Tuesday, June 24, 2008
A quick story I simply have to reiterate...
I had to reiterate this quick little story that will hopefully make you all smile. I spent much of yesterday sandbagging in Winfield, Missouri. Sometime around Noon a military helicopter flew overhead with Governor Matt Blunt aboard to survey the flooding situation. For the record, Governor Blunt is a conservative republican of great faith. Word soon came through the ranks that he'd be landing and speaking to news reporters and such. Sure enough, the helicoptor soon landed on the other side of the high school from where we were all working. Personally, I'm not a fan, I didn't vote for him and I'm glad he's not seeking another term, so with that in mind, I continued to work unphased. After a time, the sand-bagging line suddenly stopped (as often happens for one reason or another), I set down my bag and turned around to grab my water bottle, when who is walking directly toward me but Matt Blunt followed by a deluge of reporters, cameras and the like. Our eyes meet and he stretches out his hand and we shake. Him in his button down oxford shirt, neatly pleated pants and finely polished leather shoes; me in my work boots, cargo shorts and sand spattered 'GODLESS LIBERAL' imprinted shirt!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Defining Us - Defining Them
What is a Christian? Is a Christian a person who attends the funerals of soldiers with signs saying 'God Hates Fags'? Is a Christian a person who believes and attends church, but rarely reads the bible or promotes or considers their faith on a regular basis. Is a Christian a person who attends church one or more times a week, donating generously? Is a Christian a person who rarely attends church but reads his bible regularly and constantly pursues a relationship with Jesus?
What if all these men have accepted Jesus as their savior? What if they all try day in and day out to live in his light and by his word? Are they still all Christians? Do they still all fit under the same umbrella? Should they all be defined the same way?
What is an atheist? Is a person who is mad at God? Is it a person who has suffered a traumatic loss? Is it a person lost and alone? Is it a person who simply refuses to live under the difficult demands placed upon him or her by Christianity? Is is a person without morals?
What if he's none of these things? What if this simply represents a single answer to a single question and defines this person in no other way? What if we think about it the other way. The Pope, George W. Bush, Thomas Aquinas and the 9/11 hijackers are all theists. Or consider this; by definition (considering her now public journal entries), Mother Theresa was an atheist.
Being an atheist does not define you in any way. Just as the Bible says not one word regarding family values, atheism says nothing of an individuals values. Take a moment to look at the values of secular humanism. Are these individuals devoid of morality?
Don't devine a person by his position on theism, or how he or she is defined by any title. Ask them about their convictions. Observe their behaviors. Judge then on the 'content of their character'. Or better yet, don't judge them at all.
What if all these men have accepted Jesus as their savior? What if they all try day in and day out to live in his light and by his word? Are they still all Christians? Do they still all fit under the same umbrella? Should they all be defined the same way?
What is an atheist? Is a person who is mad at God? Is it a person who has suffered a traumatic loss? Is it a person lost and alone? Is it a person who simply refuses to live under the difficult demands placed upon him or her by Christianity? Is is a person without morals?
What if he's none of these things? What if this simply represents a single answer to a single question and defines this person in no other way? What if we think about it the other way. The Pope, George W. Bush, Thomas Aquinas and the 9/11 hijackers are all theists. Or consider this; by definition (considering her now public journal entries), Mother Theresa was an atheist.
Being an atheist does not define you in any way. Just as the Bible says not one word regarding family values, atheism says nothing of an individuals values. Take a moment to look at the values of secular humanism. Are these individuals devoid of morality?
Don't devine a person by his position on theism, or how he or she is defined by any title. Ask them about their convictions. Observe their behaviors. Judge then on the 'content of their character'. Or better yet, don't judge them at all.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Down and Dirty Atheism 101
Four quick points to clarify some common misconceptions and simple arguments. This is quick and down and dirty and will most likely require some edits. Nevertheless, here it is warts and all:
If I may, let me briefly discuss four brief points - each only a paragraph in length.
FIRST, atheists, by definition, don't make any claims about our existence. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. This is the opposite of making a claim. Atheists may or may not have data to back up their conclusion, but it is not the job of someone to backup their lack of belief. Atheism is a negative statement. It is the objective of the positive claimant to offer proof. There is absolutely zero proof of a deity. It is an enormous leap to say that lack of evidence of existence means that we were created. To simply say that we don't understand how a simple origin leads to a complex result is illogical. The same sort of logic would cause someone to reject that a redwood tree couldn't possibly be the result of a simple seed.
