the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

Thanks, Anthony!

Now for my response from that discussion:

It's interesting that you characterize my blog post as angsty, because I did, too. A bunch of people read it--including a couple of Christian friends--and said it wasn't the "rant" I said it was at all. Weird.

It felt like a rant, and it was cathartic like one.

I respect other people, incidentally. I respect their right to believe what they want. I can't say I respect the belief systems they espouse, though, so I won't say such a thing just to be PC. As I said in my post, that just seems silly to me. They don't respect my atheism, so why do they say they do? I'm all for more honesty, as well as more dialogue regarding religion.

I just want the double standard removed, is all.

I do tend to focus on Christianity as it seems to be a big culprit in shit that's wrong with America, and because I know so much more about it than any other belief system, being a fundamentalist preacher's kid and all. I have Christian friends who do their own thinking, don't judge me, and with whom I can talk for hours (literally) about the bible and beliefs, etc. I appreciate that they believe what they believe, and that it makes them happy (and yes...when I encounter a military member who is having problems, I almost instantly ask if they are religious, and if they are, they should strongly consider talking with their chaplain; I do the same with civilians who are having problems; I just have more opportunities with the military).

Back to the stuff that's wrong with America that strikes me as nuts: For one, the reliance upon faith in authority figures is incredibly high with conservatives, provided the authority figure in question says he's a person of faith. This tendency to believe your preacher wouldn't lie to you spills over into the political arena far too often.

Along those lines, most of these people sincerely do not know how to think critically. They've been taught to accept what they have been told, then to find reasons to believe it's true. They have never learned to think, but they believe they have. This is very dangerous in a democracy. I honestly believe such short-cuts and outright dim-wittedness threatens our country (just as I believe piss-poor educations do, because of that whole "of the people, by the people, for the people" thing).

BTW...I know Christians who are smart, of which you are one (except I'd call you DAMN smart). It works for you, and that's great. (It's interesting that you should mention it: I have long thought that prayer is, if nothing else, beneficial because it is the Christian form of meditation.)

Excellent post, btw. You should post it to my blog. You have many good points I think deserve a wider audience.

d

very intense music for a reply to pascal's wager! O_O i did happen to read your very angsty blog post about freedom of speech and your undying enthusiasm for atheism. however, i challenge you to investigate the issue on a different playing field.

i value freedom of speech as much as any flag-waving patriot, but i also believe in respect for other people's belief systems, real or fake. frankly you seem to specifically antagonize christianity but if you're to uphold your position as resident logical atheist, why aren't you putting down other belief systems? i'd like to see more anti-islam and anti-buddhist facebook posts. :b

moreover, i don't think you'd find it agreeable to have crowds of jehovah's witness telling you that you're going to hell for not believing in their faith. i don't find it agreeable either despite the fact that i identify with christianity (not the jehovah part though lol). so what gives atheism the only license to denounce other belief systems? what makes your status update any different than someone professing their love for jesus? again, this isn't an attack on your "freedom of speech," but a criticism of your respect for other people.

whether or not you can indisputably prove atheism to be true, our constructions of truth are self-made anyway. even on the supposedly level playing field of logic, many of our actions are dictated by what we feel and perceive rather than what is ostensibly logical.

however, i think whats more important than any religious belief system is the kind of people we become. if christianity makes me a better person- i refuse to be addicted to any substance, i try to sacrifice to help my fellow homies (humans), i exercise compassion, i do my best with the life i was given- then why is it so bad?

my belief system is one i identify with as being a "good life," i pray and it makes me feel better (whether or not God actually exists it helps to talk it out to myself haha), etc etc.

don't get me wrong. there are douchebags everywhere. and christianity is no different. i dislike crowds of abortion hating christians who kill abortion doctors, i dislike christians telling others they're going to hell. basically, i dislike douchebags, christian or not. lol.

christianity has made me a better person, and it drives me to become even better than that. its helped to get me through my removal from the air force academy, and it helps me cope with the problems life throws at me. but hey. its a lot better that i use christianity as that vehicle rather than alcohol or heroin right?

anyway. i must depart to work on school here.

@ 2 -- good point. I personally hold that the American Revolutionary war was an act of terrorism, something to be condemned rather than lauded.

HA!

"Buzzkiller" would be an excellent moniker, though.

d

I know exactly what kind of person you are, Diana.

Everybody's sitting around, grooving on some sweet weed, talking about how totally rock this weed is, gettin' high and feelin' good.

And you're the person that walks in, sniffs once, and says, "It's just oregano."

Buzzkiller!

Also, from the original discussion, my friend Puck wrote this (and it says in about 30 words what I did in 3000 or so):

Look, you religious folks. Quit freaking out when other folks strongly disagree with you, please. It's bad form to send a god flag up the public pole and then act all insulted when everyone doesn't salute it. Especially the god flag, because it's apt to bring out the atheists, many of whom absolutely LOVE a hefty debate. And it always bums us out when y'all start something and then run like wrabbits when we want to debate with you.

***

Exactly. What she said.

d

so..........can i hit on your friend cheri and your cousin becky or not?

