Things I Don't Get, #3476

[thessalian]

Militant or otherwise highly vocal atheists:

As I've said repeatedly, in this journal and elsewhere, I honestly don't give a shit if you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, the Great Old Ones or nothing at all. I'm not against atheists as a general rule; after all, they have faith in something, even if that 'something' constitutes a nothing, if you get me. But honestly, atheism is as big a leap of faith as any theistic belief because, really, you're still believing in something you can't prove: to wit, that there is no divine power that created / is watching over the universe. How do you prove a negative? You can say, "We have no proof that there is even one God, let alone several, therefore there must not be one", but that's not really very scientific at the end of the day because there is still stuff we can't explain in the universe and that hasn't really been ruled out as Act of Deity yet. Besides, technically we as a race don't have any proof that microscopic germs cause disease either; we're taking it on faith that the doctors know what they're talking about because we're not all medically schooled. Church parallel drawn here.

But the thing is, I can understand atheism as a position. What I don't get is people who so strongly defend a negative position. Atheism has gone hand-in-hand with scientific rationalism (and therefore 'superior' intelligence) for as long as I can remember, predominantly because the rampaging militant atheists I've known have claimed to have reached their conclusion from an entirely rational and scientific viewpoint; they have no proof that there is a God, they have not seen a God, therefore there is no God. I'm not seeing the rationale of that. It's sort of the adult equivalent of "There's no divine power in the universe because I say so." Or maybe it's just that I resent the fact that, in the eyes of that particular cross-section of humanity, my intelligence takes a nose-dive because I have religious beliefs. You know, it's not necessary to defend a belief that is apparently held with good logical reasons by undermining the intelligence of those with a different view by effectively calling them 'superstitious natives', just as it's not necessary to defend your One True Faith by undermining the humanity and goodness of those with a different view by deeming them hellbound for not sharing yours. I'm not sure which is worse, really -- militant Bible-bashers are tenacious little fuckers, but being dismissed as slightly dumber than I am just because I have faith is really harsh.

It's funny that, in any belief system, be it theistic or atheistic, it's the quiet ones who tend to make the strongest cases for their arguments; specifically, the ones who can intelligently talk about why they believe what they do but don't because they know that it's an individual, personal thing and also know how much they'd hate it if someone came in and shat all over their beliefs by advocating that theirs was the only way to live. It's the people who say, "Well, I can't say for sure what's out there but I've had experiences that really can't be described any other way without serious psychological gymnastics, therefore I believe that there is something, at least. This is how I'm comfortable expressing that faith." It's also the people who say, "Well, I suppose I can see that, but I personally haven't experienced anything that leads me to believe that there's any spiritual force in the universe at all, so I can't really believe in it. Still, if you have, and it makes you happy, go for it."

There's the crux of the matter. After all, with the exception of some of the more militant Christian sects or the so-called 'Muslims' who claim they perform acts of terrorism for Allah, what harm is there to an atheist in other people having faith? That's the bit I really don't understand. I even understand militant Christians to a point, as long as they're as kind as Jesus would have been about it -- they're afraid that all these people are condemned to an eternity of suffering if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts, and perhaps they feel it's their Christian duty to ensure that these good people don't go to hell. But why on earth would an atheist want to convert anybody? Honestly, if we're all just going to die and cease to exist as rational human beings anyway, does it matter if people want to dream of something more after death? If you have religion, what you do in life might make a difference to whatever comes after this life, in whatever way; if you don't, it doesn't matter. So why preach atheism beyond some smug self-righteous desire to be right?

I don't care what people worship, but it's nice to see the signs of it all the same -- if people would just shut the fuck up about this "war" to claim the winter festival, the entire holiday could be a Western world celebration of joy on whatever grounds people wanted rather than this commercial and religious bitch-fest. I like church architecture, and mosques, and Diwali lights, and sacrificing jelly beans to Cthulu, and I'm not hurting anyone by liking these things. I don't like most organised religion, and I don't like how people use it, but I do like the idea of faith. I have a fair bit of it myself, come to that. If you don't believe, good for you, but to me, that doesn't mean that you've proved that you can 'get by without some sort of spiritual crutch', or that you've somehow escaped a trap of irrationality. It just means your faith is different than mine. In the words of Andy Cairns, welcome to the church of noise.

