For the past few months my uncle and my three brothers have been in correspondence over an argument. My uncle Tom asked us for a positive argument for atheism. It's a trick question because atheism isn't a claim to something, it's the opposite. Atheism in it's nature can't be a positive argument. The link to the discussion is below if you really care:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=182986355048235&comments#!/notes/tom-godfrey/finding-and-facing-a-killer-argument-for-atheism/182986355048235
I should say as a disclaimer that I'm agnostic on the god question. I don't know and very likely will never know. Which is fine by me. If I were to believe in a god, I certainly couldn't believe in any of the gods clearly invented by man (the Western ones especially). But one of the reasons why I argue against Tom is his denial of evolution. To me, no matter what you think on the god question, that is the equivalent of saying that the earth is flat. It shows a denial of basic facts and it's something that I'll fight about.
So this is a long one and I don't blame anyone you for not reading this, but I spent a good deal of time on it. It will also be confusing because you're jumping in the middle of a chess game and my response is a point/counter-point, which would be difficult to read. If you need context you can grab it. But here it goes anyway.
Start Transmission:
Thanks for the compliment on my writings. I really wasn’t even trying but yes, it is my craft. A better written conversation about this subject by the way is the play and recent HBO movie The Sunset Limited by Cormac McCarthy. I think god has a thick skin. If I were to believe in a god, I’m sure he can handle a little ribbing every now and then. At least a god I could see myself believing in. More on that later.
But I’ll open with a quote from your friend and mine, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson regarding people who don’t believe in climate change or evolution: “the beauty about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it.”
On the video:
Tom: “What we got in the video was an unsupported suggestion that God fails on all counts. I don’t buy this claim either. Of course, even if someone were to conclude that God is deficient in any of these areas, it really would not help make the case that God, whatever his true attributes are, could not have created the universe. Our humble opinion about what it must take to be a creator is quite irrelevant.”
I’m assuming you’re talking about the amount of stars mentioned in the bible as opposed to the amount of stars that are actually there. If not, you may proceed to ignore this paragraph. But the video’s point is that if God really did create the universe, you’d think he’d at least get the number of stars right in his own book. Just saying.
Tom's analysis of my agnostic position: "Creation is one giant question mark. I was not a witness to the creation of the universe, so I know nothing about it. I don’t even know what questions to ask about this. Please join me in throwing away all of the knowledge you have of alleged eyewitness testimony. It is only hearsay. Instead, let’s rely on books written by modern scientists who were not witnesses either. At least they keep trying to figure it all out and updating us with their latest ideas. They may eventually get it right. Who knows? Come on. Trust me."
Against your conclusion in which god says, “Read this book. It’ll answer everything.”
Yep. I’ll take the question mark. At least that’s honest. Testimony of god in the bible is suspect because by your own logic, we cannot know the mind of god and therefore, perhaps he conjugates verbs differently or maybe the guy didn’t get the whole message (a la Coleridge in Kubla Kahn) and just made it up to fill in the blanks. ALL OF THESE ARE POSSIBLE to say that they are not possible is disingenuous. Because you yourself have to take it on faith. That is something that I cannot do when it comes to the god question. In your words: it’s too important. If I burn in hell for that (in most monotheistic religions I would), all the citizens in heaven (yourself included hopefully) can know that one burns because I couldn’t see belief as an option because god had “created” probability. In other words, I was tricked into hell by god himself. Some justice. Or as Issac Asimov said: the harshest punishment should be reserved for those who would slander God by creating hell. I as a secular agnostic would give a supreme being worthy of my faith a lot more of a sense of humor.
Either way, booya. Question mark.
And as far as a new holy book, I hope you could infer from here. I’m all for that. I don’t see why god stopped writing and according to some he hasn’t (see: mormons). But I dare say that you would roll your eyes (as I’m seeing with Brandon’s brilliant counter-point to your constant nagging about “argument of ignorance”) if anyone wrote a new chapter of the holy book claiming it was the word of god. That’s another beef I have with religion: each claim to be the final revelation of god, but that’s all part of the doublethink (more on that later). In fact, I’m not sure why Christianity chose to keep the barbaric Old Testament in their doctrine in the first place. But I digress.
I would never be in favor of trashing the bible. In fact, none of my brothers would. But there seems to be a misconception that if we remove the myth and the mysticism that the bible will lose it’s power and resonance. Well, that shipped sailed long ago, the bible is here to stay. The bible is an important book. It, like many books, has been crutch for civilization in the darkest of times and I wouldn’t take that away from anyone. But it is only a book, and it’s not the only book. Written by primates for primates. You asked me what I would replace the holy bible with. Well nothing, but there are other sides to the story (of humans, not the literal story in the bible, but I’m sure there are plenty of books that offer something to that respect) that are just as valid and just as awesome. Luckily, some of them don’t even call for a fascist theocracy at the end of the world (thank you old testament and revelations) and twiddle their thumbs until Armageddon or in the more orthodox practices, actively work to bring about Armageddon.
We only want religion to not pretend to be science. And creationism is doing just that. Pretending it’s science or at least claims that it deserves the same credibility as science. That’s like saying astrology is just as credible as astronomy. And I’ll never understand how you can accept micro-evolution, but some how macro-evolution is crazy. I guess the theory of relativity doesn’t enter into evolution? Why not? Are they not governed by the same laws of physics?
Try not to read too much in to that as I’m out of my depth here.
Let me ask you, what would convince you that evolution is true. What missing piece is lacking for you? We’ve all given our cry for evidence of god (all prayers unanswered thus far), and even given a list of requirements. What would convince you that evolution is true? Is it the same method of deduction you would use for the creation myth? What makes yours true? Science isn’t the one pushing on the scales, only making a call on available evidence.
