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

Funny you should use Glenn Beck’s favorite quote.

Thomas Jefferson also said this in regards to the establishment of the University of Virginia:

In conformity with the principles of our constitution which places all sects of religion on an equal footing . . . and with the sentiments of the legislature in favor of freedom of religion manifested on former occasions – we have proposed no Professor of Divinity . . . the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe – the Author of all the relations of morality and of the laws and obligations these infer – will be within the province of the Professor of Ethics.

From: “Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia,” August 4, 1818 [The Rockfish Gap Report], from The University of Virginia.

Wait. Glenn Beck–who I’ve been trying to listen to lately, incidentally, but he hasn’t yet made any sense at all–uses the quote I used?

The irony is astounding.

And it’s a very different quote than the one you produced. :) It is the best way I’ve ever heard of saying, “Don’t be afraid to think for yourself,” something TJ supported wholeheartedly–whether he believed in a god or not.

Agree?

d

Also, Becky: Thanks for reading. I appreciate your being open-minded enough to at least read what I had to say, even though I know you disagree.

d

Thanks; same to you. You’re open-minded if you’re listening to Glenn Beck. btw, his TV show makes a lot more sense than the radio program. He ties everything together with quotes, videos, articles, web sites, books and historical documents. He goofs around a lot on the radio program. He doesn’t take himself seriously, but he does take freedom and liberty seriously. (He’s against Patriot Act.) If he gets something wrong, he will correct it on a subsequent show and apologize. I’ve seen him do it. He’s not often wrong.

I read the Huffington Post from time to time, too. :)

He believes the Patriot Act was a bad idea? Good for him! :)

I read Huff Post from time to time, too. Not a lot, though. :)

Mostly, I try to stick to regular news that doesn’t try to tell me what to think. (I listen to Rush, too, btw. I’m serious about trying to understand the conservative POV. He is very VERY offputting, though–as is Beck–because they both spend about 90% of their time pointing at liberals/Democrats and saying how awful/stupid/idiotic/etc they are, instead of discussing THE ISSUES.

Oh, and…good on you for putting forth the effort to understand where liberals are coming from and what they really think. Here’s a hint: what Beck and Limbaugh SAY we think and feel is wrong–I’m just estimating here–100% of the time. Give or take about 2%.

d

Just so you’ll know, Diana, I do read all the things you write on this blog. I don’t go to your other posts, because I just don’t have the time to do all I am committed to on the ‘net, as it is, in addition to all I do at home. But I don’t usually reply on the atheist posts, because I’ve never studied atheism. I’m not a very good example of a Christian, but I won’t argue with you about it either. And I won’t try to convert you, and you do have many of the same values that I have. That, and the fact that I love you as my niece, is all that really matters to me, here.

Thanks, Aunt Bann. :) I appreciate and respect y’all reading and continuing to read even when I talk about things that offend you. I respect that a great deal.

It bothers me that you characterize yourself as “not a very good Christian,” though. Daddy has said similar things to me, and it always troubles me.

Understand, please, that this is from my perspective as an atheist who sees religion as useful only insofar as it brings you happiness, peace, and hope: if it doesn’t give you that, I fail to see the point. Worse, I fear that it is a negative force in the only life I believe you have.

d

If what Rush and Beck say about liberals is not what YOU believe, perhaps you aren’t as liberal as you THINK you are. :)

I find the liberal news/opinion shows to be every bit as off-putting. They call conservatives awful/stupid/idiotic. Ex: Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, the Onion, and just about every blogger on the HuffPo.

Most of Rush’s bluster is an act; the stuff he says about himself is tongue-in-cheek, AND cheeky. Although Rush and Beck will snipe . . . they both have EXTENSIVE resources and documentation to back up what they say. Not so the Onion, or Jon Stewart, or Bill Maher. Even the HuffPo is shallow and biased (from someone who knows not only the news, but the “other” side :)

Also, I’ve been listening to Rush/Beck long enough to observe that a large majority of their predictions come true. (If you know economics, you can see things coming.) Especially Rush; he has a track record going back decades.

Rush sees people as individuals with drive to succeed and the capability to do so, if not prevented by the government (or punished). Liberals see people as monolithic groups ("black” or “Hispanic” or “gay"), groups which must be catered to as stereotypes. You know Rush had Elton John performing at his wedding? Doesn’t that tell you anything?