Comments

[nakedblueninja.livejournal.com]

I gotta say: well written, madame. As a completely non-militant gnostic something-or-other, I've wanted to ask these same questions and make similar assertions for a long time. Unfortunately, the pragmatic side of me knows the people I want to grab and shake the most while doing so would simply shrug it off and use it as another excuse to call me crazy, so it would be a wasted effort. So I don't really bother, I just keep things quiet and hold my cards close to my chest (since I'm thinking in card-playin' terms right now).

But sacrificing jelly beans sounds like a nice, happy, easy thing to do as a devotional. At least killing those jelly beans isn't involved.

[dodgyhoodoo.livejournal.com]

As I see it, there's a sizeable double standard operating in many cases. The materialist camp demands substantial, repeatable proofs from the spiritualist camp; but conversely, the materialist argument seems to be "We're right because you're a bunch of superstitious nutjobs," which is no better than "The Bible says so.". There's no physical proof for quarks, hadrons, strings, p-branes etc, but these are all discussed as if their existence was essentially beyond debate. Beyond lab-level science, much of what the materialist camp takes for granted is simply taken on faith.

Here's the problem. The scientific model works well with the physical, but it really can't handle anything else. Science can explain how the brain processes signals and stores memories, but doesn't even begin to explain how this translates into a functioning human personality. The existence of background radiation that supports either the big bang or oscillating universe models does not prove or disprove any theories about what kick-started the whole thing. Nothing in science explains the human need to express and create (thinking in terms of art here, not basic physical needs). Science is great for hardware - for software you need philosophy.

It's all got a bit aggravating. Religious fundamentalists get up in arms about evolutionand decide that science is anti-Christian, scientific fundamentalists get up in arms about anything suggesting faith / religion / superstition... I'm a bit tired being damned to hell by one bunch and lumped in with all manner of fundies, Moonies, Scientologists, New Age crystal-waving dolphin-channelling whackos (and this from a pagan...) and the freak on the corner who talks to Jesus in his pocket by the other bunch.

It's just posturing by equally inflexible orthodoxies, as far as I can see. The religious fundies have forgotten what faith means; the materialist camp has forgotten that we can be more than galvanised meat, and that not all faith treats science in the same way. I just hope there's space between the two (or, preferably, far away from either of them) where people who actually care about the questions both sides should be asking - let alone the answers - can have a proper discussion in peace and quiet.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

And therein lies the other problem. Moonies, fundies, Scientologists, crystal-waving pseudo-Wiccan fluffies who claim to be half unicorn, Jesus-freaks and terrorists get all the attention because they're so everfucking loud. Which leaves people of all faiths who actually live by the tenets of that faith in a reasonable way out in the cold. They get shit from the materialist hardcore atheists for the reasons you basically listed above (they're either Jesus freaks or crystal-waving hippies, and el bonzo seco either way), they get shit from people of other faiths because they're not following The One True Way, and then they get shit from people who claim to be of their faith because everyone knows that peace, love and understanding is only possible when everybody agrees that 'our' way is the only way and most of the reasonable people of the 'all under heaven' school of thought advocate a non-judgemental outlook.

Eventually, I think the people who care about the questions find ways to have proper discussions, but it's hard going at the best of times. It doesn't help that everything a reasonable person of any given faith experiences tends to put them off discussing their beliefs with anyone they don't completely trust not to rip their head off or treat them like they're stupid.

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> Beyond lab-level science, much of what the materialist camp takes for
> granted is simply taken on faith.

