That’s right. Start by leaping off a tall enough place, and you can spend the whole rest of your life soaring through the sky.
Dennis Nsays
Hahahaha
Davidsays
The scariest billboard I have ever read was last year in Montana. The image was of a man pointing a hand gun out towards you and the caption was along the lines of “If he can not respect God how can he respect you”. This took me back, by the time I had reread to confirm that is what the billboard had said I was passed the billboard and unable to see who the sponsor was.
Dennis Nsays
R. Kelly has a sang named “I Wish” and one named “I Believe I Can Fly”. Coincidence or Divine Revelation?
David Marjanović, OMsays
How honest.
Dennis Nsays
Sorry, I meant song
Kseniyasays
“Sorry, I meant song hymn.”
There. Fixed. ;-)
Chrissays
Haha, I had just read your post from Decembmer on John Haught last night. So the whole theology thing is still fresh in my mind. My friend and I was at Barnes and noble last night and he had picked up “What is Enlightenment” and they had a feature on New Atheists and their critics. I think two of the critics were Mcalister and Ruse (which surprised me about Ruse). Anyways you weren’t in the feature, just the 4 horsemen. My friend read it and said that one of the critics said that some of the thing the new atheists say would make a first year theology student cringe. But after reading your critique of Haught, I wonder what theology has to offer.
Janine IDsays
Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!
I wish for plenty of things that I know are either impossible or improbable. I do not believe that they will come true.
Use this logic and all fiction becomes reasons to believe.
Then the question becomes; believe in what?
Sastrasays
I’m reminded of Sam Harris’ excellent advice on “How to Believe in God in 6 Easy Steps:”
How to Believe in God Six Easy Steps
1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.
This, of course, is why the so-called New Atheists are being vilified, even by other atheists. We argue against the first 2 steps — the idea that wanting to believe in God and faith in the absence of evidence is NOBLE — wonderful, desirable, and something to be proud of. It’s a hard job to do that, it takes so much discipline and self-control.
Theists love atheists who “respect faith” — meaning atheists who agree that faith ennobles people. They want us to agree that why, yes — faith is the same as hope, perserverance, confidence, expectation, and love — we all need it — just so they can slide their own special take on faith into the mixture.
Wanting to believe in God is supposed to denote character. We so respect that. We so want you to do that. We don’t, but oh we wish we could. Really.
The existence of God is a FACT claim, dammit. I wish they’d stop making up a special category for God so they can play this stupid “faith is evidence of God” game.
“If you can wish, you can believe.” Lovely. But oh my goodness, don’t call religion “wishful thinking.” That’s rude.
Ah, yes, but that’s why it’s never going to end–because everyone can wish. And others will always find a way to benefit from those wishes.
Science gives you what you need, magic gives you what you want. OK, it doesn’t actually give it to you, but it does promise it, which keeps many enthralled for their entire lives.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
(Emphasis mine)
NeuroTrumpetsays
@#15
Ha, I don’t think the stupid in Maryland could ever burn brighter than in Florida…
Woodwosesays
I think we should give this sign some serious thought – perhaps those of us that don’t “believe” don’t “wish” either. I, for instance, would like not to be going blind, and I follow the science and medicine news regularly to see what progress is being made in potential cures. But I don’t waste time by trying to alter the odds or adjust the universe by “wishing” it would happen as soon as I need it.
Similarly, successful people don’t just wish for what they want, they invest a lot of sweat into their achievements – like the old saw ” the harder you work the luckier you get”
craigsays
1. If you can wish,
2. you can believe
3. and we can exploit
4. = PROFIT!!!
I ran across an ex-atheist just last night who was using Dawkins as a foil, and his entire spiel boiled down to one thing–if Dawkins is right, then there’s no hope for anything after death. He wasn’t even so much saying that Dawkins was necessarily wrong, just that it was too sad if he were right.
The whole thing sounded so pathetic, because the fact is that he will die, and I will die, and we will both rot (burn, whatever) away and be gone for eternity. Not what I would wish, but what will be. The difference is that I can admit and face up to the truth of it. Are false hopes (wishes) really supposed to be better, that we should all be so fearful of reality that we will cling to the dream that we can fly, rather than to admit to gravity?
I wouldn’t rip the hopes and wishes of everyone away, of course. Religion exists (in part) for the reason that many could not get through this life without believing a lie. But how can anyone preach that believing in wishes is the best way to live, the only thing that makes life worth living?
Unfortunately, life isn’t lived very well if it is lived for an illusion, for death.
I ran across an ex-atheist just last night who was using Dawkins as a foil, and his entire spiel boiled down to one thing–if Dawkins is right, then there’s no hope for anything after death. He wasn’t even so much saying that Dawkins was necessarily wrong, just that it was too sad if he were right.
Yeah, I have had some people ask me, “Well, what are the benefits of being an atheist.” I don’t even know what to say. I mean, sure, there are benefits…not having to go to church…not having to reconcile one’s own morals with some of the rather morally questionable parts of the Bible…etc…but this shouldn’t have any bearing on your philosophy/belief system. You should decide to believe/disbelieve in god(s) because you think it is the *truth*, not because you like the benefits afforded you.
As a side note, I’ve never understood the desire for an eternal afterlife. It seems like it would be nice at first, boring after a while, and then unbearable for the rest of eternity. It’s our mortality that gives life urgency and import. With immortality…who cares?
tim rowledgesays
“Ha, I don’t think the stupid in Maryland could ever burn brighter than in Florida…”
Oh, I dunno; add some liquid oxygen to the bonfire and watch it burn brightly, brightly and with beauty.
craigsays
“Yeah, I have had some people ask me, “Well, what are the benefits of being an atheist.”
“If you wish, you can believe.” If you can believe, you can be wrong… and if your beliefs are contradicted by mounds of emperical evidence, you are going to be wrong.
anon1234says
The “we want this to be true, therefore it must be true” argument is not new; it dates back to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. … For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”
This reminds me a of the scary church sign that I drove past a few weeks ago… “Jesus removes your burden of guilt!” Seriously got chills from that one.
mikmiksays
To be fair, the Bible admits as much:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
(Emphasis mine)
Posted by: Etha Williams
Hey, you just tapped the philosophy of western culture! It applies to politics, consumerism, etc.