Yes, God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it. He can and did. He put Christ on the cross and couldn’t lift a finger to do anything about it. Yet Christ conquered the cross because, well, he’s God too. Cheating you say? Real things can’t be in two places at once? Have you ever READ any physics?

Light can be both a particle and a wave. Schrödinger’s cat exists in a box as both dead and alive until you look in the box. (I have LOL cats PROOF of this :)

God is not only outside of time, he created it. Matter and time “began” at the same time. When God “created” matter, he also created time. No one has a problem conceiving of God creating matter, why the problem with God creating time? Believers don’t have a problem with it, but it takes an Einstein to explain it to everyone else, you know, E-MC squared and all that. Mass is the same as energy . . . and at the speed of light, where time “stops,” this mass/energy is infinite. Is that logical to the (normal) human brain? (Insert “God is light” quote here).

You believe in science and physics only? Check out “quantum entanglement.” It’s pretty mind-blowing, too. It’s where two separate objects, in two different locations, are connected in such a way that when you change one, the other changes in the same way. It’s been confirmed by experiments. Even physicists call it spooky. This is how Scotty will some day beam me to the Enterprise.

How about string theory . . . ELEVEN dimensions of space/time, curled up in tiny vibrating strings. And you though ONE dimension of time was hard to understand! Suspend reason, now! And you could be a scientist, too!

Then there’s “dark” matter. It’s the stuff that physicists believe holds the universe together. The observed matter of the entire universe doesn’t have enough mass/gravity/energy to keep everything from flying apart. So, there *must* be something called DARK matter there. Its called “dark” because they can’t see it, feel it, detect it, or experiment on it. It’s but one of the holy grails of physics. (see the latest issue of Discovery magazine.) A single “unifying theory” is another holy grail.

While were on “holy grails” lets talk about the “scientific” field of astrobiology (and S.E.T.I.). Its the “science” of studying/seeking/theorizing about life on other planets. There is not one shred of evidence for life on other planets, there aren’t even other planets detected yet with the physical properties to support life. Yet astrobiologists “believe.”

Oh, and there’s the scientists promoting the multiverse theory. You know, the one that says there are an infinite number of universes, “mating” and giving birth through their branes, and we are but one. Suspend reason. Now!

I’m jealous of you because God loves you more than me. Someone once asked my maternal grandmother (the one with 10 children) which one she loved the most. She said “whichever one is sick.” It’s the “lost sheep” equation. The child that is hurting the most, the one you’re estranged from . . . that’s the one who is always on your mind. It’s a parenting thing; you wouldn’t understand.

“Question with boldness” . . . would the corollary be “answer with boldness?” That seems to be what you’re asking for.
:)
Love you!

“If what Rush and Beck say about liberals is not what YOU believe, perhaps you aren’t as liberal as you THINK you are.”

Becky, I know LOTS of liberals, and none of them believe the shit Rush and Beck say they do. What you’re missing is that what Rush and Beck say about liberals is wrong. Just dead wrong.

“I find the liberal news/opinion shows to be every bit as off-putting.”

Interestingly, Travis and I were discussing this just last Friday and I was saying the exact same thing. There’s a reason I have recommended that you listen to Thom Hartmann. ;)

d

“Yes, God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it. He can and did.”

As usual, I’m ignoring your preachy rant and focusing on your answer to the question I posed:

Then he isn’t all-powerful.

You cannot have both an immovable force and an irresistible force in one. Period. Omnipotence is a logical impossibility. (Hence the attempt to work around this problem by positing God as “the most powerful being who is logically possible.” ;) )

d

Diana, I referred to myself as “not a very good Christian” for one main reason. That is because I rarely even go to church any more, and seldom even read my Bible. However, I do recognize that I don’t break the law (and many of the Biblical laws), simply because I choose to obey them. For instance, I drive under the speed limit, unless I am thinking about something else and not watching my speedometer. I don’t cheat or steal, etc. And I still don’t use the language that most people in the family have always used; it was just never in my own vocabulary! So maybe I’m not as bad as I seem to think I am; other people (and God) will have to make that decision, each in his/her own mind!

A few more comments, Becky:

“Have you ever READ any physics?”

Why, yes. I read A Short History of Time for kicks and giggles. Surely that counts. Have you ever STUDIED logic? (Not computer logic, but “reasoning” logic; they are related, but definitely not the same thing.)