Absolutely. However, strictly from a personal point of view, I believe that because these notions are built up from a worldview that starts off being provable and because they are subject to stringent and open peer review they are _more likely_ to be true. It's impossible for them to be known as facts but on balance the probability is higher that they are right. The important thing is that even their strongest adherents will actively seek people to question their beliefs and change they if they receive convincing arguements. This doesn't happen with any other faith.

> Science can explain how the brain processes signals and stores memories, > but doesn't even begin to explain how this translates into a functioning > human personality.

Not yet.

> The existence of background radiation that supports either the big bang
> or oscillating universe models does not prove or disprove any theories
> about what kick-started the whole thing.

Indeed, not does it claim to. It says that we should wait for more evidence and testable theories _or_ (and this is the clincher) admit that we will just have to remain ignorant of knowing the truth for certain. No other faith is so open for admitting it's ignorance.

> Nothing in science explains the human need to express and create
> (thinking in terms of art here, not basic physical needs). Science is
> great for hardware - for software you need philosophy.

Science has always been a sub-set of meta-physics.

> It's just posturing by equally inflexible orthodoxies, as far as I can
> see.

It shouldn't be in theory (at least from the science side) but the reality is that most people (myself included) find it hard to put up a good arguement and therefore often resort to rhetoric.

> I just hope there's space between the two (or, preferably, far away from
> either of them) where people who actually care about the questions both
> sides should be asking - let alone the answers - can have a proper
> discussion in peace and quiet.

Me too.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. However, strictly from a personal point of view, I believe that because these notions are built up from a worldview that starts off being provable and because they are subject to stringent and open peer review they are _more likely_ to be true. It's impossible for them to be known as facts but on balance the probability is higher that they are right.

How on earth do you prove something like that? What model are you using to stand up and say, "Well, I can't prove that these things are fact but it's more probable than your explanation"? I'm not seeing how that's doing anything but further illustrating the point made, that science is as much faith as Christianity if you take it beyond a certain level.

The important thing is that even their strongest adherents will actively seek people to question their beliefs and change they if they receive convincing arguements. This doesn't happen with any other faith.

Erm ... really, not. Christianity has undergone all kinds of schisms because of changes of opinion and questioning beliefs. Church of England, for example, to allow divorce. Lutheranism. Baptists and Methodists and all manner of other branches of Christianity show that, given the argument, things can change in a religious context. Protestant churches doing gay weddings, for example. Also, a fair few pagans (chaotes in particular) re-examine their beliefs in the light of other pagan traditions on a regular basis.

Indeed, not does it claim to. It says that we should wait for more evidence and testable theories _or_ (and this is the clincher) admit that we will just have to remain ignorant of knowing the truth for certain. No other faith is so open for admitting it's ignorance.

Again, only true if considering the foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist. Most of the people I speak to who are religious in any way at all do not claim to know anything; only to believe, which are not the same thing. Knowledge implies irrefutable fact. I believe that the cleaning lady does the office washing-up, but I don't know, because I've never seen her. Likewise, I believe that there is a guiding force to the universe, but I don't know. Most people don't; they just believe.

It shouldn't be in theory (at least from the science side) but the reality is that most people (myself included) find it hard to put up a good arguement and therefore often resort to rhetoric.

And that makes it all right? The fact that you correct the statement that we haven't discovered what makes humans capable of having memories or a personality or makes them tick psychologically and emotionally with "Not yet" is more than just rhetoric; it's arrogance, and it's further hardline materialism. You believe so strongly in the fact that someone somewhere will come up with a scientific explanation for what the theistic among us call a soul that you can't help but remark in a way that makes clear your absolute assurance that they will someday prove the rational side right. Maybe they will, someday, when science has advanced a fair sight more. Maybe they won't, and even that leaves any number of possibilities for why not. Maybe they just won't be able to process the data no matter how hard they try, leaving it a mystery. Maybe they'll actually find proof of the existence of a soul. Or maybe the religious right will decide that trying to find out such a thing is sacrilege and ban the research. Point is, you don't know, so it's not really fair to talk about it like you do.