Follow-up from Curtis, entailing a correction of my interpretation of his post and a slight tucking of my tail.

To wit:

My note was not intended for my atheist associates any more than it was intended for my theist associates. As I stated in my note, my thoughts are not about religion, just inspired by it.

Yes Diana, you were the primary inspiration behind my... note. However, that is because you have the most lively wall posts and people like to lash out a lot due to the controversial nature of the majority of those posts. I am not claiming that you or any other singular person is doing the lashing out, only that lashing out is happening.

I agree with you that people should not bring up subjects that they are not prepared to argue about; that was one of the main points behind my note. The other main point was that people should not repeatedly try to argue with someone who is not interested in arguing, regardless of the subject of the argument.

***

My sincere apologies to Curtis for so grossly misunderstanding his intent.

d

Bravo Diana! Well put, and simple enough for the most simple minded to understand, I'd say. :-)

Hi.

Yes. If you go back a couple of centuries, you'll find that there were far more things that materialist science could not explain. That did not mean they were unexplainable or supernatural. It just mean science did not yet have an explanation.

That science will, therefore, eventually be able to explain everything is, I believe, non sequitur.

For example, will science ever be able to tell us how matter began? Or how it is possible that matter existed for all eternity? That's just not the kind of thing science can tell you. Only after everything began can you begin to use science to explore it.

How so?
Go on....

Again, there are things which in my opinion fall completely or partially out of the scientific realm, and completely or partially out of the religious realm. Things like personhood. Cognition and consciousness. Self-awareness and empathy. Philosophy and reason itself. Axioms (that was the word I was looking for, thanks!). The beginning of existence. Who, what, when, where, and how vs. why.

And if you think logic/reason isn't necessary, let's see you make an argument for it.

Light begets darkness in shadows. One becomes three, and back again. You can only see after you have seen already... Here comes the end: brace for the beginning.

No, seriously. If logic and reason isn't necessary, then you're not going to use logic and reason to prove that, are you?

OK. How does what you believe differ from superstition (other than they way I've already noted)? And how do you dismiss other beliefs as ridiculous while maintaining your own (assuming, of course, that you seek to maintain your intellectual integrity)?

I dismiss as ridiculous very few religious systems. Usually prophets who were blatantly false prophets (e.g. Joseph Smith) I would see as such, and I'm not talking about vague or hard to interpret, but straight up wrong (the world will end in 1973 kind of wrong). A few other things along those lines, especially blatant hypocrisy.

I do not believe that the entirety of my religion is superstitious, but superstition is definitely a part of it, especially with your all-encompassing definition. Things like the sign of the cross, holy water, and so on. I do some superstitious things like always wear a cross around my neck and trying to avoid demons in certain ways. There are various reasons for the practices. Humanity needs a bit of superstition, imho. If it isn't present in a certain worldview, people will invent some for themselves (such as 13 being bad luck, etc etc)

Perhaps, but there is a difference--a huge one--between what science can reasonably support and what people believe.

But I just said that science is limited in scope. Knowledge is not limited to science alone, so it would follow that people can reasonably believe things which science cannot support. What those things are, well, it's up for debate of course, but still. Science isn't the end.

We do accept axioms to be true, but we do so because they are NECESSARY, SELF-EVIDENT, and THEY WORK.

I grant you this. Nevertheless, axioms are a type of knowledge that is beyond science, since in fact they form a foundation upon which science is built. It is knowledge by intuition as opposed to reason. Is it not possible that there happen to be axioms which you do not (at the moment) accept, which are, despite that, true? And that you will perhaps come to see or understand someday? And I'm not talking about religion here even, just axioms upon which scientific thought is, has been, and will be based.

Instead of the logic you and I take for granted, work from the assumption that A = ~A and see where that gets you....

That is like telling me to speak in English starting with the phrase だけれども...

We have no basis upon which to argue for its existence,

That is debatable, of course. True we have no scientific basis upon which to argue for it. But we also have no scientific basis upon which to argue that arguments are a legitimate way to know things. It's intuition that science is built on. What if there is a different kind of human intuitive knowledge upon which religious knowledge is based?

Oh, and morality certainly can be explained without appeal to the supernatural. Don't be silly.

I didn't say that one must appeal to the supernatural in order to explain morality. I said that one must go beyond the limits of science. Scientific truth is not the end-all and be-all of knowledge; there is knowledge that is NEITHER scientific NOR supernatural/religious/superstitious, which is what I was trying to say about the whole binary thinking thing. I believe that morality falls in this third category, or, rather, partially into all three categories (scientific/natural, religious/supernatural, and "other").

Well...it remains to be seen whether it was a panic attack. And I will keep y'all posted, along with 300 of my closest friends.

d

We were hoping that's all it was. We are glad you went to get checked out. Keep us posted! Luv Ya Lots!

Nothing is supernatural. The word is described well as a semantic leftover. Supernatural occurrences do not occur in a natural universe.

Now that mankind knows how things happen, why the weather changes, why Saturday Night Live isn't funny anymore.....there's no need to huddle around like cavemen in wonder watching Grog who figured out how to make fire and assume he's a magic man.

