to see. But beyond a few concerns, everyone was supportive and loving… which isn’t really a difference from how they acted before November. My classmates and professors tell me that they admire me. Okay. A few more people in my life have shared their personal stories and struggles with me, and a few others have asked for advice for their family and friends. But beyond the first conversations I had with them, the topic hasn’t come up.<br />
<br />
If I look just at a list of things that have transpired, a lot has happened. I’ve tried to throw myself into a new environment with the hope that I can make a difference… and maybe see a difference in my life. I attended a conference sponsored by the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists on attraction research, was filmed as part of the Voices of Hope project, performed at a Christmas fireside for North Star, met dozens of members of the community, and talked with people that before I had only ever heard of. But it still feels like life hasn’t changed at all.<br />
<br />
I wonder why. I mean, most of the people I’ve known who came out did so and suddenly “felt amazing” – like they had a new lease on life. Their relationships seemed more real, their life more worthwhile, whatever. Granted, I didn’t share this part of my life to get closer to people… but somewhere inside I guess I expected the same thing to happen to me. I have a really hard time getting close to people. Making friends is almost impossible… and keeping them is even harder. Somewhere I believed that being more open and honest would make it easier for me to get close to people and develop real friendships. Maybe not having absolutely everything about my life available for public perusal was an obstacle in relationships. And maybe for some people it is. But I definitely don’t feel that way.<br />
<br />
Part of it might be because I have a blog. I had a classmate remark that someone had talked to him about my blog, after reading for a few hours… and yet had never talked to me about his experience. Why? But I guess maybe it makes sense - if you can get inside my head vicariously, and find out everything that I think on the subject without ever having to ask potentially awkward questions, why go to the real person?<br />
<br />
I think that most of the reason why nothing has changed comes from the reality that I have much larger obstacles in my ability to connect with people. Whether from autism or something else, I feel like I’m always an outsider. At support group events, at church, at family gatherings, at school, at MBA council meetings… everywhere I go, I feel like a little kid in a group of grown-ups, or someone visiting from out of town. Interesting, a bit peculiar, and maybe even enlightening. But at the end of the day, I’m still someone on the outside looking in. And that hasn’t changed with the simple revelation that I’m attracted to guys. If anything, that revelation has seemed to make it harder for people to relate to me, and me to them.<br />
<br />
So that’s what has changed. Not much. People know who I am, I’ve met a handful of people in the community, and now I have no secrets. But sharing my identity didn’t solve any of the relationship problems I was facing, nor did it suddenly provide me with an ability to work through my hardest times in life.<br />
<br />
But even if it didn’t solve my relationships, it was worth it. The few people whose lives I’ve been able to touch… the few people who’ve been lifted in some way – that made it worthwhile.<br />
Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-72549911073794220002012-09-19T23:21:00.000-07:002012-09-19T23:36:10.958-07:00The Gospel of Jesus' WifeProf. Karen L. King recently unveiled the translation of a fragment of Coptic papyrus at the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome. <a href="http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife">This is the papyrus</a>:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUJ65Z2I0o8iTyN8cDudBJqP3L2vaUtB7HYmts1wEowSdhLm0bdL5m69dlx65kfDnNPg-7gkip0dOk6MIyyo4ngsTMAwV5fBOgJVmXMoQZbCW-nKP24SHCfSvaCtnvmWRmcSIdThJSbGa6/s1600/papyrus_front_sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUJ65Z2I0o8iTyN8cDudBJqP3L2vaUtB7HYmts1wEowSdhLm0bdL5m69dlx65kfDnNPg-7gkip0dOk6MIyyo4ngsTMAwV5fBOgJVmXMoQZbCW-nKP24SHCfSvaCtnvmWRmcSIdThJSbGa6/s400/papyrus_front_sm.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Front</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy41_IeKCzjj2oCdHthSAPT6UWMtSDkN5pORSLOmRDz_J524cq3FuMZV4ZeR9PuXGDld9dU7I1lg4r9F8KZe6Lrttrla4om60uyoHEF4S6jOTak185GJECKUsbQ0-hK3MFapHJqDGiqG6l/s1600/papyrus_back_sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy41_IeKCzjj2oCdHthSAPT6UWMtSDkN5pORSLOmRDz_J524cq3FuMZV4ZeR9PuXGDld9dU7I1lg4r9F8KZe6Lrttrla4om60uyoHEF4S6jOTak185GJECKUsbQ0-hK3MFapHJqDGiqG6l/s400/papyrus_back_sm.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Back</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
According to Prof. King, this is what it says:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4HLaw3DKjFHSh91FyzcKQyCp1dsrUECAOrnjqa_uoGiybbLGBeNl8KiUfbdHclnYUVFEFRcxKTZ50-RcP_yCzvbKARg4ztL6najxjfCRJaO5yduBRAt7pOnj2i95e_u7R2Wwso0ApdYw4/s1600/papyrus_front_text_500.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4HLaw3DKjFHSh91FyzcKQyCp1dsrUECAOrnjqa_uoGiybbLGBeNl8KiUfbdHclnYUVFEFRcxKTZ50-RcP_yCzvbKARg4ztL6najxjfCRJaO5yduBRAt7pOnj2i95e_u7R2Wwso0ApdYw4/s400/papyrus_front_text_500.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This has obviously gotten a lot of media attention. Ever since Dan Brown's novel, <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>, people have been fascinated by this old question. Did Jesus have a wife?<br />
<br />
However, Prof. King says that this papyrus does nothing to prove or disprove the idea that Jesus was married. When asked if this proves that Jesus had a wife, she said, <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"No</i>, this fragment does not provide evidence that Jesus was
married. The comparatively late date of this Coptic papyrus (a fourth
century CE copy of a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half
of the second century) argues against its value as evidence for the
life of the historical Jesus."</blockquote>
She says that the fragment only proves that early Christians discussed it and held the belief that he was married. Now, I'm no Harvard Professor, but I would have to disagree. This isn't a fragment showing what Christians discussed or talked about. This is a fragment showing what Jesus actually allegedly said. If the fragment is accurate, then it isn't proof that Christians discussed Jesus' marriage. It's proof that <i>Jesus</i> discussed <i>his own</i> marriage.<br />
<br />
So the question then is whether or not the fragment accurately depicts a conversation between Jesus and disciples, or if it's just more early Christian apocrypha. That is, whether or not this conversation ever actually happened.<br />
<br />
One of the main issues with the fragments reliability is pointed out by Darrell L. Bock, senior research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-ancient-fragment-stirs-debate-81884/">He says that </a>it represents "a very small minority in a much later period than original Christianity ... It
is a fourth century text in a fringe gnostic group that is not
representative of the larger groups that are [part of] Christianity."<br />
<br />
In other words, the people writing this account were a group that had already split off from "original Christianity" and who do not necessarily represent their views. Does this automatically mean that their account is false? No, but it should at least give us pause. Bock also said that "this is one text among a mountain of texts that say Jesus was single. If
the papyrus is authentic, it would be the first text to suggest that
Jesus had a wife". We would have t<span style="font-family: inherit;">o start finding a lot more scrolls that describe him as being married before we started to seriously consider the possibility.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A quick side note about that last claim, that this is one text among a mountain of others that say he was single. Daniel Peterson, a professor of Middle Easter<span style="font-family: inherit;">n Studies at BYU <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22201402&nid=1016&title=mass-scholar-jesus-cites-wife-in-ancient-script&s_cid=queue-1">said of all these contradicting texts</a>, </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Well, honestly, I can't think of a single one that does ... The fact is his marital status is never discussed ... The earliest historical documents about Jesus
simply don't say one way or another," Peterson said. "You can't prove
that he was, but you can't prove that he wasn't."</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So was Jesus married? Possibly, but if we are ever going</span> to find the answer to that question, it won't be from this fragment.</span>Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-40122832321061825082012-08-13T22:04:00.000-07:002012-12-23T21:08:15.012-08:00Nikola Tesla on Religion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVLQYxOHSWuCCfK0EBJAj_kZ_zRlwm_AwT5CZijUS2NDubhukZgOpNTn3myfusUT5HDDAZp3uKC9u0ipSP1HyAWBZ_rdbF8FZNuiP5ZN_V97MUakCjRyzTj4dIwB_Y122fifiurVrU5lY6/s1600/tesla31.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVLQYxOHSWuCCfK0EBJAj_kZ_zRlwm_AwT5CZijUS2NDubhukZgOpNTn3myfusUT5HDDAZp3uKC9u0ipSP1HyAWBZ_rdbF8FZNuiP5ZN_V97MUakCjRyzTj4dIwB_Y122fifiurVrU5lY6/s320/tesla31.jpg" width="260" /></a></div>
Nikola Tesla, probably the greatest inventor in the last several hundred years, is another one who is sometimes called an atheist. Not often, though. His religious background is fairly well-known, but his name is occasionally added to lists of famous atheists.<br />
<br />
The reason is quotes like this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Religion is simply an ideal. It is an ideal force that tends to free the human being from material bonds. I do not believe that matter and energy are interchangeable, any more than are the body and soul. There is just so much matter in the universe and it cannot be destroyed. As I see life on this planet, there is no individuality. It may sound ridiculous to say so, but I believe each person is but a wave passing through space, ever-changing from minute to minute as it travels along, finally, some day, just becoming dissolved."</blockquote>
This quote in particular is used to claim that Tesla did not believe in religion, the soul, or Einsteins physics. None of this is true.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal">"Ideal" can mean many things</a>, such as "a conception of something in its perfection" or "an ultimate object or aim of endeavor, especially one of high or noble character," but even in its most negative connotation, which I think Tesla was using, it means "something that exists only in the imagination." This is absolutely true. Religion exists only in the mind. However, that does not mean that God also exists only in the imagination. It does not mean that Tesla does not believe in God. In addition, just because religion only exists in the mind, it does not mean that religion is bad. Tesla speaks of religion as a positive, liberating force, "[freeing] the human being from material bonds."<br />
<br />
Another quote, which illustrates Tesla's spirituality,<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=quQWvRLc-eUC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=The+gift+of+mental+power+comes+from+God,+Divine+Being,+and+if+we+concentrate+our+minds+on+that+truth,+we+become+in+tune+with+this+great+power.&source=bl&ots=VdAYS1Ioth&sig=Y6dwXJ-OUgh2mUPYq7R94AShprQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qpspUOq-B8v0iwKttIDACg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=god&f=false"> is this one</a>, in his autobiography:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work."</blockquote>
Tesla attributes the gift of mental prowess to God and not only viewed the Bible as the source of all truth, but apparently devoted months at a time to its study. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=quQWvRLc-eUC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=The+gift+of+mental+power+comes+from+God,+Divine+Being,+and+if+we+concentrate+our+minds+on+that+truth,+we+become+in+tune+with+this+great+power.&source=bl&ots=VdAYS1Ioth&sig=Y6dwXJ-OUgh2mUPYq7R94AShprQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qpspUOq-B8v0iwKttIDACg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=god&f=false">And this one</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment and merging of races, and we are still far from this blissful realization, because few indeed, will admit the reality that "<i>God made man in His image</i>" in which case all earth men are alike. There is in fact but one race, of many colors. Christ is but one person, yet he is of all people, so why do some people think themselves better than some other people?"</blockquote>
So not only did Tesla believe that peace could only come through the realization of the doctrine that we are all alike, but he derived this truth from Christian doctrine. In other words, he used Christian doctrine as a way to say that we all equal and no one is better than any other person. As with most things involving Tesla, we need more of that.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-63310600324636459772012-08-12T23:21:00.000-07:002012-08-13T02:26:01.697-07:00Thomas Edison, Not an Atheist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAEBY36iOG0tA3L5Nn7dQ9_xEBl02YaE0mDW2KQwkekotMqrjw_wDiYk2970huerQUSwtwpa153cema3zEiGULbSeZ1JFng9dElQ5qgLi7pjz0UXkB_JgjdHTsVQ8vf89RrgYg0GoC0FcY/s1600/thomas-edison-lightbulb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAEBY36iOG0tA3L5Nn7dQ9_xEBl02YaE0mDW2KQwkekotMqrjw_wDiYk2970huerQUSwtwpa153cema3zEiGULbSeZ1JFng9dElQ5qgLi7pjz0UXkB_JgjdHTsVQ8vf89RrgYg0GoC0FcY/s1600/thomas-edison-lightbulb.jpg" /></a></div>