And that's kind of the point: it's not so much the possibility of having the discussion at all as the attitude with which the arguments are presented. Hardline atheists tend to take this view of "It's okay if we have to resort to rhetoric because they haven't got anything better", and rabid religious fundies take this view of "Blasphemers questioning the Word of God and they are hellbound because the Bible says so!" Meanwhile, the rational people who should be doing all the talking sit there and go, "Condescended to on one side, verbally molested on the other ... I'm going to shut up now"

[dodgyhoodoo.livejournal.com]

Good to see you refer to atheism as a faith. Snippage:

"I believe that because these notions are built up from a worldview that starts off being provable and because they are subject to stringent and open peer review they are _more likely_ to be true."

I still think that's a stretch when it comes to anything that isn't physically demonstrable. Peer review of something entirely theoretical doesn't make it true simply because the bedrock of the theory is commonly accepted by those peers, that's an article of faith again.


"Indeed, not does it claim to. It says that we should wait for more evidence and testable theories _or_ (and this is the clincher) admit that we will just have to remain ignorant of knowing the truth for certain. No other faith is so open for admitting it's ignorance."

That might be the case within the scientific community, but look at how it's explained to everyone outside those hallowed halls - everything presented to the general public, from popular science programmes to New Scientist articles, tends to spout theory as fact. TV scientists as priests of the new church. Even if you're right and there's less dogma within the community, that's not how it's handed down to us plebs.


"Science has always been a sub-set of meta-physics."

Somebody please try explaining this to CSICOP...

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> Good to see you refer to atheism as a faith.

Indeed. If we were all going to be logical about it we should all be agnostics since we don't know (perhaps can't know) about the existance or properties of anything devine. In reality we all make choices depending on what we think is most likely given what we know (and feel for some).

> Peer review of something entirely theoretical doesn't make it true simply
> because the bedrock of the theory is commonly accepted by those peers,
> that's an article of faith again.

Very true. The idea is once a theory is accepted tests are thought of and created to test that theory. Even if they work as planned it does not prove that the theory is a fact - simply that it is the best model we have to date. This is why even things like the law of gravity should still be considered theories.

> That might be the case within the scientific community, but look at how
> it's explained to everyone outside those hallowed halls - everything
> presented to the general public, from popular science programmes to New
> Scientist articles, tends to spout theory as fact.

Very much so. This is because people are brought up to believe in facts and have an instinctive fear of ignorance. If you say to someone that something is true they will accept it. If you say the same thing is 99% likely to be true they won't trust is anywhere near as much. I believe that this is a fault of the way children are educated.

>>"Science has always been a sub-set of meta-physics."
>Somebody please try explaining this to CSICOP...

I always thought that CSICOP debunked people who came to them and didn't so much actively go out to 'attack' other people. I could be wrong...

[palfrey.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: somewhat-militant atheist

Nothing in science explains the human need to express and create (thinking in terms of art here, not basic physical needs)

Clarification: Nothing *yet* explains all of that. And there's the critical difference. Science is still expanding, still willing to accept that large chunks of it may get proved wrong tommorrow. As opposed to religion, which tends to claim it has the true answers now (conjured up from pixie dust and a few years in the desert during mushroom season), which is why I consider it a big pile of BS, and nothing short of purest fiction.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

It's a fair point, and thank you for the disclaimer that religion 'tends to' claim it has answers. Still, saying "Not yet" is still an implication that science will find scientific rationales for these things, rather than 'might'. It's the same principle as someone saying, "Well, I can't prove to you unbelievers that there is a God, but one day the Rapture will come and then you'll know the truth!"

[palfrey.livejournal.com]

Well, there's my faith then. Not in the knowledge that science has given us now, but in the process that has gotten us here, and that keeps continuing onwards. I'm willing to accept that we just don't know certain things at this point (without requiring answers this second, and being willing to wait for correct ones), and given that there doesn't currently appear to be any impediments to our continuing towards knowing those answers, as well as the fact that science keeps providing answers that are getting closer towards answering the difficult questions, makes me have confidence in my belief that science will get there in the end.