More thoughts, since I usually miss something on the first go-round.

On the nature of axioms: you seem interested in the circular nature of logic, so let's discuss that.

We do accept axioms to be true, but we do so because they are NECESSARY, SELF-EVIDENT, and THEY WORK.

axiom: A self-evident and necessary truth; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; a proposition whose truth is so evident that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer

Instead of the logic you and I take for granted, work from the assumption that A = ~A and see where that gets you....

The same cannot be said for the supernatural. It is certainly NOT necessary to assume its existence. Quite the contrary. We have no basis upon which to argue for its existence, so the scientific approach, which functions from the principle of parsimony, requires that it be proven--not disproven.

Oh, and morality certainly can be explained without appeal to the supernatural. Don't be silly.

d

Hi, Jamie!

There are a lot of things in life that materialist science cannot explain, because it is limited only to certain modes and subjects of inquiry. Things like consciousness, morality, philosophy, and the origin of matter--even the concept of logic itself--are all outside of the scientific realm.

Yes. If you go back a couple of centuries, you'll find that there were far more things that materialist science could not explain. That did not mean they were unexplainable or supernatural. It just mean science did not yet have an explanation.

I think it is a fallacy to divide the world into the scientific (usually meaning empiricism) and the "supernatural" (i.e. religious or superstitious). There is a lot more to life than fits into either of these categories.

How so?

And they are not directly opposed to each other, but they do not overlap too much either.

Go on....

Are you dismissing all knowledge that cannot be known empirically? What is the scope of the "science" you speak of? Because there are certainly basic assumptions about the way the universe works which cannot be proven empirically--circular thoughts, postulates that cannot be proved like theorems; for example, can you explain the necessity of logic/reason without using logic/reason? ...probably not.

Not at all. I think knowledge which can be known via theory (scientific theory) can still be reasonable.

And if you think logic/reason isn't necessary, let's see you make an argument for it.

I don't think it's inherently superstitious to believe in more than just empiricism. Sure, you can dismiss certain religious beliefs as superstition, but dividing things in the rigidly binary way you do really limits the scope of human knowledge and also limits the scope of any discussion you can ever hope to have with someone about life, the universe, everything...

OK. How does what you believe differ from superstition (other than they way I've already noted)? And how do you dismiss other beliefs as ridiculous while maintaining your own (assuming, of course, that you seek to maintain your intellectual integrity)?

Perhaps what your dad meant was that real scientists realize the limits of science and do not try to compartmentalize their lives and philosophies based on empirical discoveries. That's what I mean to say, anyhow.

Perhaps, but there is a difference--a huge one--between what science can reasonably support and what people believe.

d

There are a lot of things in life that materialist science cannot explain, because it is limited only to certain modes and subjects of inquiry. Things like consciousness, morality, philosophy, and the origin of matter--even the concept of logic itself--are all outside of the scientific realm. I think it is a fallacy to divide the world into the scientific (usually meaning empiricism) and the "supernatural" (i.e. religious or superstitious). There is a lot more to life than fits into either of these categories.

And they are not directly opposed to each other, but they do not overlap too much either.

Are you dismissing all knowledge that cannot be known empirically? What is the scope of the "science" you speak of? Because there are certainly basic assumptions about the way the universe works which cannot be proven empirically--circular thoughts, postulates that cannot be proved like theorems; for example, can you explain the necessity of logic/reason without using logic/reason? ...probably not.

I don't think it's inherently superstitious to believe in more than just empiricism. Sure, you can dismiss certain religious beliefs as superstition, but dividing things in the rigidly binary way you do really limits the scope of human knowledge and also limits the scope of any discussion you can ever hope to have with someone about life, the universe, everything...

Perhaps what your dad meant was that real scientists realize the limits of science and do not try to compartmentalize their lives and philosophies based on empirical discoveries. That's what I mean to say, anyhow.

Okay, you got me there. Let me correct myself. "Don't talk to Diana before her THIRD cup of coffee!"

Thanks, Diana. It's given me hope that perhaps, in some circles at least, I'm normal. We have 8 days to go and, so far, seem to be on track. We spent an exhausting day moving shelving into our new garage. (It's not a long distance move; our new place is two doors over but wont' be ready for months, if ever, so we're going into a tiny, two bedroom suite over the garage for the interim. How long that interim will be is anyone's guess.) Because of our short time-lines, we've decided to stash and store until we move into the bigger house then decide what we need, want or will possibly use. We'll try to weed out some things before the move. So far, the plan is to live without cable so we'll have warm, family evenings sorting a box or two. I have a hunch this will work out like the idea of using the garage to house our two cars.

Thanks for the tips and the brightening of a wearying day.

Lorraine

Yes, I would bet it would. I've moved after 27 years, so I can relate to that. I also moved after a little over a year, twice, and after about six years. I hope the next move is still several years in the future!

No, Aunt Bann. Not a rerun. I just have a predictable sense of humor, I guess.

It was inspired because Lorraine asked me for moving tips.

I'm really not that good at it, as much as I have to do it. Besides...moving every two or three years is a completely different ballgame from living in the same place for 20 years, THEN moving.

d