Thomas Edison is often (<a href="http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla">falsely</a>) credited as the greatest inventor ever, and one of the greatest names in science. He's also often described as an atheist. The belief that he was an atheist is so prevalent that many atheist organizations, such as <a href="http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=11">Atheistempire.com</a> and <a href="http://atheists.org/content/thomas-alva-edison-1910-nyt-interview">Atheists.org</a>, claim him as such and often use quotes to support the idea, although the latter was good enough to include that "pantheist" is a better word for Edison, they still continue calling him an atheist, as if pantheism was a type of atheism.<br />
<br />
One of the more <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=-sO1Qp10c3MC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=So+far+as+religion+of+the+day+is+concerned,+it+is+a+damned+fake...+Religion+is+all+bunk&source=bl&ots=1sY41JblMm&sig=oKydoxJGmESBY7LuYaBU_rK_HJo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f40oUOupI-bmiwK89IHoDA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=So%20far%20as%20religion%20of%20the%20day%20is%20concerned%2C%20it%20is%20a%20damned%20fake...%20Religion%20is%20all%20bunk&f=false">famous quotes</a> is,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk."</blockquote>
This quote is not taken out of context. He really did not believe in Heaven or Hell, the afterlife, or a personal god, but that does not mean he did not believe in any God. Much like <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/thomas-jeffersons-faith.html">Thomas Jefferson</a>, Edison was a theist, even though he had some serious disagreements with the religions of his day.<br />
<br />
<br />
In an October 2, 1910, interview in the New York Times Magazine, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=oFwyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA536&lpg=PA536&dq=Nature+is+what+we+know.+We+do+not+know+the+gods+of+religions.+And+nature+is+not+kind,+or+merciful,+or+loving.+If+God+made+me+%E2%80%94+the+fabled+God+of+the+three+qualities+of+which+I+spoke:+mercy,+kindness,+love+%E2%80%94+He+also+made+the+fish+I+catch+and+eat.+And+where+do+His+mercy,+kindness,+and+love+for+that+fish+come+in?+No;+nature+made+us+%E2%80%94+nature+did+it+all+%E2%80%94+not+the+gods+of+the+religions&source=bl&ots=het3smX38S&sig=CjPMYXOnRCiu1EvX6C6s9ysHtaY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HJQoUIHDLuWOiAK7sIHoCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Nature%20is%20what%20we%20know.%20We%20do%20not%20know%20the%20gods%20of%20religions.%20And%20nature%20is%20not%20kind%2C%20or%20merciful%2C%20or%20loving.%20If%20God%20made%20me%20%E2%80%94%20the%20fabled%20God%20of%20the%20three%20qualities%20of%20which%20I%20spoke%3A%20mercy%2C%20kindness%2C%20love%20%E2%80%94%20He%20also%20made%20the%20fish%20I%20catch%20and%20eat.%20And%20where%20do%20His%20mercy%2C%20kindness%2C%20and%20love%20for%20that%20fish%20come%20in%3F%20No%3B%20nature%20made%20us%20%E2%80%94%20nature%20did%20it%20all%20%E2%80%94%20not%20the%20gods%20of%20the%20religions&f=false">Edison also stated</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions."</blockquote>
This actually caused a bit of an uproar, with public accusations of Edison being an atheist. He never allowed himself to get wrapped up in the public drama, but he wrote the following <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LHHPo0vsdgMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=You+have+misunderstood+the+whole+article,+because+you+jumped+to+the+conclusion+that+it+denies+the+existence+of+God.+There+is+no+such+denial,+what+you+call+God+I+call+Nature,+the+Supreme+intelligence+that+rules+matter.+All+the+article+states+is+that+it+is+doubtful+in+my+opinion+if+our+intelligence+or+soul+or+whatever+one+may+call+it+lives+hereafter+as+an+entity+or+disperses+back+again+from+whence+it+came,+scattered+amongst+the+cells+of+which+we+are+made.&source=bl&ots=HzESihc9A-&sig=sE8zABeu_qHuVIDPl_3avkwQ7hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=45MoUI67JaK9iwKO0YDABA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=You%20have%20misunderstood%20the%20whole%20article%2C%20because%20you%20jumped%20to%20the%20conclusion%20that%20it%20denies%20the%20existence%20of%20God.%20There%20is%20no%20such%20denial%2C%20what%20you%20call%20God%20I%20call%20Nature%2C%20the%20Supreme%20intelligence%20that%20rules%20matter.%20All%20the%20article%20states%20is%20that%20it%20is%20doubtful%20in%20my%20opinion%20if%20our%20intelligence%20or%20soul%20or%20whatever%20one%20may%20call%20it%20lives%20hereafter%20as%20an%20entity%20or%20disperses%20back%20again%20from%20whence%20it%20came%2C%20scattered%20amongst%20the%20cells%20of%20which%20we%20are%20made.&f=false">privately in a letter</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made."</blockquote>
Edison specifically states that he believes in a Supreme Intelligence, but not the god of modern religions. Nature was Edison's god, and he considered it a sentient force. An Intelligence. He was a pantheist, believing that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, or that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.<br />
<br />
Edison put it even more simply when <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=lSt8yT7_k34C&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=I+believe+in+the+existence+of+a+Supreme+Intelligence+pervading+the+Universe.&source=bl&ots=RXXGhDwbkh&sig=e0UDnXayjPrNEVkrW_uo0P3h90Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y5UoUO-SIMXUiwKTwYC4Cw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=I%20believe%20in%20the%20existence%20of%20a%20Supreme%20Intelligence%20pervading%20the%20Universe.&f=false">he wrote on a piece of stationary</a> from his office,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I believe in the existence of a Supreme Intelligence pervading the Universe."</blockquote>
In addition, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/2000/popup1019.htm">his family also testified</a> regarding his belief in a Supreme Being:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"He never was an atheist. Although he subscribed to no orthodox creed, no one who knew him could have doubted his belief in and reverence for a Supreme Intelligence, and his whole life, in which the ideal of honest, loving service to his fellowman was predominant, indicated faithfully those two commandments wherein lies `all the law and all the prophets."</blockquote>
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-50322530682535395322012-08-09T17:41:00.003-07:002012-08-09T17:41:57.516-07:00The Law of Moses<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4t0nFGXAah9iNwdqIfq3FXWuyVTE7gUmAB4rUaUqJ6gpa2qsHiu4Jg_HHGlu8NWz0ajOm6PAORVYY1gHqF3QCumIPvrZFQ7e4hG9aNqSV-8kSE2_zSfvYqGRmNmax9ViWCjmCdafnK-yV/s1600/scumbag_god_by_jspete-d551h7s.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4t0nFGXAah9iNwdqIfq3FXWuyVTE7gUmAB4rUaUqJ6gpa2qsHiu4Jg_HHGlu8NWz0ajOm6PAORVYY1gHqF3QCumIPvrZFQ7e4hG9aNqSV-8kSE2_zSfvYqGRmNmax9ViWCjmCdafnK-yV/s1600/scumbag_god_by_jspete-d551h7s.jpg" /></a></div>
One common objection to many religions, and certainly against Christianity, is that the laws and edicts of God seem cruel, harsh, or unjust. As stated by Richard Dawkins, in <i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=The+God+of+the+Old+Testament+is+arguably+the+most&source=bl&ots=1hfG_6McAV&sig=K_eU5ZIXOGrB4H-bJjwvL01yZVY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m1gkUMbAK4ny2gWU_ICwBg&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20God%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament%20is%20arguably%20the%20most&f=false">The God Delusion</a></i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."</blockquote>
This is a valid point and serious, complex issue. There are parts of the Old Testament which seem legitimately immoral, even by Christian standards.<br />
<br />
The following is not meant to be an explanation for all of these inexplicably harsh acts, but can at least resolve issues relating to the Law of Moses, which is sometimes offered as an example of God's immorality on the grounds that it contains laws that are racist, sexist, or otherwise immoral.<br />
<br />
The Law of Moses can be split into several categories, and has been dozens of times, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses#Content_of_the_Law">such as</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>the Ten Commandments</li>
<li>Moral laws - on murder, theft, honesty, adultery, etc.</li>
<li>Social laws - on property, inheritance, marriage and divorce,</li>
<li>Food laws - on what is clean and unclean, on cooking and storing food.</li>
<li>Purity laws - on menstruation, seminal emissions, skin disease and mildew, etc.</li>
<li>Feasts - the Day of Atonement, Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Weeks etc.</li>
<li>Sacrifices and offerings - the sin offering, burnt offering, whole offering, heave offering, Passover sacrifice, meal offering, wave offering, peace offering, drink offering, thank offering, dough offering, incense offering, red heifer, scapegoat, first fruits, etc.</li>
<li>Instructions for the priesthood and the high priest including tithes.</li>
<li>Instructions regarding the Tabernacle, and which were later applied to the Temple in Jerusalem, including those concerning the Holy of Holies containing the Ark of the Covenant (in which were the tablets of the law, Aaron's rod, the manna). Instructions and for the construction of various altars.</li>
<li>Forward looking instructions for time when Israel would demand a king.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Nobody really has many complaints about the Ten Commandments or the Moral laws, with the exception of some penalties for infractions. Food and Purity laws are thought to have been thought up to help fight the spread of some diseases. Likewise, I'm not sure I've ever heard complaints against the laws regarding Feasts, Priests, or the Tabernacle. Most of the complaints seem to be against the Social Laws. These are the laws regarding dealing with slaves, the role of women and divorce, and other issues.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what would God say if He were standing here and we told him that the Law which He gave Moses was immoral? He'd probably agree.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The pattern in the Lord's teachings is that He gives us a law, waits for us to master it, then comes and gives us a higher law. For example, in the Old Testament, He says, "<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20.13?lang=eng">Thou shalt not kill</a>," or "<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20.14?lang=eng">thou shalt not commit adultery</a>." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the New Testament, He says, "<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.21-22?lang=eng">Not only should you not kill, you shouldn't even feel anger</a>," and "<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.27-28?lang=eng">Not only can you not commit adultery, don't even feel lust</a>."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So even God seems to think that the law given to Moses was not an ideal law. He even says this in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/55.8-9?lang=eng">He says</a>,</div>
<blockquote>
"8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.<br /> 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."</blockquote>
But didn't He teach us those ways? You mean the law he gave us falls short of the lofty celestial standard? Yes, Jesus also acknowledges the imperfection of the law in the New Testament. The Pharisees came to him in Judea, trying to debate with him. They asked him if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife "<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/19.3?lang=eng">for every cause</a>." Jesus said it was unlawful, and the Pharisees asked why, then, did Moses give a provision for it in the law. <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/19.8?lang=eng">Jesus explained</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."</blockquote>
Meaning that there are portions of the law which were given by God, but were not in line with God's eventual will for them. However, because of their hardness of heart, it was the law they were prepared to follow. To teach them to be all full of love and kindness would be like teachings calculus before addition and subtraction. They just weren't ready. So he taught them a lesser, imperfect law that they could handle, which would prepare them for a higher law.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-29879026720964627592012-07-16T01:04:00.000-07:002012-07-16T01:04:05.769-07:00The Unmoved Mover and Quantum Physics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdn4n5wcoxD-pK-zt3AJFRQNgI5XwIW9nmrZRWWYeSmga6JE2bDza5UdYjcrMtKOF1qoLu5uaaHddr-izCtizwWUqOXfO0fw6mExcMClVWrEcFcWa3Lt1soy0sDSRGG7kDtABNWD-hy82H/s1600/3878207_f520.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdn4n5wcoxD-pK-zt3AJFRQNgI5XwIW9nmrZRWWYeSmga6JE2bDza5UdYjcrMtKOF1qoLu5uaaHddr-izCtizwWUqOXfO0fw6mExcMClVWrEcFcWa3Lt1soy0sDSRGG7kDtABNWD-hy82H/s320/3878207_f520.jpg" width="287" /></a></div>
There aren't many philosophically sound arguments for the existence of God. If there were, there'd be a lot more theists by now and a lot less of everything else.<br />
<br />
However, Doug Benscoter, at <a href="http://dougbenscoter.blogspot.com/">Fides et Ratio</a>, believes that the cosmological argument of the Unmoved Mover is not only sound, but is even consistent with modern physics.<br />
<br />
His formulation of the argument is:<br />
<br />
1. Evident to the senses is motion. (Premise)<br />
<br />
2. Everything in motion has its motion sustained by another. (Premise)<br />
<br />
3. Either an Unmoved Mover exists, or else there is an infinite regress of sustaining movers. (Implied by 1 and 2)<br />
<br />
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of sustaining movers. (Premise)<br />
<br />
5. Therefore, an Unmoved Mover exists. (From 3 and 4)<br />
<br />
He then goes on to briefly address a few issues that may arise with the second premise and explains how objections can be resolved by rewording the premise. A full explanation can be found <a href="http://dougbenscoter.blogspot.com/2012/07/restricted-causal-premise-in-argument.html">HERE</a>.<br />
<br />
The only other objection I could see being raised is to premise 4, only because it comes close to begging the question. If there cannot be an infinite regress, then there must be a <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/04/cosmological-argument.html">First Cause</a>. Why would we even bother with the other premises?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-44401209019148181232012-07-07T14:42:00.000-07:002012-07-07T15:36:10.504-07:00Evidence Against Young-Earth Creationism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW3xR1OrUjkKTD4E7oGKsE7sYUjTkXjSypk2Q7h-1TFts002YaZLTBYkea46rsaC9EcvvjycQFL3-pagmEFyTCuNpaozF-gn9fh5rw7S1proBf8kYWLWthOnVlFDxcPEmfC_mG4gsqdeK4/s1600/creationism-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW3xR1OrUjkKTD4E7oGKsE7sYUjTkXjSypk2Q7h-1TFts002YaZLTBYkea46rsaC9EcvvjycQFL3-pagmEFyTCuNpaozF-gn9fh5rw7S1proBf8kYWLWthOnVlFDxcPEmfC_mG4gsqdeK4/s320/creationism-4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I am a theist, and a Christian, but I am not a fan of believing in claims that appear to be more than demonstrably false. To believe in a claim that is proven false absolutely requires that the adherent willfully closes their mind to truth. If there is a God, then that is certainly not what he intended for us.<br />
<br />
One of these claims which, in my uneducated opinion, is more than demonstrably false is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism">Young-Earth Creationism</a> (YEC). I don't mean to offend anyone who may believe in Young-Earth Creationism, but to my mind, I can't imagine why He would do that.<br />
<br />
To create the Earth in one week, 6,000 years ago, would require pretty significant, and frequent, violations of known laws of physics. If He could accelerate the Creation process in such a way, then why did it take a week? If He is capable of performing such huge violations of the laws of physics, then why not just snap your fingers and have it all be there? I don't know that there is a coherent answer.<br />
<br />
In addition, if He did create it in one week, 6,000 years ago, then why would He also create <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation">huge amounts of physical evidence that it took much longer</a>? Literally everything in the universe, from coral and tree rings, to the time it takes starlight to reach us, testifies that the universe has been here for much more than 6,000 years.<br />
<br />
The more insightful among you may say that He did that in order to mask his presence, such as in an old refutation to the <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/03/argument-from-non-belief.html">Argument from Non-Belief</a>. He needs only those who are prepared to know of His existence in order to protect the unprepared. But that doesn't quite fit. No matter how God created the Earth, He could have masked His existence. <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2010/12/scientific-creation.html">Old-Earth Creationism</a> doesn't bring us any further to proving his existence. In fact, wouldn't Old-Earth Creationism be the more reasonable model, if He were trying to hide His influence, since it looks much more like the natural process?<br />
<br />
A bigger problem is that if God did leave such evidence as fossils and such in order to throw us off, it would be closer to deception than masking his existence. In other words, it would not simply be the absence of positive evidence, it would be the presentation of negative evidence. God would be telling a lie, rather than simply not saying anything at all, and according to Christian canon, <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/titus/1.2?lang=eng#1">God cannot lie</a>.<br />
<br />
In other words, no matter how you choose to interpret the first few chapters of Genesis, it difficult to see Young-Earth Creationism as not conflicting with the rest of the Bible and how we conceive of God, in addition to simply leaving many, many questions unanswered, and contradicting the many signs to the contrary.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-1645318993977768532012-07-07T12:29:00.001-07:002012-07-07T12:33:45.574-07:00D Rizdek on Fine Tuning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitDfbq-dAYQ1BN6PTJPusiGH5A__lf5RiTKmKUQwOmX5xdG4iwl-Gq9o2P4NsNQIARqNaiA6CoYeefwK04jeMT7ATJwrggQJCtlgGn-xtWM7T6mK3j-t8h3pcmGkckOge9yCwDPchBLON_/s1600/GodAsCreator1220_AD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitDfbq-dAYQ1BN6PTJPusiGH5A__lf5RiTKmKUQwOmX5xdG4iwl-Gq9o2P4NsNQIARqNaiA6CoYeefwK04jeMT7ATJwrggQJCtlgGn-xtWM7T6mK3j-t8h3pcmGkckOge9yCwDPchBLON_/s320/GodAsCreator1220_AD.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
A user over at Debunking Christianity, named D Rizdek, made <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/heads-you-win-tails-i-lose.html#comment-575996426">a comment on the Fine-Tuning</a> which was noteworthy enough to be <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/07/quote-of-day-d-rizdek-on-fine-tuning.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FypxUn+%28Debunking+Christianity%29">made into it's own post</a>. He said,<br />
<blockquote>
"Fine tuning only makes sense if there is no god. If there is no god, then it is quite remarkable that all the universal constants seem to be "just so" such that matter/energy comes together in atoms, then molecules, that gravity is "just right" so that planets and suns form that give off light that nurtures life, blah blah. But that's only remarkable if there's no god. But of course that indicates there's no god. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
If there IS a god, then it's all mundane. It's all arbitrary. Matter and energy can behave anyway this god wants it to. There need be no universal constants at all, or they can be ANYTHING this god desires, because,well, it's god. God can design things any it want's to. Life need not have a planet it live on IF god designed it otherwise. Matter/energy need not come together to form atoms, planets and stars. What would be the point if life doesn't need them. Besides, if god wanted atoms, planets or start, they'd just appear without any constants. Because that's what gods do. It's only after applying human limitations on god that one can use the argument from fine tuning. The reasoning is that because WE are limited in how we must interact with the immutable physical universe, somehow the theist becomes ingrained in thinking their god must also be thus limited. They believe he must come up with "just so" constants otherwise nothing would work."</blockquote>
Rizdek says that Fine-Tuning only works if there is no God because if there is no God, then it is remarkable that all these constants line up in a way that allows life to form. If there is a God, then it is not remarkable, it's to be expected.<br />
<br />
I may be mistaken, but his argument seems to be:<br />
<ul>
<li>If God exists, then the universe would allow life to exist.</li>
<li>The universe allows life to exist.</li>
<li>This isn't particularly impressive.</li>
</ul>
Therefore:<br />
<ul>
<li>God does not exist.</li>
</ul>
<div>
In addition, the post that came from this comment stated that:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The burden of proof would be on the theist to show why God would want to produce a world which was naturalistically sustained and so on rather than one supported supernaturalistically."</blockquote>
Here is a response to that:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/03/argument-from-non-belief.html">Argument from Non-Belief</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-91474249733098557612012-07-05T00:58:00.000-07:002012-07-05T06:58:48.361-07:00Dawkins, Darwin, and the HolocaustIn Richard Dawkins book, <i>The Greatest Show on Earth</i>, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=U8AFxmc76rcC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=The+popular+canard+about+Hitler+being+inspired+by+Darwin+comes+partly+from+the+fact+that+both+Hitler+and+Darwin+were+impressed+by+something+that+everybody+has+known+for+centuries&source=bl&ots=nAo-BNq62m&sig=LEFSN1ttWOg1-6XRtavJYL3kaPg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4D31T5mZCMXY2AWv2uDOBg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20popular%20canard%20about%20Hitler%20being%20inspired%20by%20Darwin%20comes%20partly%20from%20the%20fact%20that%20both%20Hitler%20and%20Darwin%20were%20impressed%20by%20something%20that%20everybody%20has%20known%20for%20centuries&f=false">Dawkins write an exceedingly long footnote</a> attempting to deny Hitler's connection to Darwin. This connection has long been used by Christians to assert the destructive potential of science, and to try to discredit the theory of evolution. Dawkins writes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4bRy7bnOa5GHfHkSK5iGqtxwTLCiRG4fYnLfxqOnsyFuhYKJHUS5LUtKBxv3MUt0nWEt9qC3JzDOPi8Wyg-j4SV5_bNuatqv5n1G6fece12SoUF-puEwTTc8bAFjyM-NwPQOtUdk2uvxI/s1600/dawkinsfossil2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4bRy7bnOa5GHfHkSK5iGqtxwTLCiRG4fYnLfxqOnsyFuhYKJHUS5LUtKBxv3MUt0nWEt9qC3JzDOPi8Wyg-j4SV5_bNuatqv5n1G6fece12SoUF-puEwTTc8bAFjyM-NwPQOtUdk2uvxI/s320/dawkinsfossil2.jpg" width="320" /></a>"The popular canard about Hitler being inspired by Darwin comes partly from the fact that both Hitler and Darwin were impressed by something that everybody has known for centuries: you can breed animals for desired qualities. Hitler aspired to turn this common knowledge to the human species. Darwin didn't. His inspiration took him in a much more interesting and original direction. Darwin's great insight was that you don't need a breeding agent at all: nature--raw survival or differential reproductive success--can play the role of the breeder. As for Hitler's 'Social Darwinism'--his belief in a struggle between races--that is actually very un-Darwinian. For Darwin, the struggle for existence was a struggle between individuals within a species, not between species, races or other groups. Don't be misled by the ill-chosen and unfortunate subtitle of Darwin's great book: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. It is abundantly clear from the text itself that Darwin didn't mean races in the sense of 'A group of people, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin' (Oxford English Dictionary, definition 6.1). Rather, he intended something more like the OED's definition 6.II: 'A group or class of people, animals, or things, having some common feature or features'. An example of sense 6.II would be 'All those individuals (regardless of their geographical race) who have blue eyes'. In the technical jargon of modern genetics, which was not available to Darwin, we would express the sense of 'race' in his subtitle as 'All those individuals who possess a certain allele.' The misunderstanding of the Darwinian struggle for existence as a struggle between groups of individuals--the so-called 'group selection' fallacy--is unfortunately not confined to Hilerian racism. It constantly resurfaces in amateur misinterpretations of Darwinism, and even among some professional biologists who should know better."</blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;">As a theist, and a Christian, I can tell you that, when it comes to Hitler's atrocities being inspired by the ideas of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins as absolutely, undeniably correct.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Weren't expecting that, were you? That's right, Dawkins is correct. Hitler was not likely inspired by Darwin. However, in the quote above, Dawkins falls back on <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-doesnt-answer-question-on.html">his old habit</a> of <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-if-dawkins-is-wrong.html">dodging a question</a> rather than answering in a way that actually resolves the issue. If I were to answer the question in an exceedingly long footnote, "Was Hitler's holocaust inspired by the writings of Darwin?" I would do it like this:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">"The popular canard about Hitler being inspired by Darwin comes partly from the fact that Darwin's <i>Origin of Species</i> did have a link further back in the causal chain leading to the Holocaust. Darwin did inspire a few family members and friends, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport#Eugenics_creed">Charles Davenport</a>, who became major proponents of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics">eugenics</a> and a major force behind its implementation in numerous countries. It is fairly well-known that Hitler and the Nazis were inspired by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics">American policies in eugenics</a>. Darwin inspired eugenics and eugenics inspired Hitler. Does this mean that Darwin inspired Hitler? Absolutely not. Eugenics was an unethical corruption of a scientific truth and is not at all what Darwin intended. It has little or nothing to do with Darwinian evolution by natural selection. The Holocaust was not the fault of science. If Christians are going to try to say that the Crusades are not the fault of Christianity because it was the result of a perversion of the doctrine, then they must apply the same reasoning here, or they are guilty of a double-standard. In addition, the Holocaust cannot be blamed on any single cause. As with all historically significant events, it was an extremely complex series of events which led up to it. The Holocaust likely would have happened regardless of what Darwin wrote, or whether he wrote anything at all. Saying that Darwin inspired the Holocaust shows an ignorant and short-sighted view of history. If Christians are going to try to say that 9/11 was not solely caused by religion, but was the culmination of many other forces, then they must apply the same reasoning here, or they are guilty of a double-standard. Darwin did not inspire Hitler or cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust cannot be blamed on science. Deal with it."</span></blockquote>Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-26336645783924706632012-07-04T02:34:00.000-07:002012-07-04T02:36:16.116-07:00The Book of Mormon and Rev. 22:18<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSiB5g6kLA0viN59dzk06LTOSRdRxqclYUIfIrA-Qxy4r4U-SkLlkC3U2iveVfrRfJiC03ojNcG2c63N3pgrhPIZSqwRB3JmYUY35_tRLxU5iSJ0jBI8gyfVGfHwY0qXrCmZXlwDsMenar/s1600/Bible-book-Mormon1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSiB5g6kLA0viN59dzk06LTOSRdRxqclYUIfIrA-Qxy4r4U-SkLlkC3U2iveVfrRfJiC03ojNcG2c63N3pgrhPIZSqwRB3JmYUY35_tRLxU5iSJ0jBI8gyfVGfHwY0qXrCmZXlwDsMenar/s320/Bible-book-Mormon1.jpg" width="256" /></a></div>