HeinzPiercesays
When I first looked at the picture above, I couldn’t figure out what a bird flying into a wind farm had to do with wishes and beliefs.
Never try to read a science board without your first cup of coffee,cigarette (if applicable), and eye glasses.
DHsays
Seriously, since when have we expected religious people to make sense…
Probably old news to many, but here you go: Create your own sign.
Sastrasays
Woodwose #19 wrote:
But I don’t waste time by trying to alter the odds or adjust the universe by “wishing” it would happen as soon as I need it.
Hence the appeal of The Secret and similar books, which claim that quantum mechanics has proven that things only exist if we look at them, and therefore the universe is simply a manifestation of Consciousness. If you wish, you can believe, and if you can believe, you can make it real through the Power of your Intentional Will. Just think about a bicycle, and one will appear. Or, on the flip side, if you’re losing your eyesight it’s because you have a negative attitude which attracts blindness. You’re not happy enough, or you’d be fine.
That’s such a happy philosophy.
It sounds New-Agey (and is), but I think it underlies not only mainstream “spiritual but not religious” views but even traditional religious views (how do you think God is supposed to create?) In every form of what’s labeled “supernatural,” Mind is an immaterial agent which has direct, causal force and power.
Glen D #21 wrote:
He wasn’t even so much saying that Dawkins was necessarily wrong, just that it was too sad if he were right.
Although I think this fallacy’s official designation is Argument from Negative Consequences, I have personally re-labeled it (and similar arguments) as “The Argument from Boo-hoo.”
One of the nicest things Dawkins has done for us is start up his “Out Campaign.” Now, when theists ask us “what does atheism have for anyone?” we can show them the t-shirts.
firemancarlsays
@Neuro,
Just as long as we win! Florida, leading the charge into the 4th century!
I think it was shown on House once, House said he was an atheist, and his co-worker said “where’s the fun in that?” to which House replied “who said it was about being fun? It’s about being right.” or something like that.
it’s on Atheist Media Blog
cicelysays
I wish I could believe that the world and everything in it was built especially for us, by a benevolent god who is looking out for us, each and every one.
Actually no, that’s not what it that verse (Hebrews 11:1) is talking about. That verse refers to Old Testament saints, and what they could not see, because it hadn’t happened yet, is the finished work of Christ. They are being praised for believing in the promise rather than the delivery of the promise. This verse is not a praise of blind faith–which in fact is never praised anywhere in scripture. (Cue Doubting Thomas a,d “Blessed are those…”) That same chapter (Hebrews 11) is the so-called Faith Hall of Fame, and it praises Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, Rahab, Barak, Gideon, etc., all of whom had no need at all for blind faith, having witnessed the supernatural. Gideon is perhaps the best example–he repeatedly demanded physical proof of God before he would proceed. Rather than striking him dead, God complied, and yet Gideon ends up being praised for his faith–a faith that was the opposite of blind faith.
Lettucesays
I’m (originally) from Hagerstown, although I live now in Milwaukee…
I can picture the intersection, but I have no idea what the place is like (and I haven’t been back to Hagerstown for many years.)
I’ll have to visit!
Dutch Delightsays
Whats the point of asking what the benefits are, does scripture mention that the one true religion would be the one with the best benefits?
atkinsonsays
NOW I see the dandelion seeds. The background first looked like a cloud of feathers from a shotgunned dove.
You scared me half to freaking death!!! I thought the sign was for a HOSPITAL at first. University Medical Center in Jackson, MS (UMC) has a huge presence here, so I originally thought, swear to God, that it was a billboard for a HOSPITAL. I’ll bet I could find one around here that would probably come close to fitting the bill.
500 words to my godless friends on last weeks top news stories and my thoughts on the candidates vis-a-vis their relationship with Atheist morality.
Concluding with:
Better to be in league with a man who fears for the better nature of his soul, than a women who promises to annihilate an entire civilization hoping to score a few boners with the neocons over at Faux News.
You should decide to believe/disbelieve in god(s) because you think it is the *truth*, not because you like the benefits afforded you.
Well, promised, but without backing.
As a side note, I’ve never understood the desire for an eternal afterlife. It seems like it would be nice at first, boring after a while, and then unbearable for the rest of eternity. It’s our mortality that gives life urgency and import. With immortality…who cares?
Yes, probably. We didn’t evolve to be interested in this life forever.
But as many have noted regarding life extension issues, there are likely few of us who wouldn’t like to have double, triple, maybe quadruple the lifespan that we have. And if we had that, would we want to keep going? Maybe not forever, indeed, yet we might want several centuries at least.
Forever, though? I think that if somehow one could not die, that would be the most frightening thing of all. Life could become the most tedious and unpleasant experience, with each moment unbearable, and getting worse with each passing year. I think that’s why Tolkien allowed that his elves could die, even though they did not die of old age, for some of his elvish characters found that they could not bear to live any longer.
Then too, Tolkien called death humanity’s “strange gift”, a way of understanding death seemingly at odds with his faith. Perhaps he had a fear of eternal life?
Bwa-ha-ha, Cuttlefish, that was funny. And spot on.
I hereby declare that there must be a heaven for flowers, because they are so lovely and it would be too sad if there weren’t.
Or could it be that the earth “peoples” as a field flowers, to borrow a concept from Alan Watts the Zen philosopher.
Tulsesays
I think that if somehow one could not die, that would be the most frightening thing of all. Life could become the most tedious and unpleasant experience, with each moment unbearable, and getting worse with each passing year.
Really? Perhaps some folks would see it that way, but I strongly disagree — I want to live forever if possible. With technology and society changing so rapidly, I think the future is the most interesting place to be. Who wouldn’t want to have the opportunity to walk on Mars, to swim in Europa, to perhaps even visit the stars (and you could if you were immortal, even with today’s technology)?