“Light can be both a particle and a wave.”

No. Have you ever READ any physics? OK ok. You have. But did you UNDERSTAND it? Clearly not.

That isn’t what physicists argue at all. Nor would they, as doing so is tantamount to claiming that both A and Not A simultaneously exist.

(I’ll leave Travis to address this, if he likes.)

“Schrödinger’s cat exists in a box as both dead and alive until you look in the box.”

No. That isn’t the position at all. Please look it up and rethink your position.

“God is not only outside of time, he created it.”

Another impossibility. :) Thank you!

If there is a “before” and an “after,” TIME ALREADY EXISTS.

“Matter and time “began” at the same time.” Then where did matter come from? :D (see above)

“When God “created” matter, he also created time.” Same problem.

“No one has a problem conceiving of God creating matter, why the problem with God creating time?” No one? Who have you been talking to?

“Is that logical to the (normal) human brain?” No, but it is mathematically demonstrable. Both A and ~A is not. Ever.

“You believe in science and physics only?” Interesting question. I don’t know about ONLY, but if something does not mesh with basic demonstrability, I don’t believe in it, yeah.

“quantum entanglement”

I’ll ask Travis. :)

As a matter of fact, I’ll leave the rest to Travis, if he cares to respond. For my own part, I don’t see a point in bothering to refute anything further here since you’ve mangled even the simple stuff.

*shrug*

d

Apparently, Travis corrects both of us on the Schroedinger’s Cat thing. :)

I’m hoping he’s up to explaining. I’ve yet to find anyone who can explain physics better than he.

d

“. . . if something does not mesh with basic demonstrability, I don’t believe in it, yeah.”

That would include dark matter, string theory, astrobiology, evolutionary psychology, and macro-evolution (goo-to-you-through-the-zoo).

None of those things are basically demonstrable. They cannot be directly observed, and you cannot perform experiments on them. They are theory only.

The only evolution that is observable is micro-evolution, just adaptations within species.

Most people haven’t actually read the carefully considered and well-crafted arguments of the Catholic intellectuals…

Diana, I’m not so sure that I agree that those arguments are all that carefully considered. Many (most?) of them, while being quite beautifully articulated, aren’t substantially more complex than when Pastor Bob thumps his fist on the podium, drops his voice, and asks “can something come from nothing?", then smugly watches his congregants shake their heads and mutter “no…", before he raises his voice and shouts “it had to be made by God!!!", as he steps back and surveys his flock as the chorus of “Amen, Pastor Bob!”

This while a few people in the audience breifly think to themselves “but then what created God?” before pushing the thought out of their minds.

When I was at IIDB, one of the things that became clear immediately is that lots of words like logic, belief, and reason take on distinctly different meanings when you get into religious discussions.

Jay, in the end, ALL of those carefully considered and well-crafted arguments of the Catholic intellectuals amount to arguments which presuppose the existence of the being they hope to prove. In the end, they are all the same tired arguments. I was just trying to express that many theists have attempted to prove God’s existence for centuries, and their arguments are eloquent, and there for the reading but most believers have not bothered to read them.

I don’t mean to suggest that those arguments constitute good proofs. Obviously, if I believed that, I wouldn’t be atheist. :)

I agree that logic, belief, and reason suddenly get parsed in unusual ways as soon as a person is discussing religion. Odd, huh?

d

Becky, I pointedly did not say I only believed in things which can be “directly observed.”

My question for you, right now, is this: do you intentionally take my words out of context and distort them, or are your reading comprehension skills truly that bad?

I’m looking for another explanation, but so far, these are the only possibilities that occur to me. You distort my words ALL THE TIME. I’m really tired of it. As you can see, it only makes me angry and does not accomplish any meaningful communication between us.

When you’re finished addressing that issue, you can return to the original problem you’re grappling with (how omnipotence is logically possible).

And whenever you’re ready to discuss evolution again, this thread awaits your return: http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=6778

d

Diana -

It is my opinion that most people who claim to be religious actually have very little clue about the details of that in which they claim to believe. It’s interesting to encounter someone who insists that the Bible is inerrant yet isn’t aware of all of the ghastly parts.

To me, that makes about as much sense as buying a house based on the seller’s description.