I sometimes hear it said, <a href="http://www.letusreason.org/LDS28.htm">or see it written</a>, that The Book of Mormon must be false because it is an addition to the Bible, and God has commanded us not to add to, or subtract from, the Bible. The Book of Mormon is an addition, therefore it must be false.<br />
<br />
One of the main justifications for this claim is Revelation 22:18-19, which reads,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:<br />
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."</blockquote>
John says that we are not to add to, or take away from, 'the book of this prophesy", or God will send plagues our way and remove us from the Book of Life.<br />
<br />
But what does he refer to when he says, "the book of this prophesy?" It is commonly assumed that he refers to the Bible. The argument even depends on that assumption, but what is the Book of this Prophesy?<br />
<br />
It is unlikely that it refers to the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist at that point. It is generally accepted that The Book of Revelation was written in about 95 AD. The Bible didn't exist until around the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Development_of_Christian_canons">4th century AD</a>.When John speaks of "the book of this prophesy," he could not have been referring to The Bible. It didn't exist yet.<br />
<br />
The only book in existence at the time of his writing, which contained "this prophesy" was the book he was writing, The Revelation.<br />
<br />
This interpretation is further supported by the fact that this injunction against adding to the word of God had been given before. An often quoted instance is Deut. 12:32<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."</blockquote>
If it were true that this referred to all of God's word, rather than the specific book or section in which it is found, then every sacred writing after this point would then be false. In attempting to disprove Mormonism, the argument effectively disproves Christianity and most of Judaism.<br />
<br />
<br />
This command is also repeated in <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/prov/30.6?lang=eng#5">Proverbs 30:6</a>, but if the injunction in Deuteronomy referred to the collected works up to that point, then this command, as well as the instance in Revelation, is also invalid because it an addition to scripture.<br />
<br />
<br />
In addition, even the Bible seems to disagree with this interpretation. Among other things, Revelation describes to individuals in the Last Days who are specifically referred to as extra-biblical "prophets". Revelation 11:10 says,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth."</blockquote>
If we apply the interpretation that revelation is finished, then we now have the Bible testifying of future prophets who will somehow prophesy without receiving the word of God. Prophets who don't prophesy.<br />
<br />
<br />
The history of these churches also testifies that this interpretation is wrong. Early church fathers added to, and subtracted from, canon all the time. There is literally not a church in existence today which has not done it. Even the formation of the original Bible would have been a violation.<br />
<br />
Scripture was added to collections previously recognized as the word of God countless times during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon">development of the Old Testament</a>, and during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon">development of the New Testament</a>. Church leaders and founders took existing, recognized canon and added whole books, or took books away. Clearly they did not interpret this as it is read today.<br />
<br />
Critics of the Book of Mormon also sometimes say that the argument that the command refers to a specific book, or section of a book, rather than the Bible as a whole, still discredits Joseph Smith because his Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible did just that.<br />
<br />
However, that reasoning clearly doesn't hold water because countless "true" Christians have come out with their own translations of the Bible, each of which has numerous alterations to the text, and yet none of these fall under this criticism.<br />
<br />
The Book of Mormon cannot be criticized on the grounds of violating the warning in Rev. 22:18. If this criticism were valid, then most of the Bible would then be invalidated. In addition, the Bible clearly speaks of prophets other than those in the Bible, thus revelation must continue after Bible times, otherwise, the Bible is invalidated. Finally, numerous church fathers in history have added or omitted entire books from canon and modern Christians routinely make alterations without criticism.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-48297087374306831352012-07-03T23:55:00.000-07:002012-07-04T00:23:49.903-07:00Atheist Blogger Goes Catholic<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3hyphenhyphenq4uh6b5x3sNNT2PHwG6FK-e0oCioWtZHLxhUK5syt1A_SKauzQ32m4SOfNTRjlBNfdsXDwnUwbo0cgymIgPlwETQEmxDpCZJjrJ4RRz2-YXzwt9dyN1_QRiuX0lcTMhKTsk_m-GJgH/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3hyphenhyphenq4uh6b5x3sNNT2PHwG6FK-e0oCioWtZHLxhUK5syt1A_SKauzQ32m4SOfNTRjlBNfdsXDwnUwbo0cgymIgPlwETQEmxDpCZJjrJ4RRz2-YXzwt9dyN1_QRiuX0lcTMhKTsk_m-GJgH/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Leah Libresco, <br />author of Unequally Yoked</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Leah Libresco, author of the atheist blog Unequally Yoked, used to write about an atheistic view of ethics and religion. However, about two weeks ago, on June 18, she wrote a post called <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html">This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal</a>. In it, she announced that she aparently believes in God and intends, at least for the time being, to join the Catholic church.<br />
<br />
She said that a debate with a friend led to realization that she believed "that the Moral Law wasn’t just a Platonic truth, abstract and distant. It turns out I actually believed it was some kind of Person, as well as Truth. And there was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth."<br />
<br />
<br />
This realization was followed by "hugs and playing Mumford and Sons really, really loudly."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/author-of-atheist-blog-announces-she-will-become-catholic/">Libresco said that</a> she met "smart Christians for the first time in college" and “was ready to cross-examine them,” but found there were “some big gaps in my defense of my own positions.” She used her blog as a way to seek out people who would ask the tough questions which would force her to refine her personal philosophy.<br />
<br />
Regarding that blog, she wrote, "That left me with the question of what to do about my atheism blog. My solution was to just not write anything I disagreed with." She then went on to explain that she has been writing with her new perspective for about a month and a half, so readers have already had a preview to the new content and material. This material is similar enough to her old work that it didn't quite cause a stir. Nevertheless, as of June 19, the blog moved to the Patheos Catholic channel.<br />
<br />
Her final post on Patheos Atheist ended with a reassuring note.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...Over all, I feel a bit like Valentine in this speech from Arcadia. 'It makes me so happy… A door like this has cracked open five or six times since we got up on our hind legs. It’s the best possible time to be alive, when almost everything you thought you knew is wrong.'"</blockquote>Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-22841880031340051892012-06-28T13:52:00.001-07:002012-06-28T15:14:12.818-07:00Bill Maher, Jesus, and HorusThere is a scene in Bill Maher's film,<i> Religulous</i>, in which he compares Jesus to a number of other Gods in order to show that Jesus was simply stolen from other cultures. Here is the clip:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz9XYlzwXtA0hv3S5-juNIdsLThtlGyVGk6QNk3IJ8R4gkHVw-8Vpl5GNiSC9tu36LmK5JHLK55wtVud4Ps8Q' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
This clip spawned an infographic which circulated around the internet and which was then edited by another atheist in a way that actually surprised me.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgumxrgRY7OxhjR2zdn24wE3NO7BUM6Bapy4QSLtcmRaPqPhXFLgOKOqosjef8qbP4BOJ4xXJxJFB_pr2zNfPyZlJwu872xzOnhf5ATFem2zVLrpPT3dqvt9ORjfqEnaN8NBaHaz9iJtXfq/s1600/BBwsJ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgumxrgRY7OxhjR2zdn24wE3NO7BUM6Bapy4QSLtcmRaPqPhXFLgOKOqosjef8qbP4BOJ4xXJxJFB_pr2zNfPyZlJwu872xzOnhf5ATFem2zVLrpPT3dqvt9ORjfqEnaN8NBaHaz9iJtXfq/s640/BBwsJ.jpg" width="486" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I know all that text can be hard to read at that size, so you an find an enlarged version <a href="http://i.imgur.com/IW8NH.jpg">HERE</a>.</div>
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-12237400855484050102012-06-27T16:03:00.005-07:002012-10-07T16:43:31.671-07:00Jesse Anderson and the Infinite Money Theorum<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0RlQJZwijy1RaamtFQGfxGxJZ_Z15hd1owEOLsNEXNu8wiW6Os4dGO7oSsjbEmmyiNH-JYch4Z4idCY0hu6DS9Zoi4ueIgBviBWWg5XM66fPi46YLlrHrLXp9q0CNEniY_hyStRg1UCls/s1600/monkeys_shakespeare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0RlQJZwijy1RaamtFQGfxGxJZ_Z15hd1owEOLsNEXNu8wiW6Os4dGO7oSsjbEmmyiNH-JYch4Z4idCY0hu6DS9Zoi4ueIgBviBWWg5XM66fPi46YLlrHrLXp9q0CNEniY_hyStRg1UCls/s320/monkeys_shakespeare.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times? <br />
Stupid Monkey!"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem">The Infinite Money Theorem</a> states that a million monkeys with a million typewriters, given a million years, will type out all the works of Shakespeare.<br />
<br />
About a year ago, a Nevada software developer named Jesse Anderson claimed that a computerized simulation of a typing simian had completed "A Lover's Complaint," a narrative poem by Shakespeare.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-26/tech/tech_web_monkeys-typewriters-shakespeare_1_monkeys-typing-primates?_s=PM:TECH">CNN reports</a> that Anderson's virtual monkeys began typing on August 21, 2011. Using open-source software called Hadoop, he created a huge group of "monkeys" that input random strings of gibberish. When a chunk of text matches a word used in Shakespeare's catalogue, it gets crossed off of a database of the plays and poems.<br />
<br />
The problem is that this completely misses the point of the theorem. The theorem, at least as applied to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Evolution">origin of life</a> implies that the words must be in order. The analogy between randomly creating Shakespeare and DNA randomly forming in primordial seas necessitates it, because the argument requires the formation of a complete strand of DNA, not a single segment.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the work of Shakespeare produced by the monkeys must also be a complete strand, not individual letters.<br />
<br />
Anderson reported that trillions of character combinations have so far been used, but Shakespeare has presumably not yet been reproduced.<br />
<br />
However, even if it were, there would be <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/argument-from-design.html">other things to take into account</a>, such as the fact that amino acids are soluble in water. Even if it could have formed in ancient seas, it immediately would have broken up again.<br />
<br />
While evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation of the development of complex life, and it is an explanation that I do accept as truth, we cannot yet explain how that life originated in the first place. <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/11/ben-stein-interviews-richard-dawkins.html">Even Richard Dawkins admits this</a>.<br />
<br />