Which brings me to your favorite subject: Big Brother. And it is becoming clear to me that you have not read 1984 (which all things aside, you should, it’s a fantastic book that raises the consciousness of realty). But I’ll go into your “counter-points.”
Tom:“S has the freedom to disagree regardless of the facts. What really matters is the fact of the matter—the truth. If S really is a fat slob, he may later regret this disagreement and irrational reaction. If he was right all along, he will never regret it. You may find church attendance boring and not consider yourself a sinner, but the same logic applies. What is the truth?”
Now why would S be lying? If the only evidence of S weight is judged on his stating that he is not a fat slob. (also, it’s never stated he’s a male, but what the hell, let’s throw caution to politically correct wind) Should we trust him? I say, why not. We’ll give him the same credence that you seem to lend the people who wrote the bible because THEY certainly were telling the truth. Just ask them.
Tom: “This reflects the perspective of an outsider. Insiders testify to a personal, spiritual encounter with our Savior, but you will never have this while you are still running away. It is not like shaking hands with a gym manager, all right, but it is just as real and much better. It is life changing—for the better. How hard can it be to believe? Millions have already done this. Ask around. A child can do it.”
Millions have done it. Does this make it true? Everyone thought the earth was flat until they were wrong. What if I demanded to shake hands with god before I throw my hat in with him. Would he love me enough to grant me that request? What will your response be? “Well you just have to FEEL him…”
A child can also believe in Santa Claus and the boogyman.
Tom: “Belief really is a requirement (John 3:16; Heb. 11:6), but where did you ever hear that our love and lack of questions are required to be saved? This is pure paranoia. Any love we may have for God is pitiful compared to the love he has for us, even while we are still sinners (Rom. 5:8). Whatever love we may have for God is rendered cheerfully because we recognize that it is well earned. And questions? Consider the questions coming from Nicodemus in John 3. “What? You’ve got questions? That’s it buddy, I’m out of here!” No, that was not the response of Jesus at all. Consider Thomas and others who doubted testimony of his resurrection (John 20:25; Matt. 28:17). They were not locked out either.”
Eh. Fair enough. But not really relevant. Again, why do I assume god loves me? Because the bible says so yeah? Well…He has got some funny way of showing his love of man to the world. And orthodox followers through out history have carried out his “love of man” according to his command. Just like the ministry of love in 1984, where the practice is torture. The beatings will stop when the morale improves.
But you mean to tell me that even if I did obey the word of the god of Abraham, or accepted the word of Jesus and legitimately believed in him but held in my heart a deep seeded resentment and anger for him up until my last breath, god would be cool with that? That my only goal in getting to heaven is to look god in the eye and call him a jerk, he’d be alright with that?
I doubt you believe that, but if you did, I dare say at least the god of the bible would have a sense of humor or at least I’d have more respect for the guy.
Tom:“Here you go off on a tangent. This has nothing to do with Big Brother oppression. You are just uncomfortable believing testimony, preferring the speculation of scientists trying to figure out how lifeless chemicals could have naturally turned into a living cell without any help from God. It may seem crazy, but there are probably many Christians in this same boat.”
I would like to quote 1984 in the description of Big Brother: “At the apex of this pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration. Nobody has ever seen Big Brother. He is a face on the hoardings, a voice on the telescreen. We may be reasonably sure that he will never die, and there is already considerable uncertainty as to when he was born. Big Brother is the guise in which the Party chooses to exhibit itself to the world. His function is to act as a focusing point for love, fear, and reverence, emotions which are more easily felt toward an individual than toward an organization.”
I hope I don’t have to spell it out for you. Big Brother = god, Party = religion. If you disagree with this analogy, I would love to hear arguments opposed.
But don’t you think, as a clear man of logic and reason, doesn’t it sound odd to you that the whole of creation was created in only 7 days? How doesn’t it make more sense that the system is more complicated and grander than that? That holy doctrine is still doctrine of humans and there is something more transcendent about the facts of reality, than the delusions of old desert mythologies. It is because having god too far out of reach of humans is the point. His words are complicated and simple. His history vast and compact. Black and white. This is the precise definition of what Orwell termed as doublethink. Doublethink is the mental practice of manipulating reality to hold two contradictory facts and to accept both as true. It’s a way of hijacking and arresting history and strangling the irony out of human nature. It’s not as obvious as brainwashing, but a shade above compulsive. When the word of god says: No matter what. This is the absolute truth. Always justified and everlasting. No further inquiry is required.
This proof is never more obvious than in the amount of “absolute” truth’s there are. In Western religion especially, all three claim to be the final revelation of a roughly similar god. While at the same time, all three claim legitimacy on each other by accepting or even borrowing from their rival myths. But is it not at each one of their core belief that the other two are heretics? Much like the three super powers in 1984, war is peace.
And this is really just scratching the surface.
Tom: “Whoever it was, he wanted the place to be populated with free people, not robots, but with freedom comes responsibility and sometimes a need to face consequences, sometimes the satisfaction of making wise, reasonable choices. A God who wants people to be free is no Kim Jong-il in my book.”
I am free because god says I’m free. Freedom as a gift isn’t free. Because according to him, I owe him for the trouble. A god I could picture would never punish me for exercising such freedom. And I think the crime of disbelief is unjust.
Moreover, I should say that this argument is by no means new by me. I’ll post this youtube video of Christopher Hitchens, who is smarter than I and therefore ultimately more brutal in his criticisms.
End transmission.
Thanks for your patience folks. More bullshit later today.
Command Image: Sunday Command
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment