somewisdom

Anonymous asked: Hello! I read your posts on atheism, and I really appreciate your reasonable and respectful approach towards religion. I'm curious as to whether you discuss religion with believers often, specifically the creation-evolution conflict? I'm not Christian myself, but I've taken theology courses all through my education. For the most part, I found that my instructors believed in theistic evolution. Is it pretty different where you are (I'm in Canada)?

Actually, I don’t normally have the conversation too often. Sadly, most of the times I have had it, reason had no effect on them and they just shrugged it all off instead of having an adult conversation.

Many educated theists, i.e. instructors of theology, often find evolution valid. It is normally lesser educated or aware people who give the biggest fight against evolution. They just have yet to have their consciousness raised with the facts of evolution. It could be because of lack of education or lack of acceptance. This may be why you find that most people do not have conflict against evolution. You are simply in an environment of educated and aware theists.

I, personally, don’t see why they can’t coexist. Perhaps most people believe in a supreme being that has a more hands on approach. I think that deism is the most attractive form of a religion since I see no reason to believe that, if there was a god/gods, they have any reason to impact the daily lives of every person. A deist believes that God would have set the state for the universe, possibly at the big bang, and then let it go on from there. The deist God does not intervene with human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe to perform “miracles.” Perhaps evolution was the “intelligent creator’s” intent from the beginning. After all, evolution is a pretty intelligent process.

For whatever reason, deism doesn’t have a very large presence anymore. I say it is the most “attractive” form of religion, and it does satisfy that you can’t have something come from nothing — hence an intelligent creator. However, you then run into the same problem with there being an intelligent creator as there not being one: who created the creator? This is a problem of infinite regression. One of the main conflicts in religion.

No, science does not have an answer for how something came from nothing. But, just because it is something we don’t yet understand doesn’t mean some divine creator had to do it. I am more interested in what science might one day empirically explain it as. If it is a supreme creator, however improbably that may be, then I will greet it with an open mind.

P.S. I use the term educated to describe theists who accept evolution as an actual occurrence. I don’t say it in the sense that those who do not are uneducated or stupid. I say it, rather, to mean that they are oblivious and refuse to accept it because they do not allow reason to appeal to them. Whether they like it or not, evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory, yet here you are on this Earth and not floating away into space. All of science’s theories, or even laws, are just as “theoretical.” They will never be factual because there is always the possibility that it could be disproved in a yet to be observed situation or experiment. We can’t say for certain that it won’t happen in the future.

If anyone should think that evolution is not actually occurring, then I invite you to show me the evidence disproving it. If you would like to know where to start on this endeavor look towards irreducible complexity. Darwin himself said in On the Origin of Species, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Some complex systems have been proposed as irreducibly complex, but not confirmed through biological research or otherwise.

Sorry for the long response. These things tend to get me going.

On atheism.. cont’d

As I stated in my last post on atheism, I am what I like to call a “live and let live atheist.” This has nothing to do with my specific perspective on atheism, but it has more to do with that just being my personality type. I have a passive personality. What do I care what others think on topics? Well, I’ve realized that if more people thought like I do on this front, then no progress would be made in the world. No one would refute anyone’s claims, truth or anything else. It would just be an increasingly stagnant existence. Politics would be much different and a democracy wouldn’t work. Protests wouldn’t occur and no public official’s vote would reflect their constituent’s perspectives because they wouldn’t speak up. (Oh wait, they don’t do that anyway.)

So, it got me to thinking..

Why do I, as an atheist, give no resistance to theists when theists give atheists, as well as each other, so much of it? Large portions of theists are incredibly intolerant. Why should I be so tolerant? Well, previously, I kind of always thought of it as a non-issue. We live in a secular society which means it’s a non-issue — right? You would think that. But, it turns out, that secularist stance of the United States allows the religions to act together in sort of a free market. So, really, we are not a secular state. We are a state whose religious affiliation is in competition. This is seen by the display of religious facets and artifacts in government buildings, both old and new, or by the presence of the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance since 1954. These doesn’t seem like the doings of a secular state. I prefer to call this a religious capitalism.

I realized that atheists are more persecuted than a lot of large social groups under scrutiny right now. As displayed by a Gallup poll done in 2007, only 45% of polled individuals would vote for an atheist, the lowest resulting affiliation of the poll. The runner up being homosexuals at 55%. There are 535 members of the United States Congress. Given the religious demographics of America, you would expect there to be a handful of atheists in the group. This is not the case. Pete Stark had publicly announced his atheism in 2007 but didn’t officially affiliate himself with it until 2009, the 111th Congress. Of course, he had been representing a district of California in the House since 1973. Given his tenure, presumably, this affiliation showed little effect on his continued service. A single person of 535 individuals elected to represent the constituents of the United States is an atheist. These numbers remain astonishingly low all the way down the political ladder. Rightfully so, I suppose, since affiliation with atheism is surely political suicide. Perhaps there are more atheists serving in the Congress but not officially aligning with it because they wouldn’t be elected if they did.

Why is it exactly that religion and surrounding topics are so sacred and holy? Simply because someone gets offended if we speak against it we can’t speak of it? This doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to not speak of homosexuality, abortion and other topics. Religious factions themselves speak harshly against these topics without any reservations on the grounds of offending someone. Why should atheists be any more polite? The “two wrongs don’t make a right” philosophy comes to mind; however, “taking the high road” makes atheists an almost nonexistent contender in today’s religious society. Many religions are well represented because of one reason: they are organized. Atheism, by definition, should not be organized because it is not a religion, much less an organized one. Atheism has no congregation because of this reason, and not to mention that most of its contenders are entirely independent thinkers. Individuals that are slightly hard to rally up for a cause.