But whatever the case, Anderson's virtual monkeys do not prove that such complexity could come about so quickly.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-57361117719521205252012-06-23T01:50:00.002-07:002012-06-24T00:04:28.801-07:00Bart Ehrman and Some Dead Babies<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ9hVmEXt5gI4N90KsXDZfrGbGDU9NKF37fPOyn8ey8iYbqhp8Flw98y0jBhjTQFOZ8SMYtnbbUP2CYLNjMYQ6B6_DC8cKKWq9urMyzkCQ5w4FjvwtCf26spSS4At4ICjm6_bSb_qkXICz/s1600/thumbRNS-EHRMAN-JESUS040312b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ9hVmEXt5gI4N90KsXDZfrGbGDU9NKF37fPOyn8ey8iYbqhp8Flw98y0jBhjTQFOZ8SMYtnbbUP2CYLNjMYQ6B6_DC8cKKWq9urMyzkCQ5w4FjvwtCf26spSS4At4ICjm6_bSb_qkXICz/s320/thumbRNS-EHRMAN-JESUS040312b.jpg" width="228" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bart Ehrman</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The following comes from Bart Ehrman:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“In terms of the historical record, I should also point out that there is no account in any ancient source whatsoever about King Herod slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem, or anyplace else. No other author, biblical or otherwise, mentions this event. Is it, like John's account of Jesus' death, a detail made up by Matthew in order to make some kind of theological point?”<br />
― <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=QDiT3ytZ8FEC&pg=PA32&dq=In+terms+of+the+historical+record,+I+should+also+point+out+that+there+is+no+account+in+any+ancient+source+whatsoever+about+King+Herod+slaughtering+children+in+or+around+Bethlehem,+or+anyplace+else.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x3blT8GKKafY2gX3stTaCQ&ved=0CDgQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=In%20terms%20of%20the%20historical%20record%2C%20I%20should%20also%20point%20out%20that%20there%20is%20no%20account%20in%20any%20ancient%20source%20whatsoever%20about%20King%20Herod%20slaughtering%20children%20in%20or%20around%20Bethlehem%2C%20or%20anyplace%20else.&f=false">Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible & Why We Don't Know About Them </a></blockquote>
<br />
I'm curious what Ehrman considers an "ancient source," and I mean that in all sincerity. No sarcasm. While it is true that no contemporary of Matthew, Biblical or otherwise, commented on it, we do have some quotes from only a short time later.<br />
<br />
First is the 2nd-century apocryphal Protoevangelium of James of c.150 AD:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under. And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall. And Elizabeth, having heard that they were searching for John, took him and went up into the hill-country, and kept looking where to conceal him. And there was no place of concealment. And Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, says: O mountain of God, receive mother and child. And immediately the mountain was cleft, and received her. And a light shone about them, for an angel of the Lord was with them, watching over them."
</blockquote>
<br />
The first non-Christian reference to the massacre is recorded four centuries later by Macrobius (c. 395-423), who writes in his Saturnalia:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered to kill, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son." </blockquote>
<br />
Some skeptics view the story as being apocryphal or symbolic because it is not even mentioned by Josephus, but many scholars argue for its historicity. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._T._France">R. T. France</a> <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=0ruP6J_XPCEC&pg=PA85&dq=the+murder+of+a+few+infants+in+a+small+village+%5Bis%5D+not+on+a+scale+to+match+the+more+spectacular+assassinations+recorded+by+Josephus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UXvlT7PZGMSG2gWnh83ZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20murder%20of%20a%20few%20infants%20in%20a%20small%20village%20%5Bis%5D%20not%20on%20a%20scale%20to%20match%20the%20more%20spectacular%20assassinations%20recorded%20by%20Josephus&f=false">argues for plausibility</a> since “the murder of a few infants in a small village [is] not on a scale to match the more spectacular assassinations recorded by Josephus” and <a href="http://www.ldolphin.org/innocents.html">Gordon Franz</a> points out that Josephus also fails to mention other important first century events, such as "the episode of the golden Roman shields in Jerusalem which was the cause of the bad blood between Herod Antipas and Pontus (sic) Pilate".<br />
<br />
Also, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=PTpPsnD_gQ0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=he+Gospel+of+Matthew,+Wm+Barclay&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ln3lT9KOPKTC2wXt_c3ZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=John%20Evelyn&f=false">Barclay finds Josephus' silence not relevant</a>, comparing him to John Evelyn, who failed to mention the masscre at Glencoe.
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=mWnYvI5RdLMC&pg=PA172&dq=regard+opinion+as+fact,+and+have+largely+avoided+a+careful+historical+search+into+the+parameters+of+the+problem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f4DlT53vCajC2wW-79nZCQ&ved=0CDcQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=regard%20opinion%20as%20fact%2C%20and%20have%20largely%20avoided%20a%20careful%20historical%20search%20into%20the%20parameters%20of%20the%20problem&f=false">Paul L. Maier argues</a> that skeptics and Biblical scholars alike have tended to "regard opinion as fact, and have largely avoided a careful historical search into the parameters of the problem". After analyzing the arguments against the historicity of the infant massacre Maier concludes they all "have very serious flaws". <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=mWnYvI5RdLMC&pg=PA186&dq=identical+personality+profiles+that+emerge+of+Herod&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UYHlT4WNMOnW2gW80eHZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=identical%20personality%20profiles%20that%20emerge%20of%20Herod&f=false">Maier follows Jerry Knoblet</a> in arguing for historicity based on the "identical personality profiles that emerge of Herod" in both Matthew and Josephus.<br />
<br />
While it may be true that no contemporary of Matthew mentions the massacre, and that certain parts of the Bible, even in the life of Jesus, are the product of later Christian interpolation, the jury is still out of the massacre of the infants. Scholars are divided and there are reasonable grounds to believe it happened, while arguments against its historicity "have very serious flaws."
But despite what Ehrman thinks, the incident is mentioned by ancient authors, depending on his definition of "ancient," with the oldest reliable source being c.400 AD.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-42187578901580807152012-06-20T01:00:00.000-07:002012-09-24T12:59:11.388-07:00Religulous and the Founding FathersBill Maher is actually a fairly insightful individual when it comes to social issues or politics, and he does have a regrettably accurate view of some aspects of modern Christianity. I say "regrettably" because I have to admit that he is right in some of what he says about theists these days. A significant percentage of theists at least seem to be deluded sheeple clinging to demonstrably false claims.<br />
<br />
However, that doesn't mean that he is always right. In his documentary,<i> Religulous</i>, he talks about the Founding Fathers and whether they established America as a "Christian nation." In order to support the claim that they did not establish such a nation, he offers three quotes, seen in the video below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxMBpUh4Q9jI497VWuHXPqmjn4WOFcgDBadW9K116D-oZoizusngopdxdM5GAGxbTyyVEZSS4i8X8aQGY8Bsg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
Again, those three quotes were:<br />
<br />
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin<br />
<br />
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams<br />
<br />
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." - Thomas Jefferson<br />
<br />
In offering these three quotes, Maher steals a page out of Dawkins playbook by using quotes that are either taken wildly out of context, or which simply do not exist.<br />
<br />
Benjamin Franklin actually never uttered the words, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches." This sentence cannot be found in any of his writings or correspondences. It is generally agreed that this is a paraphrase of a sentiment written in a letter to his wife shortly after he survived a shipwreck. To his wife, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=tpILAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=The+bell+ringing+for+church,+we+went+thither+immediately,+and+with+hearts+full+of+gratitude,+returned+sincere+thanks+to+God+for+the+mercies+we+had+received:+were+I+a+Roman+Catholic,+perhaps+I+should+on+this+occasion+vow+to+build+a+chapel+to+some+saint,+but&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVLhT7X5MOWw2wWHwIGyCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20bell%20ringing%20for%20church%2C%20we%20went%20thither%20immediately%2C%20and%20with%20hearts%20full%20of%20gratitude%2C%20returned%20sincere%20thanks%20to%20God%20for%20the%20mercies%20we%20had%20received%3A%20were%20I%20a%20Roman%20Catholic%2C%20perhaps%20I%20should%20on%20this%20occasion%20vow%20to%20build%20a%20chapel%20to%20some%20saint%2C%20but&f=false">he wrote</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."</blockquote>
Here we see a much more accurate view of Benjamin Franklin's beliefs, more of which can be read <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/benjamin-franklin-lighthouses-and.html">HERE</a>.<br />
<br />
To be fair, John Adams did actually utter the words used by Maher in the documentary, but Maher takes them far out of context. Adams only meant these words hypothetically, and not as being representative of his own beliefs. This is made more than clear when we <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=EqvTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=Twenty+times+in+the+course+of+my+late+reading+have+I+been+on+the+point+of+breaking+out,+%22This+would+be+the+best+of+all+possible+worlds,+if+there+were+no+religion+in+it!!!%22+But+in+this+exclamation+I+would+have+been+as+fanatical+as+Bryant+or+Cleverly.+Without+religion+this+world+would+be+something+not+fit+to+be+mentioned+in+polite+company,+I+mean+hell.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LVThT_vCG6762AWawbm9Cw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false">read the words in context</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell."</blockquote>
When read in context we see the actual opinion of Adams, and what is likely the opinion of several other of the Founding Fathers. He was rightfully disgusted by the history of religion and Christianity, but he also understood that we would be worse off without it. In Adams' view, religion doesn't prevent this world from being paradise, it prevents it from being Hell. More on John Adams view of Christianity can be read <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/john-adams-hell.html">HERE</a>.<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is the real Wild Card here. He did say (most) of the words that Maher quotes, and they do accurately reflect his feelings of Christianity, but again, the context is enlightening. The quote is an abbreviated form of his words in a letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, in 1801. <a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=136&division=div1">He writes</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"DEAR SIR, -- I learnt some time ago that you were in Philadelphia, but that it was only for a fortnight; & supposed you were gone. It was not till yesterday I received information that you were still there, had been very ill, but were on the recovery. I sincerely rejoice that you are so. Yours is one of the few lives precious to mankind, & for the continuance of which every thinking man is solicitous. Bigots may be an exception. What an effort, my dear Sir, of bigotry in Politics & Religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power & priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement; the President himself declaring, in one of his answers to addresses, that we were never to expect to go beyond them in real science. This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the <b>Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man</b>, - endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame."</blockquote>
<br />
Thomas Jefferson actually considered Christianity to be the most sublime and benevolent philosophy that had ever shown on man. Knowing this, we can now plainly see what he meant when he called it perverted. He was not using the word in the sense of being "characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies," even though that does seem to fit some denominations today. Rather, he meant it in the sense of "having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state."<br />
<br />
In other words, he meant "perverted," not "perverse."<br />
<br />
His view that Christianity was truly "sublime" and that it had been corrupted is further evidenced by the way he spoke of other Christians in his day. Refusing to even acknowledge their faith, he referred to them as "Platonists." In a letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816, <a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jefferson-letter/index.html">he wrote</a> about a "wee-little" book of his, known as the <i>Philosophy of Jesus</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the <i>Philosophy of Jesus</i>; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature." </blockquote>