The comparism to the Rapture is interesting, because at a certain level various Christian groups might well say that we're getting closer and closer to a full set of the various signs that they attribute to the Rapture, and so by their logic it's just a matter of time. However, given that the only evidence for anything actually happening once we reach some criticial level of debauchery is some words in the bible (as opposed to extrapolation based on what we've provably observed in the real world, i.e the scientific process), I'm thinking there's no point in repenting and moving to a theistic belief system given the current evidence.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

I can't disagree with you on the idea that, if science goes its current course, there's a chance that those questions will be answered; I don't have any firmly held beliefs one way or the other. Still, I'd argue that there are limiting factors to all branches of science, and that they get more and more limiting every day. Animal experimentation is widely protested and, while I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetics, animal rights activists also argue with animal testing for life-saving drugs and procedures, and if the moral majority who wuv the fwuffy bunnies have their way, it'll take a great crimp out of the medical research arena. And then there's Intelligent Design theory, which made its way into the scientific community and somehow held its own despite being an obvious and laughably argued attempt to put the Christian Creationist theory into a scientific context. ID never should have made it as far as it did and the fact that it has is disturbing on a number of levels, IMHO.

Well, on one level I can see how current social, political and economic factors are starting to point towards mass catastrophe and Armageddon, but I can't really link that to the debauchery of the human race as a whole, therefore I see your point. But I suppose the fundies who run one of the world's leading superpowers figures that they can avoid the rapture by enforcing a strict, up-its-own-arse morality on the people of said superpower and anyone else with whom it has positive relations. Fine, we'll be living in a police state, but we'll stop bringing the End Times closer...

[palfrey.livejournal.com]

limiting factors to all branches of science

For the purposes of answering "can science answer these questions", I'm ignoring little details like animal rights protesters, ID-loving fundies and other luddite scum. Physics (and most likely the complexities of quantum mechanics) is the only thing I'm classifying as obstacles here. Whether we will be able to acquire all the answers is another question entirely, I'm more interested in wondering whether we *could* get all the answers - and on that, I'm so far optimistic. On whether various bits of this world become a theocracy before that, well that's a different topic.

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> The comparism to the Rapture is interesting, because at a certain level
> various Christian groups might well say that we're getting closer and closer
> to a full set of the various signs that they attribute to the Rapture, and
> so by their logic it's just a matter of time.

When polled 44% of all Americans (not just limited to evangelical christians) belived the Rapture will happen within their lifetime.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

I'm not in the least surprised. Armageddon's a fairly logical conclusion for people who grew up with the whole 80s Communist threat thing (Russia). Remember, the 80s were a hotbed of paranoia rivaled only by McCarthy's day. When the Cold War just sort of went away, people (who basically expect the worst a fair percentage of the time) didn't just breathe a sigh of relief and move on; they waited for the other shoe to drop. Now, with us blowing the living shit out of Iraq and turning 'civilised' Western countries into police states of the sort we considered China to be 20 years ago (and possibly still do, though that gets a lot less press now that the US is looking to China to bolster their economy), their paranoia about the End Times is being somewhat justified.

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

Some argue that the American government (of every shade) has been using fear to get the populace to do what they want pretty much since the Founders. The ones within our lifetime include Communists, terrorists, drug lords, etc but back before it was the British, the Spanish, etc.

However I would agree that the whole of American culture (and many others including increasingly so British) is so steeped in fear they wouldn't know how to cope without an 'enemy'.

Have a read of the wikipedia entry Culture of Fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear).

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree. Back in my teens I certainly was a militan atheist but later I realised that, obviously, atheism is based on personal faith as sure as any religion. To me faith is a very personal thing. If someone raises a conversation regarding it then defend it strongly but otherwise everyone should make up their own minds. Evangelization is what annoys me.