Eh. I’m hitting that part of the day where my analogies aren’t working well. I should probably stop writing for a while…

When you said “basic demonstrability” I understand that to mean that it can be “directly observed.” I was not trying to twist your words, nor do I ever.

We frequently have problems with basic word/phrase definitions. Since you are the English professor, the inadequacy is probably on my part.

Please define “basic demonstrability” so that I may understand. Examples would be helpful as well.

I do find it inconsistent that you remark from time to time about how careful I am with words, but then you behave as though I toss them about willy-nilly. I wonder which you really believe: that I am careful or that I am not, because your words quite often do not match your actions.

I was just mowing the grass and thinking about this discussion, and I have an honest question: when you read my posts, what is your driving motivation in your response? To understand what I’m saying, or to prove me wrong?

I think it’s the latter, based (again) upon your behavior. Like I said, this is maddening, at the very least.

“Basic demonstrability” is not limited to “things I can see or hear,” because I leave room for things that we have evidence and mathematical proofs for which cannot (yet?) be experimented upon, such as black holes. I also believe in feelings: love, anger, sorrow, etc, and I can’t point to anything I can directly observe to “prove” they are there, either.

Also, I suspect that when you say certain things are “in theory only” that you do not understand what scientists mean by “theory” (as opposed to the way laymen and creationists use the term).

I draw the line at what I believe based upon logic (which, as I pointed out, I cannot get around), and what the evidence reasonably suggests. For evidence, I include scientific theories which rely upon observed phenomena with mathematical proofs which reasonably explain what is observed (and most importantly, provide predictability). I look askance (at least) at any idea which is nonfalsifiable, because if the idea is wrong, how would you know? Science does not traffic in such concepts; its bread and butter is FALSIFIABILITY. (This is probably a good place to make the point that “creation science” is not science for this very reason.)

Where do you draw the line with what you believe, and why do you draw the line there?

d

Hi,
Was the following quote posted on your website or did I run into it somewhere else? In any case, perhaps it bears repeating as it seems apropos of you latest post, Diana.

“Faced with the choice between

changing ones mind

and proving there is no need to do so,

almost everyone gets busy on the proof.”

-John Kenneth Galbraith

HAHahahahahaha. Well, I’ve never seen that one, but it’s an excellent quote. Thanks, Lorraine!

Something for us to all keep in mind. I know I’m not exempt from this very human tendency.

d

Is it really fair to compare belief in the supernatural to belief in Santa Claus or the Loch Ness Monster?

I mean, it seems as though belief in the supernatural has been part and parcel of the human experience for as long as human beings have been around, you know? Some people even argue that our brains are specially wired for the belief in gods and things. Obviously not all humans in all times have had such beliefs… but belief in the supernatural is really a normal human behavior, and has been since even before written history. On the other hand, Santa Claus was made up in the last hundred years by parents, trying to scare their kids into obedience, and the Coca Cola company… the Loch Ness Monster hasn’t been around for that long either, and that’s a physical thing that can be searched for as opposed to some abstract concept anyhow. I mean, the Christian God has been around for at least 2000 years (even more if you include the Jewish experience of Him), so you have to give the idea some credit at least. You can’t just put it on the same level as silly monster hoaxes and people/creatures only children are fooled into believing in.

I mean, it’s fine for you to believe and say that the supernatural is not real and all religion is some kind of massive deception. Fine. But I think the comparisons you’re making are unfairly trivializing.

Becky, your posts reveal a profound ignorance of physics. You’re using Chopra tactics by throwing around words you don’t really understand in an attempt to get an upper hand in a personal dispute here. Try posting any of that on just about any Science Blogs forum and see how far you get.

Belief in god’s and or religion is ridiculous, and people who tout such beliefs in public deserve the scorn they bring upon themselves.

Plus, Jesus was gay.

insulting people is no way to win an argument–it’s just a way to stroke one’s own ego. don’t you have better things to do with your time?

btw Diana, as far as the “God is outside of time” debate, I tend toward the “time is really an illusion” pov at the moment. Had an interesting conversation about it with a philosophy teacher, but can’t remember it well enough to faithfully reproduce it, so.

Sorry, Jam. Where was the insult?

How does time being an illusion change the the problem?

d

oh, sorry, that first comment was not directed at you, but at the person who posted right above me.

as for time – God is fully disillusioned, as it were, and we are not. Being infinite, He is able to act in ways that we in our limited ways cannot.