Jefferson's <i>Philosophy of Jesus</i> was one of his first efforts to produce his own version of the Bible, taking only the actual teachings of Jesus and compiling them together. Of Jesus' philosophy, Jefferson says, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen." He clearly thought very highly of "real" Christianity. In fact, it is somewhat amusing to note that when he referred to himself as a "real Christian," <a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jefferson-letter/index.html">he underlined it for emphasis</a>.<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG2l58HOQZAPmHvZS7zxwDzCqIlwiUPbW9HVEReJ-1RtX5stxiyTn58-LON8SFz8_GFtQER7SYrQ55607kdopUYiLLohJaCt_0N-vVY1BcdK4viyDIav9RhJ3rfqlfRBKD6W1kBEGkGU42/s1600/thomas.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="45" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG2l58HOQZAPmHvZS7zxwDzCqIlwiUPbW9HVEReJ-1RtX5stxiyTn58-LON8SFz8_GFtQER7SYrQ55607kdopUYiLLohJaCt_0N-vVY1BcdK4viyDIav9RhJ3rfqlfRBKD6W1kBEGkGU42/s320/thomas.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
The emphasis not only draws attention to his affection for Christianity, but also to his disdain for modern Christians. He says they "draw all their ... dogmas from what [Jesus] never said nor saw," and that if "[Jesus] were ... to return on earth, [He] would not recognize one feature."<br />
<br />
This is the definition of "perverted," not "perverse." Jefferson clearly did not view Christianity as something terrible or evil, but rather as the "most sublime & benevolent ... system that ever shone on man." Though it had been twisted and turned into something else by modern Christians. More on Jefferson's view can be read <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/thomas-jeffersons-faith.html">HERE</a>.<br />
<br />
Back to Bill Maher. He uses these faulty quotes to support the idea that the Founding Fathers had a negative view of religion and did not intend for religion to play a large role in society. I'm not a historian, but I don't believe so.<br />
<br />
In 1787, the year the Constitution was written and approved by Congress, that same Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory and stated the basic rights of citizens in a similar way as the Bill of Rights. In the Northwest Ordinance, they emphasized the essential need to teach religion and morality in the schools, <a href="http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html">saying</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."</blockquote>
In other words, schools and education were to be forever encouraged specifically because people need to learn "religion, morality, and knowledge." The study of religion and morality is not required simply as an intellectual exercise, but because it is a necessary ingredient for "good government and the happiness of mankind."<br />
<br />
George Washington echoed this sentiment in his Farewell Address, <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp">saying</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."</blockquote>
But just because they viewed religion, in general, as an essential part of public and private welfare, doesn't mean that they promoted Christianity specifically. For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill in Virginia regarding "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=wxG-KdnVSE4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Early+History+of+the+University+of+Virginia,+as+Contained+in+the+Letters+of+Thomas+Jefferson+and+Joseph+C.+Cabell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZHDhT8iTH6Ks2gWJw6TsCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=No%20religious%20reading%2C%20instruction%20or%20exercise%20shall%20be%20prescribed%20or%20practiced%20inconsistent%20with%20the%20tenets%20of%20any%20religious%20sect%20or%20denomination&f=false">Establishing Elementary Schools</a>" in which he writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."</blockquote>
In other words, religion was to be taught in schools, but only religious tenets which were universal to all religions. We can only speculate what these universal tenets might be, but some of the Founding Fathers have hinted at their opinion. For example, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=w9LqHDVe5CcC&pg=PT53&dq=Smyth,+The+Writings+of+Benjamin+Franklin+here+is+my+creed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nnPhT6DWG4aj2QX5g-XiCw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=here%20is%20my%20creed&f=false">Benjamin Franklin wrote</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion."</blockquote>
From this we may gather that Benjamin Franklin considered the following to be universal religious tenets:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Recognition and worship of a Creator who made all things</li>
<li>That the Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.</li>
<li>That the Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other</li>
<li>That all mankind live beyond this life.</li>
<li>That in the next life individuals are judged for their conduct in this one.</li>
</ol>
<div>
If the Founding Fathers had their way, these basic principles would be taught in schools, beginning in Elementary Schools, and they would be held as "indispensable supports" to government and prosperity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On a brief side note, there is a somewhat controversial line from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli">Treaty of Tripoli</a> which states that "the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This is absolutely true. The United States were not founded on the Christian religion. However, "Christianity" is not "religion." While they did not intend to found a nation specifically on the Christian faith, it is more than clear that they intended for the United States to be a generally, fundamentally religious nation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I do actually agree with Bill Maher that the Founding Fathers would be displeased by the current religious condition in America. Not because we are too religious, but because we are not religious enough. They intended for religion to be taught in schools and for it to be held as an important pillar of our society.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Instead, we live in a nation that seems to be forever on guard for new ways to erase God and religion and where any discussion of religion quickly degenerates into childish shouting matches. Under the Founding Fathers, the nation clearly lived an undeniably religious lifestyle.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville">Alexis de Tocqueville</a> was a french political thinker and historian who visited America in 1831. He was so impressed by Americas government that it inspired his book, <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America">Democracy in America</a></i>, one of the most definitive studies on the American culture and constitutional system that had been published up to that time. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=s0MWjdGhJyoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=democracy+in+america&hl=en&sa=X&ei=63jhT43LD-Hq2AXQ1pTkCw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=On%20my%20arrival%20in%20the%20United%20States%20the%20religious%20aspect%20of%20the%20country%20was%20the%20first%20thing%20that%20struck%20my%20attention&f=false">He wrote</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things, to which I was unaccustomed.In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country."<span style="background-color: white;"> </span></blockquote>
The Founding Fathers produced a nation in which religion was, unlike its modern counterpart, a force of liberation and freedom, and where religion was an important part of the lives or American citizens, regardless of race, class, economic status, or political party. This was a sharp contrast to Toqueville's description of Europe at that time. His description also closely fits modern America:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused. Unfortunately the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion ... The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a [political] party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government."</blockquote>
<div>
The nation established by the Founding Fathers was exactly how they wanted it. True, it was not a Christian country, but it was a very religious country. Religion was taught in schools, as they intended. It was a force for liberation, as they intended. It was one of the fundamental pillars of America, as they intended.</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
I wish mainstream Christianity was still the sort of organization that could fulfill this role in America. Even in Jefferson's day, it had been deeply "perverted" from Christ's original message. I am not arguing that we return Christianity to schools and society. Given the way most Christians think and reason now, that would be a catastrophe.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers did establish a religious nation. They were believers, perhaps not in Christianity, but in God. Bill Maher's quotes are misleading, and he is simply wrong.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-10626884237669454072012-06-17T00:46:00.001-07:002012-06-24T00:03:49.452-07:00Ehrman on First Century References to JesusI recently stumbled across a quote by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a Biblical Scholar who started his career as an Evangelical Christian, but became an atheist due to the numerous (hundreds of thousands) of textual errors found in the Bible. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GF6YIk-2s&feature=plcp">Bart said the following in a 2010 debate</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTR0mrWUDcMf4w_Wdma0lHxj0a3DxwJRURFbAtzTb7JhiJGlUz6nWSP7Pw5cKJJRO2yM-wxieOPlAW9sbKObyM0oJs9olzNBTCcNQ3yIQPHR2j2Zi_j1bGC6VJbWnHE-US7zKmN5NaQ7UD/s1600/CYSIu.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTR0mrWUDcMf4w_Wdma0lHxj0a3DxwJRURFbAtzTb7JhiJGlUz6nWSP7Pw5cKJJRO2yM-wxieOPlAW9sbKObyM0oJs9olzNBTCcNQ3yIQPHR2j2Zi_j1bGC6VJbWnHE-US7zKmN5NaQ7UD/s400/CYSIu.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The first thing I thought was, "What about Josephus?" Josephus was a Romano-Jewish Historian, meaning that he was a Roman of Jewish descent. Josephus' <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews">Antiquities of the Jews</a></i>, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3">18</a> and <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_9">20</a>.<br />
<br />
The first reference, known as the <i>Testimonium Flavianum</i> (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) reads:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.</blockquote>
There are numerous arguments for and against the Christian references in the writings of Josephus, and the <i>Testimonium Flavianum </i>is no different. Many scholars have different opinions regarding its authenticity.<br />
<br />
However, it is generally agreed that the section was altered by Christian writers, most likely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum">Eusebius in 324</a>. Nevertheless, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus">scholars also agree</a> that the alteration was built around an authentic reference to the execution of Jesus.<br />
<br />
One of the ways we know this is because we have found older copies of Josephus' writings which do not include these changes. In 1971, Schlomo Pines uncovered a 10th century Arabic version of the <i>Testimonium</i> which differs in small, but important, ways from the Greek text. For instance, the Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified". And instead of "he was Christ," the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ".<br />
<br />
In other words, Josephus does actually reference Jesus, but then Christian writers came and messed it up. So in Josephus, we have a first century reference to Jesus from a Roman historian and religious scholar. Bart Ehrman is mistaken.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-34874156864834113252012-06-12T17:06:00.001-07:002012-06-12T17:06:50.622-07:00Reproducing Religious Experience<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt7akAtuRll5_IaV2zFb92LRQSO_aETR7CGA5sN_Ob9RpkHGY-y2tf1dHKI0rimfFJvg7picRqwyvU5IiMojxLSRNixTmVX-N2ocWh-LX8gLhB3VYKGDaILLZ0j9wVBlJHP84LrlvVml2b/s1600/mind-brain-electrodes_8903_600x450.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt7akAtuRll5_IaV2zFb92LRQSO_aETR7CGA5sN_Ob9RpkHGY-y2tf1dHKI0rimfFJvg7picRqwyvU5IiMojxLSRNixTmVX-N2ocWh-LX8gLhB3VYKGDaILLZ0j9wVBlJHP84LrlvVml2b/s320/mind-brain-electrodes_8903_600x450.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
A few years ago, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12193838">there was a study</a> done in which a scientist used electromagnetic currents to give subjects feelings similar or identical to those experienced in reported "religious experiences."<br />
<br />
There have been studies like this for decades. The most famous ones, and certainly the ones that were the most fun, involved giving subjects LSD in a controlled environment.<br />
<br />
The study was not done to disprove the existence of any religion. In fact, <a href="http://www.laurentian.ca/NR/rdonlyres/54878F0B-BBDD-4119-AD45-497E5B298FD4/0/StPierre_Persinger_2006.pdf">they claim that</a> "we have not attempted to refute or to support the absolute existence of gods, spirits, or other transient phenomena that appear to be prominent features of people's beliefs about themselves before and after death... However, we have shown that the experience of these phenomena, often attributed to spiritual sources, can be elicited by stimulating the brain with specific weak complex magnetic fields."<br />
<br />