The atheist can sit back (often smugly given the sites I listed in my last post) and not necessarily worry if people agree with their world view. The person with the conventional faith, however, must surely spend their waking time converting as many people as they can lest those left behind will be subject to torment in the afterlife (depending on the faith).

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Yes, very much dependent on the faith. A certain theory about the afterlife is that everyone gets what they expect, and I tend to like that one despite the fact that it means that some seriously psychotic people will wind up getting eternal paradise ... unless some shred of conscience residing in the subconscious mind tells them that, really, they don't deserve to, in which case it'll be an unpleasant surprise to the rest of their consciousness but still fit in with the theory. In any case, it saddens me that there's a strong possibility that militant atheists just stop existing, mind and soul, after they die, but I guess my faith is such that I figure there's provision for that. Conservation of energy (and of mass) states that nothing can be created or destroyed, only have its state changed; shouldn't the same hold true for that indefinable thing in humanity that makes us want to create art, or believe in a higher power in the first place? So I don't worry about atheists so much ... unless, of course, they wind up defending their position by taking an offensive tack, which has riled me since time out of mind.

[dodgyhoodoo.livejournal.com]

Not sure about this last point. I've seen plenty of atheists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince other people to stop all this nonsense about god, and conversely plenty of people with a variety of spiritual beliefs just getting on with their lives and not trying to convert anyone at all. You won't find many Wiccan evangelists, for example, and the ones who do exist have fundamentally missed the point. Conversion campaigns and fear of eternal torment only apply to those faiths that actually have a concept of eternal torment.

[dodgyhoodoo.livejournal.com]

(I was referring to cholten99's last point, of course.)

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> Conversion campaigns and fear of eternal torment only apply to those faiths
> that actually have a concept of eternal torment.

Amusingly I was telling alobear last night about a guy I used to sit next to at school who was a Jehover's (sp) Witness. He believed that "saved" people went to heaven, "damned" people went to hell and non-believers just ceased to exist at death. I explained to him that we both thought I would cease to exist at death and I was glad we both agreed. For some reason this really pissed him off! :-)

[mapp.livejournal.com]

I realised that, obviously, atheism is based on personal faith as sure as any religion.

I disagree or, at least, argue that athiesm is not a matter of personal faith for all athiests. I was once a rather religious fellow, and after a series of events, I ended up losing my faith, and deciding that the whole thing really is a bit silly. Assuming that "faith" means a belief in something that doesn't have material evidence, then my rejection of the idea that a God exists due to a lack of evidence would suggest that athiesm isn't a "personal faith".

I would say it's a belief, but not always a faith.

[dodgyhoodoo.livejournal.com]

I think it's also worth making a distinction here between personal faith and religion. The latter is by definition dogmatic and controlling (and I include scientific orthodoxy in here); the former is defined by personal consideration and investigation, and can be as open to growth and change as you like.

Why do I consider scientific orthodoxy to be a religion? Because if it doesn't fit the model, it's "impossible", forgetting that the model is just that. This isn't the spirit of Galileo, but of the Church that incarcerated him.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

I'd agree that it was worth making the distinction if anyone else actually understood it. It's so much easier for the world at large to fit people, including and especially themselves, into pigeonholes and leave everything there for ease of reference. Personal faith throws that all out of whack and most people don't like it, and that has to be taken into account in any debate on faith, religion and what have you that goes public.

Even then, it's hard to sit there and say "Personal faith: good -- organised religion: bad" because of all those schisms I was talking about. Different priests, ministers, vicars or whatever preach subtly different messages to their congregations. Organised religion is by and large a group of people with possibly radically different interpretations of the dogma involved, and it seems to have its rules set by peer acclimation -- if not by design, then by the fact that the outward face is always the majority. If the majority is bigoted, judgemental and violently oppressive, then that is what the religion will become to people. That's just someone's personal faith preached, taken up and made large.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Or at least, the outward face always appears to be the majority. I feel bad for the Christians who really take Christian values, rather than various fundamentalist interpretations, to heart and yet get tarred with the same brush as Bible-bashers who feel it's their duty to bring harm to homosexuals and anyone who doesn't fit the image of "God's chosen people" as told to them by their local minister or the nasty little voices in their heads.