Perhaps that sentiment makes me a techno-romantic, but I think it is romanticism of another kind that declares that life without death loses its meaning. People live twice as long today as they did in the past, and I don’t see anyone complaining that they’d rather only live to 35, that all those extra years takes the interest out of living.
If it was emphemerality that gave value, we’d make our houses out of paper and our planes out of balsa, and write our books on sheets of ice.
mothrasays
Dandelion seeds are the perfect imagery- religion spreading like the pernicious weed it is.
@ Cephod & Una. The sequence is:
Open hearts, open minds, open wallets
Open hearts, empty minds, open wallets
Open hearts, empty minds, empty wallets
Empty hearts, empty minds, empty wallets
Empty hearts, opened minds, empty wallets
Opened hearts, opened minds, empty wallets
Opened hearts, opened minds, (sorry wallets are still empty)
I wish for you to know that I do not condone these messages. No one “wished” me to life. While it saddens me greatly to say this, there are organized religions that exist today that don’t correctly demonstrate my values correctly. I just want you to all know. I love you.
If you would like. Please check out my blog.
thesuprememaster.blogspot.com
If it’s all about the benefits, no religion can stack up to pastafarianism. Beer volcano, stripper factory, and you don’t even have to believe it while your alive, you are eventually let into heaven anyway.
I agree with Tulse (#54) that it’d be nice to live long enough to be able to visit other star systems and (eventually) galaxies. But, lest you all forget, there is a limit on how long you can live, at least in this Universe. If physicists are right, the temperature of the Universe is bound to asymptotically approach absolute zero, and given enough time, even protons, electrons, and other elementary particles will decay. It is a long time until this happens (about 10^150 years, give or take), but it is not eternity, and your chances of being alive under such circumstances are pretty slim. From then on, only two possibilities remain: (a) find a way to preserve consciousness that is independent of matter and energy (and that would truly be hellish, because you don’t want to be eternally conscious in a universe of nothingness), or (b) find a way of getting to another Universe that still has interesting things to offer.
Actually no, that’s not what it that verse (Hebrews 11:1) is talking about. That verse refers to Old Testament saints, and what they could not see, because it hadn’t happened yet, is the finished work of Christ. They are being praised for believing in the promise rather than the delivery of the promise. This verse is not a praise of blind faith–which in fact is never praised anywhere in scripture. (Cue Doubting Thomas a,d “Blessed are those…”) That same chapter (Hebrews 11) is the so-called Faith Hall of Fame, and it praises Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, Rahab, Barak, Gideon, etc., all of whom had no need at all for blind faith, having witnessed the supernatural. Gideon is perhaps the best example–he repeatedly demanded physical proof of God before he would proceed. Rather than striking him dead, God complied, and yet Gideon ends up being praised for his faith–a faith that was the opposite of blind faith.
[Emphasis mine]
Good thing that Jesus continues to walk the land (and the water) healing the sick, casting out demons, spinning straw into gold, and selling top quality furniture with no money down until 2009, otherwise modern Christians would have no reason to believe other than the kind of blind faith that is praised nowhere in scripture.
Embarrassing to think the vast majority of people we live among today haven’t the skeptical sense of Bronze Age desert dwelling tribesmen.
#56/#57 Jesus is a prick. He doesn’t even have a blogroll. I suppose being the son of god and all makes him think that no one’s blog is good enough to be linked from his. Good thing fame and power never stopped PZ from maintaining a big blogroll (and no, I don’t think he’s compensating for anything).
Kseniyasays
Brownian, did you hear the page? Customer service request over on the Chick Tract thread. We have someone who thinks the Lake of Fire is the worst fate that can befall an unbeliever. I think his name is “Kenny”.
As a citizen of Maryland, I often point out to visitors that once you’re west of Frederick, you’re essentially in West Virginia. The “panhandle” doesn’t represent the rest of this fine state! I happily live in a neighborhood in Baltimore where my vehicle isn’t even the only one on the block with a flying spaghetti monster-ism emblem on the bumper. In fact, the Hampden neighborhood has a big FSM sculpture on the side of a building, and it says under it: “Believe Your Noodly Master, Hon.” I’ll have to send you a picture of that this week.
Bill Dauphinsays
He wasn’t even so much saying that Dawkins was necessarily wrong, just that it was too sad if he were right.
I’ve sometimes argued that the social implications of a belief are as important as its truth, especially when the truth of a given belief cannot be unambiguously proven. For example, I have previously argued here that believing nonhuman animals are the moral equivalent of humans is useless, even if it’s “true” in some absolute sense, because our history as humans is so inescapably bound up in the subjugation and killing of animals that really believing they were the moral equivalent of our fellow humans could only lead to self-loathing on a global scale, which is in no sense useful or pro-survival for the human species.
If I’m not going to be a hypocrite, I guess I have to at least listen to the argument that God-belief is acceptable, even if it’s “false” in some absolute sense, if it produces social good. The thing is, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite: The net effect of God-belief around the world seems to have been a whole array of social ills… which term actually understates the horrors that have accumulated around religious conflict over the millennia.
Some might argue, well, maybe organized religion causes social ills, but personal belief is good, because it gives people hope and a reason to look beyond their own lives and lifespans. But one of my personal tests for the social/moral value of a philosophical position or belief is this: If most people believed as you do, and acted on that belief, would the world be improved or damaged? By this measure, the hypothetical advantages of personal belief cannot be disconnected from the vast social cost of widespread belief.
Shorter me: Any belief system that produces good effects is tolerable, even if it’s not objectively true… but God-belief seems to fail that test.
That’s right. Start by leaping off a tall enough place, and you can spend the whole rest of your life soaring through the sky.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 5, 2008 10:16 AM
That reminds me of another favorite aphorism of mine: Build a man a fire, and he’s warm for a day. Light a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
karensays
I wish religion would go away.
(looks around)
Oh well…
No, no! You have to blow on a dandelion when you make your wish! Here, I’m gonna try. “I wish, I wish, I WISH religion would go away! Bblllllllppphhh!!!!!”
(looks around)
aw, fuck.