However, this information is almost always cited as proof that there is no God and that religious experience is false. It is a simple fact that this is not proof that God does not exist. However, it is evidence. It is evidence that there is no God and that religious experience is a delusion. In other words, based on the results of this and similar studies, we cannot conclude that there is no God. We can only conclude that is it less likely than we thought. How much less? I don't know.<a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/11/ben-stein-interviews-richard-dawkins.html"> Even Richard Dawkins can't put an exact number on it</a>. But this does give us reason to doubt.<br />
<br />
I think the reason that this is taken as proof of God's non-existence is because of the false assumption that God, if He exists, works exclusively through mystical, abstract, non-physical means, but this is not a Christian doctrine. The Atheist demands magic. The Christian is comfortable with chemicals. The Atheist demands that God operate entirely outside of our bodies. The Christian is comfortable with religious experience being just that — an experience, and thus experimental. The idea that God doesn't always work through ridiculous violations of the laws of physics, but <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2010/12/scientific-creation.html">through natural processes</a>, is not new the Christians.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, you cannot prove that something does not exist simply because you can replicate it. If this were true, then we could conclude that there is no Federal Reserve because people fake counterfeit money. We could say that there is no such thing as love because there is Ecstasy. There are no natural lakes because there are man-made lakes.<br />
<br />
The existence of a counterfeit does not indicate that it is not based on something authentic. It only means we need to be more careful before coming to conclusions about what is true or false, because even if there was a God, <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2011/05/argument-from-inconsistent-revelations.html">a good percentage of religious experiences must still be false</a>.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-59715724677745480512012-06-09T11:41:00.000-07:002012-06-09T11:54:10.304-07:00Why PZ Myers Won't Debate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Hsm2tWJQfWInccWGZsmgWJQjPxeQQyA5hXbhQoinT8zHhhO3lne0cQqMhJkUtTLgsC8cZ1GPJlqAmviMpUaIl3HjpFaF9RhHNfLIfE5eSXFgsKXXaul_bJvPWa-oSGTo-46GED59SvCv/s1600/pz-myers-dino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Hsm2tWJQfWInccWGZsmgWJQjPxeQQyA5hXbhQoinT8zHhhO3lne0cQqMhJkUtTLgsC8cZ1GPJlqAmviMpUaIl3HjpFaF9RhHNfLIfE5eSXFgsKXXaul_bJvPWa-oSGTo-46GED59SvCv/s320/pz-myers-dino.jpg" width="298" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Where is your god now???</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Just a few weeks ago David Marshall, author of <a href="http://christthetao.blogspot.com/">Christ The Tao</a>, <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/05/pz-meyers-vs-david-marshall.html">challenged PZ Myers to a debate</a> over whether or not Christianity has uplifted, or oppressed, women.<br />
<br />
David Marshall has not gotten a response, as predicted, but another popular Christian blogger has. Myers has responded to the invitation of <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/06/vox-day-is-one-sick-puppy/">Vox Day</a> to debate the exact same topic.<br />
<br />
Myers reasoning can be read <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/06/vox-day-is-one-sick-puppy/">here</a>, but basically sums up to Myers finding Day morally reprehensible, and not wanting to give "the other side" any more credibility.<br />
<br />
What's curious to me is that this is becoming an identical situation to Dawkins <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists">refusal to</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig">debate with</a> Craig.<br />
<br />
Marshall thinks that Myers has chosen to respond to Day, and ignore him, because Day is the easier target for Myers typical tactic of using slander and mockery (rather than logic and reason) to provoke his readers to rage against Christianity. <a href="http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-pz-myers-wont-debate.html">Marshall says</a>,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Instead of implying that he won't debate because we're all racist, women-hating savages ..., or because PZ Myers owns this vast stockpile of credibility and doesn't want any of it leaking out to nourish undead believing memes, PZ might just admit, 'My whole schtick involves pretending that we atheists are a breed apart, and that the solution to religion is to mock it, deride it, and slander those who believe it. I would lose credibility with my crowd if I were found on stage reasoning -- really reasoning, thinking and discoursing and looking at evidence and trying to really understand, rather than just slandering and dancing and posturing -- with the other side.'" </blockquote>Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-30976013756485922172012-06-08T02:14:00.000-07:002012-06-08T02:38:19.429-07:00Christianity and the Birth of Modern Science<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtKewqeX-IcxcuCerIwNvJCRzyyPTd_ROnFqs1cbYefWH0Kfas9H61KtleLDKYjNMlPTHfX6HzuGVYUjIJ0NOtSyqbwGRTWp5Epi9lEOVf8I6u96yqIfMXpAAvWGFqIChc0KdBvFUnbji3/s1600/tumblr_lk7wviL1VU1qj07b2o1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtKewqeX-IcxcuCerIwNvJCRzyyPTd_ROnFqs1cbYefWH0Kfas9H61KtleLDKYjNMlPTHfX6HzuGVYUjIJ0NOtSyqbwGRTWp5Epi9lEOVf8I6u96yqIfMXpAAvWGFqIChc0KdBvFUnbji3/s320/tumblr_lk7wviL1VU1qj07b2o1_500.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
It's a pretty common view these days that science and religion are at odds, or that they work against each other. This is tragic. What is even more tragic is that this view is often accurate. Theists make claims which are demonstrably false and consider it a badge of honor to obstinately refuse to listen to reason, or to promote a conception of God which even they admit makes no sense.<br />
<br />
Another view is that science and religion are independent of each other. Science is about the physical, whereas religion is about the metaphysical. Science is empirical, religion is more philosophic. Rejecting religion because of science is like rejecting politics because of science, or rejecting economics because of science. The two have nothing to do with each other.<br />
<br />
Recently, I came across another idea which I had never heard, but the more I look, the more sources I see that hold this position. Some scholars apparently think that religion has not been a hindrance to science. In fact, they believe that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Influence_of_a_biblical_world_view_on_early_modern_science">modern science owes a lot to medieval Christianity</a>.<br />
<br />
One example is <a href="http://jameshannam.com/">James Hannam</a>, who holds a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge. He wrote an article called <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm">Christianity and the Rise of Science</a>. In this article, he argues that Christianity is largely responsible for the rise of science as we have it today for a number of reasons, including:<br />
<ul>
<li>The preservation of literacy in the Dark Ages.</li>
<li>The doctrine of the lawfulness of nature.</li>
<li>The need to examine the real world rather than rely on pure reason.</li>
<li>The belief that science was a sacred duty.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I highly suggest you read the full article, linked above, for a complete explanation. Another article by Hannam is <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages">Science owes much to both Christianity and the Middle Ages</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A misconception about apparent conflict comes from a few high-profile cases, such as Galileo, but these are not characteristic of the entire Middle Ages. The idea that science and religion were in conflict did not become popular until long after in the writings of Voltaire. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We think that science and religion were in conflict for the same reason that people are afraid to fly in airplanes. We never hear reports of planes successfully landing with no trouble. We only hear about the horrific crashes, so we have a distorted view of how common they are. Likewise, we never hear about all the support religion gave to science and education in an era when it was hard to come by. We only hear about Galileo's trial so our view is distorted.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another mistake is equating "religion" with "Christianity". Even in the Middle Ages, religious communities in other parts of the world, such as in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world">Muslim regions</a>, saw many fundamental advances in science and mathematics, including a theory of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution">evolution by natural selection</a> which was common knowledge among Muslims almost a thousand years before Darwin.<br />
<br />
Much of history is simply a matter of perception and interpretation. If Hitler had won WWII, our textbooks would be very different, regardless of what actually happened or who was actually "right", but it seems there is a certain number of scholars who interpret history such that not only has religion not been a stumbling block for science, but that we may not have had science without it.<br />
<br />
What do you think?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-66160955024554651842012-06-05T01:55:00.002-07:002012-06-05T01:55:54.967-07:00TIL that Evolution was taught among Muslims almost a thousand years before Darwin.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVYblzwtnfNw587RP4UgiKRE7gj94HD9HM2wiecT8DYB0w_EU6VE93G2jm9Js7pUUxH2ut5jTrcTcrjQYamicfD5qdXHTLImITUus4_dWPLf-QgzTMWD21KWBIlUea8SBRmfj6l3hSq2pW/s1600/redditguy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVYblzwtnfNw587RP4UgiKRE7gj94HD9HM2wiecT8DYB0w_EU6VE93G2jm9Js7pUUxH2ut5jTrcTcrjQYamicfD5qdXHTLImITUus4_dWPLf-QgzTMWD21KWBIlUea8SBRmfj6l3hSq2pW/s200/redditguy.jpg" width="145" /></a></div>
Here's another post on Reddit that has exploded into something interesting. I submitted a post called <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/ul6k1/til_that_evolution_was_taught_among_muslims/">TIL that Evolution was taught among Muslims almost a thousand years before Darwin</a>. The comments turned into a pretty interesting discussion about the relationship between science and religion, the history of Evolution as a scientific idea, the effect of religion on peoples minds, and many other things.<br />
<br />
This submission hasn't blown up the way <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/05/iama-former-mormon-missionary-ama.html">IAmA Former Mormon Missionary. AMA</a> did, but there are some pretty interesting insights that are definitely worth checking out.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-60798527107514731322012-05-22T15:16:00.002-07:002012-05-22T15:29:11.107-07:00PZ Myers vs. David Marshall<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwuEf8VG7RKsvEGMnCbo8sYqk6y7tRp6VpA0zzAoaGoL-M3qrYV4jexMFrcj116WcUzOcifgnwnr25J2QKcGidvIR14-Nwq1UQChPgQnpwcH9Vn5vx7aLoJBCJFenALWrF9WKpc3Zxadj3/s1600/DavidMarshall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwuEf8VG7RKsvEGMnCbo8sYqk6y7tRp6VpA0zzAoaGoL-M3qrYV4jexMFrcj116WcUzOcifgnwnr25J2QKcGidvIR14-Nwq1UQChPgQnpwcH9Vn5vx7aLoJBCJFenALWrF9WKpc3Zxadj3/s320/DavidMarshall.jpg" width="201" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Marshall, <br />
author of Christ the Tao</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
David Marshall, author of the blog, <a href="http://christthetao.blogspot.com/">Christ the Tao</a>, has issued <a href="http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/05/pz-myers-vs-women.html">a challenge to PZ Myers</a>. David would like to debate with PZ Myers as to whether Christianity has liberated, or oppressed, women throughout history. David would take the position that Christianity has liberated women, while PZ Myers would obviously be of the opinion that it has been a source of oppression. On his own blog, PZ Myers has expressed his opinion on this topic before:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Whenever I hear that tripe about the beneficial effects of religion on human cultural evolution, it’s useful to note that the world’s dominant faiths all hardcode directly into their core beliefs the idea that women are unclean, inferior, weak, and responsible for the failings of mankind…that even their omnipotent, all-loving god regards women as lesser creatures not fit to be intermediaries with him, and that their cosmic fate is to be subservient slaves to men, just as men are to be subservient slaves to capital-H Him. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
David Sloan Wilson can argue all he wants that religion helped promote group survival in our evolutionary history, or that his group selectionist models somehow explain its origins, but it doesn’t matter. Here and now, everywhere, those with eyes to see can see for themselves that religion has for thousands of years perpetuated the oppression of half our species. Half of the great minds our peoples have produced have lived and died unknown and forgotten, their educations neglected, their lives spent doing laundry and other menial tasks for men — their merits unrecognized and buried under lies promulgated by religion, in cultures soaked in the destructive myths of faith which codify misogyny and give it a godly blessing. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Isn’t that reason enough to tear down the cathedrals — that with this one far-reaching, difficult change to our cultures, we double human potential?"</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFsKMfoEFV41l5SuAqXIrR8QiEa4L4H37g_H7_ciTsWhhS4iPPBm6vynA4WKZSy2W7mitSCIyXea6W0-5i3NI3dQhKlhsu5dq1DWL6J7pKwAf8ZFxLp_IDaKDvFkXPQ6T75GYFhfyJAlC1/s1600/PZ_Myers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFsKMfoEFV41l5SuAqXIrR8QiEa4L4H37g_H7_ciTsWhhS4iPPBm6vynA4WKZSy2W7mitSCIyXea6W0-5i3NI3dQhKlhsu5dq1DWL6J7pKwAf8ZFxLp_IDaKDvFkXPQ6T75GYFhfyJAlC1/s1600/PZ_Myers.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">PZ Myers</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It will be interesting to see what response, if any, come from Myers. Myers, a paragon of reason and rationality, never seems terribly interested in earnest discussion on his blog, <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula">Pharyngula</a>. His tactics seem more along the lines of ridicule,<i> <a href="http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem">ad hominem</a></i> attacks, and trolling until the dissenter gives up and leaves. Because of this, I'm not sure the debate will even happen.Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-54894076000550844152012-05-19T15:28:00.000-07:002012-05-19T15:28:32.621-07:00Big Bang TheismSometimes when I read atheistic writings or publications it seems like the term "Christian" or "Theist" is taken to be interchangeable with "Creationism". I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be either a Christian or a theist, and it also shows a lack of understanding or awareness that there are different forms of creationism.<br />
<br />
There is Young-Earth Creationism, which holds that the Earth is only 6000 years old, there is no evolution, etc. There is also <a href="http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2010/12/scientific-creation.html">Old-Earth Creationism</a>, which holds that the six "days" in Genesis were not literal 24 hour periods, God may have used evolution as the mechanism by which He created man, etc.<br />
<br />
Here is a handy little graphic I found that illustrates each view.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs5JjKZQ4piCnFOGUu-CE-NYmE3smP4lzjMeivNGFQohM8egqCot3-PVYM_WsudA4DRAOLgpONgIlIFALMuP-gWU8rLXUVNc4OzlCHZdLKuJYI5K9MiYdwftwO_92UltmGC_tJ3Ya-zpD1/s1600/big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="499" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs5JjKZQ4piCnFOGUu-CE-NYmE3smP4lzjMeivNGFQohM8egqCot3-PVYM_WsudA4DRAOLgpONgIlIFALMuP-gWU8rLXUVNc4OzlCHZdLKuJYI5K9MiYdwftwO_92UltmGC_tJ3Ya-zpD1/s640/big.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-19390759330280635362012-05-19T14:32:00.000-07:002012-05-19T14:32:02.038-07:00John Loftus Retires<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8-CB6cj7oshCMmIL0NQMtfiaHKb3sSsRV_MNxWQEQU6x0QXF_urrKxyiRL3y1kZ71h8IoNCg-5vqwFXRApMG9YZO57wSLcnnA9i26qhgKAqTAplcY3wBuDUfbICKSlJEAQSv5DN1z5qrm/s1600/jwl.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8-CB6cj7oshCMmIL0NQMtfiaHKb3sSsRV_MNxWQEQU6x0QXF_urrKxyiRL3y1kZ71h8IoNCg-5vqwFXRApMG9YZO57wSLcnnA9i26qhgKAqTAplcY3wBuDUfbICKSlJEAQSv5DN1z5qrm/s200/jwl.jpeg" width="200" /></a>John Loftus, is the author of the blog <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/">Debunking Christianty</a>, and several books, such as <i>Why I Became an Atheist</i>, and editor of <i>The Christian Delusion</i>, and <i>The End of Christianity.</i> He has three Masters degrees in the Philosophy of Religion with some Ph.D. work.<br />
<br />
Also, <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/05/okay-time-has-come-im-done.html">he's retiring</a>!<br />
<br />
I'm actually pretty sad that he's giving it up. I'm going to miss being challenged to think about my beliefs in new ways. I'm going to miss the insight that a former Christian adds to discussions. Most of all, however, I think I'm going to miss that hat!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAuxd2TOrGQe1ZelfS5-Ya_cFsqjodJ9L1BmbulVdFPGkzyOSOVOnnIq2oUm7RekMKeuHUQi8hjjJZfS40ytXtbVNCryUWbg_2fDZ1OV_DrUz3q3SAzOWYAHpr-6zYgqePuIIiKlTde2zX/s1600/16840_974687271750_1952509_54413225_7441090_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAuxd2TOrGQe1ZelfS5-Ya_cFsqjodJ9L1BmbulVdFPGkzyOSOVOnnIq2oUm7RekMKeuHUQi8hjjJZfS40ytXtbVNCryUWbg_2fDZ1OV_DrUz3q3SAzOWYAHpr-6zYgqePuIIiKlTde2zX/s320/16840_974687271750_1952509_54413225_7441090_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I mean, look at that thing!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />But seriously, I wish him the best of luck in whatever is in store for him. He was a rational and talented thinker and that is a rare thing among atheists and theists. Good luck, Sir!Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1482258322937378632.post-23467851767618981892012-05-16T15:25:00.000-07:002012-05-18T00:23:40.227-07:00(Gay) Mormon Guy: My Experience Being a Faithful Mormon<i>Guest Post from "Mormon Guy"</i><br />
<br />
There are plenty of people who feel the words "gay" and "Mormon" are about as opposite as it gets. From the public view, it seems they stand opposite each other at political events, on moral issues, and even in the working definitions of social psychology. Popular culture propagates the notion that Mormons (insert epithet here - hate, abuse, vilify, torture, brainwash, deprive, etc) gays and points to Mormon doctrines about traditional families as proof of bigotry and hatred. That isn't my experience. I'm a single guy who's attracted to guys, who has lived in Mormon and non-Mormon communities around the world. And being Mormon is the best thing that ever happened to me... my experience in coming closer to God, loving myself for who I really am, and learning to have faith and hope and happiness in life together make my message a bit different from the one you hear in the media. If you want a better relationship with God and perspective on the purpose of life, try being Mormon. It's the best place for anyone - straight or gay - to find peace and happiness in life.<br />
<br />
I grew up in a stalwart LDS family, complete with parents who served as leaders and taught me the gospel in our home. We had family prayer, weekly family home evening, and woke up to study the scriptures before school. It was never a question of if we would attend Church. We always did, along with every activity and fireside and service project.<br />
<br />
My parents never talked about same-sex attraction when I was younger. Neither did any of my leaders or teachers. But, then again, there were lots of things they never really talked about. They talked about what applied in my life as a kid, and what applied to others. Dating issues. Morality. Honesty. Kindness. Forgiveness. Patience. Love. If I ever asked a question, they answered it, or helped me find the answer on my own - and I fell in love with the logic and simplicity of the doctrines of the Church.<br />
<br />
One double-edged sword of LDS society is the expectation of goodness in others. You go to Church and honesty give people the benefit of the doubt - treating them as if they had no major problems and lauding them for their faith. It was double-edged for me because I couldn't imagine ever disappointing those around me... which meant that in the moments when I did, I couldn't share it with anyone.<br />
<br />
The realization after my mission that I lived with same-sex attraction (or ssa or sga or gay or whatever you want to call it) was one of those moments. Marriage and family are huge in LDS culture, and perhaps even more important in my own family. The only thing I had ever heard (I have no idea where - not from my parents or from Church. It was probably some type of media...) was that being gay was a choice. Only one problem - I definitely had not chosen to be attracted to guys.<br />
<br />
I looked back on my life and wondered if maybe I had been cursed because of past sins. I had a pornography addiction when I was young, struggled with pride in high school, and was sexually abused in my teenage years (and the abuse still felt like it was my fault - anyone who has been abused understands that dilemma). So I threw myself into the gospel and tried to repent of my sins to be freed from the curse.<br />
<br />
And nothing happened. I grew closer to God, more able to make better decisions, and better at resisting temptation, but the attractions didn't go away with prayer, fasting, study, temple attendance, service, or blessings. I wondered if there was something fundamentally wrong with me. Maybe I was simply doomed to damnation because I wasn't cut out for faith... and this was just the proof of that. Maybe I hadn't tried hard enough. The one thought that did not cross my mind was, "Maybe it isn't true." I had enough experiences with the Spirit and with God Himself that I could never deny the truth of the LDS Church and all - ALL - of its teachings. So, if I was cursed, as the scriptures say, "men bring all curses upon themselves." So I must be the one at fault.<br />
<br />
Except that I hadn't been cursed. The flaw wasn't in my nature or in the teachings of the Church. It was in my understanding of them.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure when it was that I realized that I could be faithful no matter what. It was probably at the depths of my frustration, when I finally gave up everything to the Lord and committed to Him that I would keep His commandments even if I never made it. Somewhere, deep inside me, I realized that keeping the commandments was all that I needed to do... and that I hadn't been cursed at all. I had just been dealt a different hand in life... just like everyone else, and making it back to God involved playing the hand right... not having the right cards to play.<br />
<br />
Sometime afterward, I learned that in the LDS Church, there is a doctrine that matches the revelation I got from God. There is a major distinction with regards to homosexuality that is often not made outside - that of action. In the words of Church leaders, there is no sin in the attraction part of same-sex attraction. The sin only comes if you act on that attraction. In that regard, all members are the same. If you keep the commandments, you can serve a mission, receive temple ordinances, hold leadership callings, and be a member in full fellowship (all of which have happened in my life). If you make a mistake, then you can repent - and the repentance process is the same whether you're attracted to guys or girls.<br />
<br />
My folly was in believing the dichotomy that presents itself. Either 1) Homosexuality is a choice and a sin, should be avoided at all costs, and if you are righteous enough you will be freed from all sin, or 2) Homosexuality is inborn and immutable, and hence either I am a permanent sinner or will never get married or have a family. The reality is that sexuality is neither fully a choice nor fully immutable. It slides along a scale dependent on genetics, nurture, choice, environment, and as many other factors as you can imagine. And same-sex attraction isn't a sin.<br />
<br />
That realization freed me. God loved me. He hadn't cursed me. And I had just as much of a chance to make it back to Him as anyone else if I kept the commandments.<br />
<br />
The one thing I didn't do is believe that my attractions automatically meant I needed to follow them. God may not have made mistakes when He created the bodies of Adam and Eve, but He didn't create the part of me that is ultimately me. And, as part of my life, He gave me plenty of imperfections to work on to bring me back to Him. Being attracted to alcohol doesn't mean I should morally drink. Neither does being attracted to multiple women mean I should seduce each of them. In my case, being attracted to guys is just a characteristic I have. My actions don't directly follow unless I choose them.<br />
<br />
Understanding how same-sex attraction fit in took much, much longer than I ever imagined, and applying the gospel has taken much more work than I thought it would. It's not enough to be faithful just while on a mission, or to graduate from BYU or Seminary, or even to serve as Elder's Quorum president. There aren't as many resources as I wish there were, few Conference talks and fewer references in Church manuals like For the Strength of Youth.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, If God and teachings of His Church aren't bringing you happiness, then either you have a flawed understanding of His teachings (which was my case), you're doing something wrong (sin), or you just need to right the chemicals in your brain (also a very real issue). It's not an issue with God or His Church.<br />
<br />
Today I'm an active, faithful member of the Church in every way. I love the support it gives, and have had only positive experiences (well, except for one) with leaders in private discussions on same-sex attraction. Everything applies to me, even though I wonder about the talks that focus so heavily on dating. As far as my long-term plans? I don't know what's going to happen. As long as I'm doing what is right, the Lord will take care of me. Maybe I'll fall in love with a girl (that'll take a miracle), get married, and raise a family. Maybe I'll be single for the rest of my life and able to bless tons of other people's lives. But the key is finding happiness and peace today - not worrying about the future. And I've found that embracing my circumstances in life, matched with living the gospel (as soon as I actually understood it and how it applied in my life) has done that and more.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>"Mormon Guy" is the author of <a href="http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/">(Gay) Mormon Guy</a>. An amazing and insightful blog sharing a perspective that is often overlooked and a voice that is rarely heard. Mormons and Non-Mormons alike could learn quite a bit from this individual.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
<i><br /></i>Cristofer Urlaubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001401371451376407noreply@blogger.com5