SECOND, Let me put forth an idea presented by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that has come to be known as "Russell's Teapot". This analogy was put forth by Russell in 1952 in an unpublished article:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
While it may be hard to understand or explain the origin of life on the planet, no greater merit should be offered to an unproven and unsupported theory. I'd go as far as to say it's dishonest.
THIRDLY, there is absolutely no coincidence in our current complexity. We see a great deal that is totally screwed up and far from any system. One simple example is the human eye. The human eye is terribly designed. The location of the veins in our eyes are equivalent to placing all the wires of a camera in front of and around the camera lens. It's the reason why we get eye diseases such as cataracts. The eyeball of the squid developed entirely independently from our own and is without these problems. The thing that it is vital to understand is that organisms of great simplicity went through millions of minute changes over time. Millions of years. It was not a simple change. Consider the earlier example of trees. If you were without prior knowledge of how trees grew and someone said that a bag of seeds could make a great forest, you'd conclude they were lying. You'd be certain of it, would you not? Now consider every living thing on earth, in all the differing climates and circumstances. Consider their changing over a million years. Does it at least seem remotely feasible? Would it be coincidence that things grew and change or simply the way things work?
FOURTH and finally, which seems more improbable:
1. Things starting out very simply growing little by little into complex things over millions of years.
or
2. One single thing that is so incredibly complex it outshines all the complexity on earth, so much so as to be able to actually design and create every living things on earth, all the planets and the stars and the entire universe.
Consider which of these two statements actually answers any question at all? Where did the great being from question two come from? If the earth and it's inhabitants require an understandable explanation, how on earth are we to ever understand the origin of the far greater and more complex entity?!! We're back where we started, but with a far more complicated question!
Okay, I'm done. Hopefully something I typed makes sense!
If I may, let me briefly discuss four brief points - each only a paragraph in length.
FIRST, atheists, by definition, don't make any claims about our existence. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. This is the opposite of making a claim. Atheists may or may not have data to back up their conclusion, but it is not the job of someone to backup their lack of belief. Atheism is a negative statement. It is the objective of the positive claimant to offer proof. There is absolutely zero proof of a deity. It is an enormous leap to say that lack of evidence of existence means that we were created. To simply say that we don't understand how a simple origin leads to a complex result is illogical. The same sort of logic would cause someone to reject that a redwood tree couldn't possibly be the result of a simple seed.
SECOND, Let me put forth an idea presented by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that has come to be known as "Russell's Teapot". This analogy was put forth by Russell in 1952 in an unpublished article:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
While it may be hard to understand or explain the origin of life on the planet, no greater merit should be offered to an unproven and unsupported theory. I'd go as far as to say it's dishonest.
THIRDLY, there is absolutely no coincidence in our current complexity. We see a great deal that is totally screwed up and far from any system. One simple example is the human eye. The human eye is terribly designed. The location of the veins in our eyes are equivalent to placing all the wires of a camera in front of and around the camera lens. It's the reason why we get eye diseases such as cataracts. The eyeball of the squid developed entirely independently from our own and is without these problems. The thing that it is vital to understand is that organisms of great simplicity went through millions of minute changes over time. Millions of years. It was not a simple change. Consider the earlier example of trees. If you were without prior knowledge of how trees grew and someone said that a bag of seeds could make a great forest, you'd conclude they were lying. You'd be certain of it, would you not? Now consider every living thing on earth, in all the differing climates and circumstances. Consider their changing over a million years. Does it at least seem remotely feasible? Would it be coincidence that things grew and change or simply the way things work?
FOURTH and finally, which seems more improbable:
1. Things starting out very simply growing little by little into complex things over millions of years.
or
2. One single thing that is so incredibly complex it outshines all the complexity on earth, so much so as to be able to actually design and create every living things on earth, all the planets and the stars and the entire universe.
Consider which of these two statements actually answers any question at all? Where did the great being from question two come from? If the earth and it's inhabitants require an understandable explanation, how on earth are we to ever understand the origin of the far greater and more complex entity?!! We're back where we started, but with a far more complicated question!
Okay, I'm done. Hopefully something I typed makes sense!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