I am also a contender of atheists, by principle alone, not being regularly organized and not having an organized meetings and hierarchies. I would say that it comes as a bit of a paradox. If atheists were to attempt to and successfully organize themselves into a functioning body of individuals, would they be any better than theistic organizations? Of course, there are some of these rallies and such out there already, but it is more of a gathering of like minded people celebrating there common beliefs. It is by no means a weekly meeting for sermons or the like. People getting together to celebrate science and the world need no other reason than just that. But, if atheists were to organize themselves, they would likely be a formidable contender in the religious market. As much as I would say it goes against atheistic principles, I would have to say that this is a bit necessary for atheists to do so in order to be properly represented in this nation. If only organized enough to act in unison against unequal representation of atheists. If nothing else, atheists representing themselves could at least give a hand in ensuring the government remains secular — as it should be. I don’t say to remove religion from the considerations of our officials, but religion should be a matter of only personal impact.

I wonder that if in another millennium if humankind will look back on us as we look back on the mythology of the Greeks, Romans or Egyptians. Possibly worse to wonder is what will they believe, if anything? How long until we realize it is just a dreadfully reoccurring cycle?

I leave you all with this quote of Ralph Waldo Emerson:

The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.

On atheism..

Seeing as a recurring theme of my personal blog is atheism, I figured I would take some time to put my perspective on atheism into words. Also, I may talk about this a lot, but I’ve never written it out. So, I may even enlighten myself a bit. Here it goes..

First of all, my general perspective on religion is simple: live and let live. That’s my perspective on most things, actually. If you’re not shoving your opinions in my face or down my throat, then we won’t have any problems. I don’t go around flaunting my atheism so I don’t expect religious people to do it, either. I would even consider, in my atheism, that I am more tolerant of religion than most religious people are of atheism and other religions than their own. If someone says, “Merry Christmas,” or, “Happy Easter,” I just accept it with a smile.

In most cases, religion gives people a reason to have a positive impact on the world. On the one hand, I think it is a little sad to need to have an incentive to do something good; however, it is still something good as opposed to possibly nothing at all. On the other hand, you have people who just “pray” for things instead of actually taking any action towards a better situation. Praying won’t help a dying person who needs a doctor. Praying won’t help the starving children in remote, and even not remote, areas of the world. Charity and being proactive will, though.

One of the main areas where religion becomes a problem for me is when it begins to hold back progress or infringe on people’s rights. Topics like abortion, gay rights, women’s right, and certain areas of scientific research all come to a screeching halt when coming in the big public eye because there is always some doctrine or teaching in religions followed by the majority that think it is immoral or wrong in some way. Religion has no place in government. Religion has no place in science.

People fail to realize the impact that science has on everyday life. Fundamental discoveries and inventions can be discovered that give the founders and creators no profit but still impact our daily lives in a way that is unprecedented. Can you think of anything like that? How about the transistor, semiconductors or integrated circuits? Without those, the electronic digital computers that pretty much play a role in almost every aspect of our daily lives would not be here. What if science would’ve been halted on grounds of morality for that? Who is to say that the next invention or discovery that is just around the corner in stem cell research or other controversial fields that could be comparable to the transistor or semiconductor? What are we missing out on?

On top of all of this: the universe. The universe is complex enough to be mystifying in and of itself. Why do we need to come up with mystical and fantastical stories to describe it? Is the universe not awe inspiring enough to want to seek to understand it? Is it satisfying enough to say, “some omnipotent creator made it.”? No, it isn’t. Honestly, why must these be in conflict? Why couldn’t an intelligent creator set the stage for an explosive event like the Big Bang and then just let everything happen and fall into place. Evolution, cellular reproduction, the laws of physics, ad infinitum were just part of the plan. After all, is it at all feasible for a creator to directly manage the entire universe in a way that would produce the outcomes that it does? At least if science and religion agreed with one another, more progress would be made. It wouldn’t be viewed as immoral or wasteful to research the universe and the things inside of it.

Religion, in part, is what kills the curiosity that drives people to ask questions about the world and the universe. When a child asks how something works or why something happens they get a handful of answers: “that’s how God made it,” “that’s how God wanted it to happen,” “don’t ask stupid questions,” “shut up.” What is so wrong with, “I don’t know. That’s a good question.” or “I don’t know. Let’s find out.” Young minds are so often thwarted forcefully away from science and logic. Nurture these perspectives. Help them to grow because one day they will be ones that stand on the forefront of discovery fueled by their curiosity.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

Not a fan of this since it could be applied to God/Religion as well. MY argument of there being no truth is no longer valid with this coming from a man of prominence is science.

At least you could use logic to deduce a probability that aliens exist. For instance, the ridiculously large amounts of stars, planets, and other galaxies that exist greatly increases the chances that there could be another planet that exists with similar conditions to Earth.

What logic or probability suggests that God, or any other omnipotent creator, might be real? I find it much more pleasing to my mind, not to mention convincing, that millions of years of cause and effect have led to the current state of the universe and things inside of it than to say that some all knowing, all powerful being created it.

I never thought I would say this, but.. Carl Sagan, you disappoint me.

(Source: jokesonyou, via fyeahcarlsagan)