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> I feel bad for the Christians who really take Christian values, rather than
> various fundamentalist interpretations, to heart

But it is next to impossible to define "Christian values" as the bible and much of the dogma issue by the variety of churches of the millenia have been so self-contradictory.

Who is to say that those "fundamentalist interpretations" aren't the right ones? Interestingly I was listening to a podcast of In Our Time the other day about Thomas Hobbs (http://www.bloglines.com/myblogs_display?folder=10596650&since=9&Display=Display) who believed that the only way to live sanely was to defer in all things to one person put in the position of ultimate authority (king/pope/whatever) who would provide the answers to just such questions.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

That depends. If you wanted to be literal, you could just stick with the New Testament and, more to the point, those virtues that Christ is reputed to have preached therein. Less of the Paul crap, less of the post-crucifixion nonsense, and a lot less of the Old Testament. Christian = of Christ, not of Paul. Given that, if I'm recalling this right, Jewish people have no problem with the Old Testament (it's just when Jesus is involved that things get divisive), the Old Testament isn't really at issue, which wipes out a lot of the inconsistencies at a blow.

I'm aware of Hobbs, yes. Frankly, it sounds like a cop-out to me. I couldn't defer to one person in all things about anything, because if I did, what would be the point of me? You can look at that one on two levels: if you believe in a soul and a divine power, then you might be on earth for a specific purpose or maybe you're just the result of what was set in motion before Deity went off and started doing other things. If you believe it's all just electrochemical impulses and hormones, then opinions are not something over which you have conscious control. Either way, why waste the potential you have by virtue of your ability to think and reason by handing over all responsibility for your opinions to someone who is not you and saying, "Okay, you're my guru; now what?" If you're the sort of person who can lie back in the buckwheat and let someone else make your intellectual, emotional and moral decisions for you, (and I use you in the general 'people who are not me' sense here), then that's your prerogative; I just hope you put your faith in the right person.

...Actually, if you're handing off all decisions to one bod, how on earth do you decide which bod to hand that responsibility?

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> Christian = of Christ

I discovered that other day that until the Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) in 325AD Jesus wasn't even considered to be devine. That decision was made there by mortal men which kind-of defeats the point.

> Actually, if you're handing off all decisions to one bod, how on earth do
> you decide which bod to hand that responsibility?

If you're really that afraid to have the responcibility for your own life I suppose it scarcely matters.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

It's back to proof, science and interpretation of data again. No one had any proof that Jesus was divine (or, as it was put, "of the same substance as God"); according to scripture, the only one who even went out and tested the theory was Thomas, who insisted on poking Jesus' wounds. Still, they didn't have any proof that he wasn't divine, either. On what grounds would you scientifically disprove divinity, seeing as science doesn't accept divinity as a possibility at the moment? How would a scientist disprove the existence of God? Even if you could rationally explain every single aspect of life in the universe through science, can anyone disprove the theory that Deity made the universe as one big jigsaw puzzle for the human race; a way of saying, "Okay, I've made it as it is, let's see if you can come up with the big picture at the end"? How do you prove that?

[cholten99.livejournal.com]

> Why do I consider scientific orthodoxy to be a religion? Because if it
> doesn't fit the model, it's "impossible", forgetting that the model is just
> that. This isn't the spirit of Galileo, but of the Church that incarcerated
> him.

It is certainly true that the scientific community needs less fear of where the next grant is coming from and more Occam's Razor.

[ethangilchrist.livejournal.com]

Hey there. My friend crzydemona is hitting London and asked for suggestions for places to go/see. I suggested she drop you a line since you live there and all. Just figured I'd let you know so you didn't wonder who the heck she was if she did contact you. (Always nice to get info from people that actually live where ever it is you're traveling.)

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the warning; I delete just about anything from addresses I don't recognise at the moment (too much spam) so I might actually get the query now.