Bill Dauphinsays
You…keep a blog…using the persona of Jesus? That’s kind of bizarre…
Not bizarre at all, for surely the very most up-to-date answer to “WWJD?” has to be BLOG!!
I hear ya loud ‘n’ clear. *Slaps a cherry on top of the Brownmobile and speeds away*
Bill Dauphinsays
“”Jesus removes your burden of guilt!”
I use Woolite. It works just as well.
…and…
I thought evolution relieved the burden of morality.
Thus, evolution = Woolite
… but Woolite weighs more than a duck…
so…
Evolution is a witch!!! Burn it!!! [/Python]
Kseniyasays
Woolite? OK. So… Gene Wilder is the purest human this side of Jesus?
Mark B.says
Well, it’s a true statement, as far as it goes. If you wish, you can believe. Of course, you end up believing in a whole bunch of crap that is either false or without any foundation in reality, but you will believe. Some of us change our beliefs when they are proven to be wrong, but that isn’t the way of the religious zealot.
baleysays
Sometimes I wish I was an extra-terrestrial. At least I know why earth contains so pecurial ape-like creatures:
A race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings once built themselves a gigantic supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate once and for all the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
For seven and a half million years, Deep Thought computed and calculated, and in the end announced that the answer was in fact Forty-two – and so another, even bigger, computer had to be built to find out what the actual question was.
And this computer, which was called the Earth, was so large that it was frequently mistaken for a planet – especially by the strange ape-like beings who roamed its surface, totally unaware that they were simply part of a gigantic computer program.
And this is very odd, because without that fairly simple and obvious piece of knowledge, nothing that ever happened on the Earth could possibly make the slightest bit of sense.
Unasays
Mothra, Yes you nailed it. Marcus Ranum, Cold water works best for blood I find.
Garysays
Oh I don’t know…. Ray Kurzweil is doing everything he can to survive until his consciousness can be uploaded into a machine/computer.
watercatsays
Bill, #67. Can you direct me to where your argument is laid out in more detail? It sounds like the same notions religions always use to justify subjugation and killing, that some group or baramin is not our moral equivalent, are non-human and we “have dominion” over them. Luther focused on the Jews, Columbus on Americans, the Ku Klux Klan on blacks, Michael Vick on pit bulls. You claim that the findings of science–that humans are just one more species and our Aryan-ness, Christianity, white skin, or particular DNA sequence carries no unique moral superiority–is “true” but we shouldn’t “really believe” it. It’s spot on that realistically facing the Holocaust, Inquisition, slavery, and factory farming, can lead to a whole lot of self-loathing, but rather than being anti-survival this is actually the first step towards beneficial remediation, as with Germany’s renunciation of Hitler’s preachings.
If we wish, we can believe: that–Rushdoonies/Christians/Aryans/Whites/Humans/Americans–are special and get to kill everything else. It’s a useful belief all right.
Allow me to join my voice to the other Marylanders apologizing for this loopiness. For what it’s worth, Hagerstown is in what, in Maryland, passes for a rural area. Pennsylvania has been described as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in between. Hagerstown is a bit of that Alabama that leaked south.
Wasn’t it Tom Paxton who sang I believe, I do;
I believe it’s true.
I’m a simple minded man, I believe…?
Starksays
Jesus Fucking Christ! (best timing)
I live in Hagerstown! There’s something you don’t see every day!
Starksays
And yeah, now I remember passing that billboard.
stogoesays
Ah, the Methodists. Open hearts and minds….except when it comes to queers.
Really? I was under the impression that they were vastly more welcoming than other denominations. Or are they still on that awful “hate the sin, love the sinner” tripe? That was the position of my parents’ Dutch Reformed Megachurch last I was there, and it’s utter garbage. If what I’ve heard from my parents is correct, they’ve moved past that to the ‘choosing to be gay’/’gay lifestyle’ horseshit. Damned greedy narcissistic whitebread suburban assholes. Oops, I mean, Bless their hearts.
Starksays
We Post/Pre-Hagerstownians should have a Pharyngula meet, obviously!
*cough*
Interrobangsays
Science gives you what you need, magic gives you what you want.
As a million wish-fulfillment stories, everything from The Monkey’s Paw to a lot of the genie stories, point out: magic only gives you what you want if you’re very very careful. More people should take that into consideration…
Bill Dauphinsays
Bill, #67. Can you direct me to where your argument is laid out in more detail? It sounds like the same notions religions always use to justify subjugation and killing, that some group or baramin is not our moral equivalent, are non-human and we “have dominion” over them.
Hmmm… you want me to help you find the evidence that you plan (based on the example of the rest of your post) to use to accuse me of being a genocidal maniac? Sorry, this isn’t a court, and I don’t owe you any free discovery… especially when you seem to want to use it to make specious accusations. I’ve been through these arguments before; if you are really interested, look for threads that touch on extreme claims of animal rights.
You claim that the findings of science–that humans are just one more species and our Aryan-ness, Christianity, white skin, or particular DNA sequence carries no unique moral superiority–is “true” but we shouldn’t “really believe” it.
For someone who’s just asked for a fuller explanation of what I mean, you seem strangely quick to assume you already know! Your formulation is nowhere near reflecting my thoughts; in addition, there are some real problems embedded in it:
1. The term “moral superiority” is emotionally loaded, and not precisely synonymous with the sort of moral nonequivalence I’m talking about. If I assert that I can freely consume an ear of corn without concern that I’m engaging in cannibalism, I’m not claiming to be superior to the corn; I’m only claiming to be a different sort of entity. The suggestion of moral hierarchy is unnecessary.
2. In any case, I don’t see how we could talk about moral superiority (or lack thereof) being a “true” finding of science: It seems to me that such moral judgments are human philosophical constructs not subject to the objective observation that is at the heart of science. My reference to the hypothetical ultimate “truth” of such moral proposition depends on some (equally hypothetical, and almost certainly nonexistent) metaphysical source of Truth. When you design an experiment that can determine “moral superiority” in some objective, repeatable, falsifiable way, you let me know, won’t you?
3. Besides, who said anything about moral superiority being genetic? The genetics argument cuts both ways: On the one hand, all life (at least “as we know it”) has remarkably similar DNA, but it’s also true that each species’ “particular DNA sequence” is distinct from every other species’ (I’m no biologist, but isn’t that pretty much the definition of species?). If there were some sort of DNA basis for moral value, you could just as easily use genetics to assert moral nonequivalence as moral equivalence… but I’ve actually made no such suggestion either way.
Of course, physical/morphological and functional distinctions between species do have their roots in genetics (e.g., human sentience/sapience/cognition inheres in human neurophysiology, which springs from human DNA)… but what moral value we place on those distinctions is a matter more for philosophers than for geneticists. In any taxonomy of biological characteristics, there are countless different criteria on which to divide Life into us and them. All such distinctions are real… but whether any one of them is justifiable or meaningful or useful (which I guess I’m asserting is synonymous with “meaningful”) is always up for discussion. (Unless, of course, you believe in a metaphysical authority figure that has given you the answer.)
4. Tossing “Aryan-ness” into your list is pure Godwin.
It’s spot on that realistically facing the Holocaust, Inquisition, slavery, and factory farming, can lead to a whole lot of self-loathing, but rather than being anti-survival this is actually the first step towards beneficial remediation, as with Germany’s renunciation of Hitler’s preachings.
Your list includes horrifying volitional acts/projects of human history: In each case, we could have, at least theoretically, not done them. Contrast that with the domestication (which is just a polite word for enslavement and slaughter) of animals, which was, has been, and as far as I can see always will be a fundamental structural requirement for the existence of human society: If we (as a species) had originally chosen not to assert what you call “dominion” over nonhuman animals, you and I would not be here to have this argument. Precisely what “beneficial remediation” do you have in mind for that?
You seem to suggest that my assertion of the moral nonequivalence of humans to other animals puts us on a slippery slope toward genocide, but I think it’s actually exactly the opposite. If we assert that animals “deserve” all the same rights as our fellow humans, and then contemplate the inescapable facts of our history, only a limited number of conclusions are possible:
1. Animals have souls just like people, but it’s OK that we enslave, kill, and eat them because God gave us permission.
2. We live under an insupportable and irremediable load of guilt, and by rights should commit species-wide suicide in atonement. Note that while I categorically reject all “sins of the fathers” arguments, we’re not talking about sins here, but about a fundamental structural element of the human condition. (This conclusion is remarkably consistent with an Orson Scott Card novel that suggested, entirely without irony, that the moral thing for a time-travel project to do would be to go back and thwart Columbus, to redress the sins of Europeans against indigenous American peoples, irrespective of the fact that it would mean the obliteration of all subsequent history, and all the people who had lived during those centuries… so don’t tell me nobody would think this way.)
3. We’re no more different from animals than we are from other humans, so there’s no reason to treat other humans any differently than we treat animals.
Since I reject No. 1 and doubt humans’ willingness to execute themselves a la No. 2, I think if you convinced the majority of people there was no moral difference between them and the animals, they would come to a conclusion very like No. 3. There may be some existential “truth” in that position — nature is famously “red in tooth and claw,” after all — but it’s not the basis for any society I would want to live in.
Asserting the moral equivalence of humans and animals would IMHO not elevate the animals to be our equals in our own minds (howevermuch animal rights activists wish for this outcome); it would instead reduce us to “mere” animals in our own minds, and break down behavioral barriers that are based on our sense of specialness. Thus, I see preserving the notion of human specialness as a hedge against genocide, not a justification of it.
Since the moral equivalence (or lack thereof) of humans and animals is a matter human construction, and not subject to objective scientific test, why should we not adopt the construction that leads to the most desirable societal behavior? (Recognizing, of course, that “desirable” is always up for discussion.)
Now, having been over this ground several times before, and having used up too much of PZ’s supply of pixels on this post already, I will not engage in any back-and-forth. I’m not a Nazi, but if it pleases you to call me one, I won’t waste everyone else’s time fighting with you.
Kseniyasays
“He’s not the Messiah – he’s a very nazi boy!“
JohnnieCanuck, FCDsays
And if you want it to work every time, applied science only gives you what you want if you’re very, very careful.
Wide spread use of DDT, Thalidomide, Freon, Asbestos, Petroleum and more are examples of gambles that turned out to be short term gains; long term pains. That’s the disadvantage of using something that actually generates results.
Magical thinking, on the other hand only provides the appearance of short term gain. In other words, religion is a placebo. Most of the promised benefits will not occur, but the solace can be real.
cicelysays
“Religion is a placebo.”
I like it. It wants to be on t-shirts and bumper stickers.
frogsays
Etha #23: “Yeah, I have had some people ask me, “Well, what are the benefits of being an atheist.” I don’t even know what to say. I mean, sure, there are benefits…not having to go to church…not having to reconcile one’s own morals with some of the rather morally questionable parts of the Bible…etc…but this shouldn’t have any bearing on your philosophy/belief system. You should decide to believe/disbelieve in god(s) because you think it is the *truth*, not because you like the benefits afforded you.”
One of the great stories about Gautama was when a king asked him for secular reasons for why the king should become a Buddhist. After much roundabout, Big G compared the life of one of the king’s servants (slave), with the servant’s life if he took orders – hours slept, respect from the king, quality of food, clothing, etc. Monastacism won hands down in Quality of Life.
Short answer: if you enslave yourself to fantasies, others have leverage to enslave you. A very practical reality.
Mikesays
Man, this makes living in Maryland even that much more unbareable. Though it’s still not as bad as what I’ve seen driving through Pennsylvania!
Denis Loubetsays
If you can wish, you can believe.
But if you’re right, it will be pure coincidence.
wrpdsays
WEDNESDAY night orgies? When was the day changed and why didn’t anyone tell me?
watercatsays
Bill; my apologies for coming across as picking a fight. My reason for responding to your post specifically is that you seem more than most to have thought this through. I’m not accusing you of Nazism, or genocide, and I thank you for your lengthy and enlightening response. (although my cats object to your claim that domestication is just a polite word for enslavement and slaughter–UR DOIN IT RONG!)
The fundies I talk to say God’s chosen people (them) have dominion over all else, and interpret this a la Ann Coulter–“take it, rape it, it’s yours.” I feel this is a useful belief for Nazis (since the thread was discussing them) and anyone else who wants to be superior. Secularists are horrified, but they say; one chosen animal (them) has dominion over all else…and then often follow Ms. Coulter! The only real difference between these positions is in how they define the other creatures they feel justified in persecuting. Christians wish they were superior to other creatures, including 99% of the human race apparently, and use God’s approval as a reason to believe. Secularists wish they were superior to other species, and just believe.
There’s no denying that “we” have dominion in some sense over various others, but what was or was not “human” is a social convention that has been defined mainly on religious grounds, those with souls, and is still being defined that way by Neo-Nazis, Rushdoonites, and their ilk. Just moving the goalposts to those having certain DNA—as opposed to skin color, baptism, set of beliefs—skirts the important question of what it means to ‘have dominion’. Atheists should have no problem with religious people who interpret that as Jesus probably did and disagree with Coulter.
We agree that objective science says nothing about morals–the distinction that non-equivalence needn’t entail moral hierarchy is a good one–and humans are simply one animal species amongst others, and any superiority or moral hierarchy we have to create and provide support for. As often as not atheist’s claims are based on a wish for, and belief in, our own superiority that is even less supported than those of the bible-thumpers. Bill’s post #90 offers some nice thoughts if anyone is still interested.
Ericsays
My mom and dad always used to say:
“Wish in one hand and shit in the other; see which one fills up faster.”
Can’t imagine why this reminded me of that.
Bill Dauphinsays
Bill; my apologies for coming across as picking a fight.
De nada. My apologies if I overreacted… it’s just that this sort of “thinking out loud” on this topic has garnered me some nasty responses in the past, so I guess I’m a bit gunshy.
Since we’re not fighting after all, I’ll toss in a few more (hopefully brief, but with there are no sure things) thoughts:
my cats object to your claim that domestication is just a polite word for enslavement and slaughter–UR DOIN IT RONG!
Yeah, my cat probably objects, too!
But seriously… you and I could perfectly legally sell our cats at any time, and could have them put down more or less at our own convenience. If it were somehow metaphysically “true” that cats were people (as opposed to that notion just being the anthropomorphic whimsy of their owners), it would be hard to justify calling our relationship with them anything other than master-to-slave, regardless of how benign the conditions of their bondage. We only don’t slaughter them because our culture rejects (for the most part) eating the same animals we keep as pets. In Korea, where dogs and cats are generally not kept as pets, dogs are raised and slaughtered for food in very much the same way as pigs. (And while I’m somewhat reluctant to admit knowing this, they’re quite tasty.)
Christians wish they were superior to other creatures, including 99% of the human race apparently, and use God’s approval as a reason to believe. Secularists wish they were superior to other species, and just believe.
Well, as I’ve said, I have a small problem with that word “superior,” but I do have a “gut feeling” that there’s a real distinction of kind between people and not people. If I’m not to believe (as I don’t) that this distinction is the result of some divine mandate, and I’m not to engage in wishful thinking, I have to rationalize (in the precise, nonpejorative sense of the word) this innate sense of difference that I have.
As it happens, I think there are some functional and physical characteristics that make reasonable criteria for dividing Life As We Know It into people and not people: The ability not only to form complex abstract thoughts and narratives, but to communicate same to others and to record them for posterity; the ability to design, fabricate, and use sophisticated tools; the capability to intentionally change the physical environment on a large scale (i.e., “intentionally” = not coral reefs and “large scale” = not beaver dams); possession of both opposable thumbs and vocal organs; etc. (Note, BTW, that these criteria are not inherently dependent on DNA, even though it happens that I currently know of only one species that meets them. Show me others — space aliens, perhaps, or artificially “enhanced” animals as in Heinlein’s “Jerry Was a Man,” and I’ll happily expand my definition of “people” to include them.)
But even though this model strikes me as reasonable, I’m aware that it’s a matter of my own intellectual construction, rather than of natural fact. So on what basis can I “believe” it? That’s where my notion of social usefulness comes in: As long as this model is plausible, and more useful (in the sense of driving good behavior and/or not creating irremediable bad effects) than other models, I simply choose to believe it, until I encounter some objective fact that renders it implausible.
You see, it’s not so much a matter of deliberately believing some comforting thing that I know to be false. Rather, if I can’t know what’s “true” in some cosmic sense, why not use the model that produces the best results?
In any case, that’s the internal issue I’ve been working on in these conversations, the several times it’s come up: I eat meat and wear leather and own cats, and yet I’m thoroughly convinced I’m not a slavemaster or a mass murderer or a cannibal. To me it’s not a question of whether those things are morally justifiable; it’s a matter of trying to understand and codify why they are.
meliorsays
Hey, kids! If you’ve ever played the “Let’s Pretend” game, then you already know how to play the “Christian Believer” game… it’s fun and easy!
Sleestaksays
Nothing stupid Maryland does will ever surprise me.
dansays
the appeal of heaven is the absence of pain, not living forever.
living forever would not suck if you were free of worry, pain, fear, anxiety, etc. that is what they are promising.
benefits of atheism?
having you mind open for anything that may come along.
plus, i see how the “believers” suffer with doubt – not fun.
David Marjanović, OMsays
and given enough time, even protons, electrons, and other elementary particles will decay.
This is still not clear. Into what could an electron decay? Even proton decay has never been observed, nor is there a known theoretical reason why it should happen.
Build a man a fire, and he’s warm for a day. Light a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
Does this mean I can fly now?! All right! I’m going to never never land!
That’s right. Start by leaping off a tall enough place, and you can spend the whole rest of your life soaring through the sky.
Hahahaha
The scariest billboard I have ever read was last year in Montana. The image was of a man pointing a hand gun out towards you and the caption was along the lines of “If he can not respect God how can he respect you”. This took me back, by the time I had reread to confirm that is what the billboard had said I was passed the billboard and unable to see who the sponsor was.
R. Kelly has a sang named “I Wish” and one named “I Believe I Can Fly”. Coincidence or Divine Revelation?
How honest.
Sorry, I meant song
“Sorry, I meant
songhymn.”There. Fixed. ;-)
Haha, I had just read your post from Decembmer on John Haught last night. So the whole theology thing is still fresh in my mind. My friend and I was at Barnes and noble last night and he had picked up “What is Enlightenment” and they had a feature on New Atheists and their critics. I think two of the critics were Mcalister and Ruse (which surprised me about Ruse). Anyways you weren’t in the feature, just the 4 horsemen. My friend read it and said that one of the critics said that some of the thing the new atheists say would make a first year theology student cringe. But after reading your critique of Haught, I wonder what theology has to offer.
Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!
I wish for plenty of things that I know are either impossible or improbable. I do not believe that they will come true.
Use this logic and all fiction becomes reasons to believe.
Then the question becomes; believe in what?
I’m reminded of Sam Harris’ excellent advice on “How to Believe in God in 6 Easy Steps:”
How to Believe in God
Six Easy Steps
1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.
This, of course, is why the so-called New Atheists are being vilified, even by other atheists. We argue against the first 2 steps — the idea that wanting to believe in God and faith in the absence of evidence is NOBLE — wonderful, desirable, and something to be proud of. It’s a hard job to do that, it takes so much discipline and self-control.
Theists love atheists who “respect faith” — meaning atheists who agree that faith ennobles people. They want us to agree that why, yes — faith is the same as hope, perserverance, confidence, expectation, and love — we all need it — just so they can slide their own special take on faith into the mixture.
Wanting to believe in God is supposed to denote character. We so respect that. We so want you to do that. We don’t, but oh we wish we could. Really.
The existence of God is a FACT claim, dammit. I wish they’d stop making up a special category for God so they can play this stupid “faith is evidence of God” game.
“If you can wish, you can believe.” Lovely. But oh my goodness, don’t call religion “wishful thinking.” That’s rude.
The ology on that poster is biology – the dandelions seeding. The rest is bullshit.
Erfh. It always hurts a little more when you see lunacy nesting in your home state.
Ah, yes, but that’s why it’s never going to end–because everyone can wish. And others will always find a way to benefit from those wishes.
Science gives you what you need, magic gives you what you want. OK, it doesn’t actually give it to you, but it does promise it, which keeps many enthralled for their entire lives.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
@#13
Ha! You guys trying to out stupid my state of Florida eh?
Shouldn’t that be “Open Hearts, Empty Minds, Open Doors”?
That would seem to be much more accurate.
To be fair, the Bible admits as much:
(Emphasis mine)
@#15
Ha, I don’t think the stupid in Maryland could ever burn brighter than in Florida…
I think we should give this sign some serious thought – perhaps those of us that don’t “believe” don’t “wish” either. I, for instance, would like not to be going blind, and I follow the science and medicine news regularly to see what progress is being made in potential cures. But I don’t waste time by trying to alter the odds or adjust the universe by “wishing” it would happen as soon as I need it.
Similarly, successful people don’t just wish for what they want, they invest a lot of sweat into their achievements – like the old saw ” the harder you work the luckier you get”
1. If you can wish,
2. you can believe
3. and we can exploit
4. = PROFIT!!!
I ran across an ex-atheist just last night who was using Dawkins as a foil, and his entire spiel boiled down to one thing–if Dawkins is right, then there’s no hope for anything after death. He wasn’t even so much saying that Dawkins was necessarily wrong, just that it was too sad if he were right.
The whole thing sounded so pathetic, because the fact is that he will die, and I will die, and we will both rot (burn, whatever) away and be gone for eternity. Not what I would wish, but what will be. The difference is that I can admit and face up to the truth of it. Are false hopes (wishes) really supposed to be better, that we should all be so fearful of reality that we will cling to the dream that we can fly, rather than to admit to gravity?
I wouldn’t rip the hopes and wishes of everyone away, of course. Religion exists (in part) for the reason that many could not get through this life without believing a lie. But how can anyone preach that believing in wishes is the best way to live, the only thing that makes life worth living?
Unfortunately, life isn’t lived very well if it is lived for an illusion, for death.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Cephus, perhaps that should be Open Hearts, Empty Minds Open Wallets?
@#21 Glen Davidson —
Yeah, I have had some people ask me, “Well, what are the benefits of being an atheist.” I don’t even know what to say. I mean, sure, there are benefits…not having to go to church…not having to reconcile one’s own morals with some of the rather morally questionable parts of the Bible…etc…but this shouldn’t have any bearing on your philosophy/belief system. You should decide to believe/disbelieve in god(s) because you think it is the *truth*, not because you like the benefits afforded you.
As a side note, I’ve never understood the desire for an eternal afterlife. It seems like it would be nice at first, boring after a while, and then unbearable for the rest of eternity. It’s our mortality that gives life urgency and import. With immortality…who cares?
“Ha, I don’t think the stupid in Maryland could ever burn brighter than in Florida…”
Oh, I dunno; add some liquid oxygen to the bonfire and watch it burn brightly, brightly and with beauty.
“Yeah, I have had some people ask me, “Well, what are the benefits of being an atheist.”
Wednesday night orgies.
“If you wish, you can believe.” If you can believe, you can be wrong… and if your beliefs are contradicted by mounds of emperical evidence, you are going to be wrong.
The “we want this to be true, therefore it must be true” argument is not new; it dates back to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. … For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”
“What are the benefits of being an atheist?” The only benefit I need: being right. That’s all I’ll ever ask of my beliefs.
What? Why didn’t anybody tell me that wishing really hard makes things true?
Jeez, screw all this science and learning crap– why bother with a whole lot of hard work when I can just BELIEVE?
If you can wish, you can believe;
If you can pay, we can deceive;
If you can give, you might receive;
If you can think… we’ll have to leave.
I’m going to have to go looking for it. I was just there (in Hagerstown) on Friday evening.
There’s a Bavarian dining establishment there named Schmankerl Stube that I enjoy. Billboard spotting can be my excuse to go back again this week!
This reminds me a of the scary church sign that I drove past a few weeks ago… “Jesus removes your burden of guilt!” Seriously got chills from that one.
Hey, you just tapped the philosophy of western culture! It applies to politics, consumerism, etc.
When I first looked at the picture above, I couldn’t figure out what a bird flying into a wind farm had to do with wishes and beliefs.
Never try to read a science board without your first cup of coffee,cigarette (if applicable), and eye glasses.
Seriously, since when have we expected religious people to make sense…
(.)(.)
Burma Shave
Nice!
Probably old news to many, but here you go: Create your own sign.
Woodwose #19 wrote:
Hence the appeal of The Secret and similar books, which claim that quantum mechanics has proven that things only exist if we look at them, and therefore the universe is simply a manifestation of Consciousness. If you wish, you can believe, and if you can believe, you can make it real through the Power of your Intentional Will. Just think about a bicycle, and one will appear. Or, on the flip side, if you’re losing your eyesight it’s because you have a negative attitude which attracts blindness. You’re not happy enough, or you’d be fine.
That’s such a happy philosophy.
It sounds New-Agey (and is), but I think it underlies not only mainstream “spiritual but not religious” views but even traditional religious views (how do you think God is supposed to create?) In every form of what’s labeled “supernatural,” Mind is an immaterial agent which has direct, causal force and power.
Glen D #21 wrote:
Although I think this fallacy’s official designation is Argument from Negative Consequences, I have personally re-labeled it (and similar arguments) as “The Argument from Boo-hoo.”
One of the nicest things Dawkins has done for us is start up his “Out Campaign.” Now, when theists ask us “what does atheism have for anyone?” we can show them the t-shirts.
@Neuro,
Just as long as we win! Florida, leading the charge into the 4th century!
Cuttlefish, that was lovely!
I think it was shown on House once, House said he was an atheist, and his co-worker said “where’s the fun in that?” to which House replied “who said it was about being fun? It’s about being right.” or something like that.
it’s on Atheist Media Blog
I wish I could believe that the world and everything in it was built especially for us, by a benevolent god who is looking out for us, each and every one.
Unfortunately, all the evidence is against it.
I wish religion would go away.
(looks around)
Oh well…
Etha Williams,
Actually no, that’s not what it that verse (Hebrews 11:1) is talking about. That verse refers to Old Testament saints, and what they could not see, because it hadn’t happened yet, is the finished work of Christ. They are being praised for believing in the promise rather than the delivery of the promise. This verse is not a praise of blind faith–which in fact is never praised anywhere in scripture. (Cue Doubting Thomas a,d “Blessed are those…”) That same chapter (Hebrews 11) is the so-called Faith Hall of Fame, and it praises Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, Rahab, Barak, Gideon, etc., all of whom had no need at all for blind faith, having witnessed the supernatural. Gideon is perhaps the best example–he repeatedly demanded physical proof of God before he would proceed. Rather than striking him dead, God complied, and yet Gideon ends up being praised for his faith–a faith that was the opposite of blind faith.
I’m (originally) from Hagerstown, although I live now in Milwaukee…
I can picture the intersection, but I have no idea what the place is like (and I haven’t been back to Hagerstown for many years.)
I’ll have to visit!
Whats the point of asking what the benefits are, does scripture mention that the one true religion would be the one with the best benefits?
NOW I see the dandelion seeds. The background first looked like a cloud of feathers from a shotgunned dove.
You scared me half to freaking death!!! I thought the sign was for a HOSPITAL at first. University Medical Center in Jackson, MS (UMC) has a huge presence here, so I originally thought, swear to God, that it was a billboard for a HOSPITAL. I’ll bet I could find one around here that would probably come close to fitting the bill.
500 words to my godless friends on last weeks top news stories and my thoughts on the candidates vis-a-vis their relationship with Atheist morality.
Concluding with:
http://thetimtimes.com/?p=221
Enjoy.
Well, promised, but without backing.
Yes, probably. We didn’t evolve to be interested in this life forever.
But as many have noted regarding life extension issues, there are likely few of us who wouldn’t like to have double, triple, maybe quadruple the lifespan that we have. And if we had that, would we want to keep going? Maybe not forever, indeed, yet we might want several centuries at least.
Forever, though? I think that if somehow one could not die, that would be the most frightening thing of all. Life could become the most tedious and unpleasant experience, with each moment unbearable, and getting worse with each passing year. I think that’s why Tolkien allowed that his elves could die, even though they did not die of old age, for some of his elvish characters found that they could not bear to live any longer.
Then too, Tolkien called death humanity’s “strange gift”, a way of understanding death seemingly at odds with his faith. Perhaps he had a fear of eternal life?
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“If you can wish, you can believe.”
Are they suggesting we believe in dandelions? SOLD! I totally believe in dandelions. And wind.
CL
http://www.coulterlewkowitz.com/
You forgot “Empty Wallets (into church* coffers).”
* Church=whatever the pastor can get away with skimming from the top (or maybe the whole thing!).
Bwa-ha-ha, Cuttlefish, that was funny. And spot on.
I hereby declare that there must be a heaven for flowers, because they are so lovely and it would be too sad if there weren’t.
Or could it be that the earth “peoples” as a field flowers, to borrow a concept from Alan Watts the Zen philosopher.
Really? Perhaps some folks would see it that way, but I strongly disagree — I want to live forever if possible. With technology and society changing so rapidly, I think the future is the most interesting place to be. Who wouldn’t want to have the opportunity to walk on Mars, to swim in Europa, to perhaps even visit the stars (and you could if you were immortal, even with today’s technology)?
Perhaps that sentiment makes me a techno-romantic, but I think it is romanticism of another kind that declares that life without death loses its meaning. People live twice as long today as they did in the past, and I don’t see anyone complaining that they’d rather only live to 35, that all those extra years takes the interest out of living.
If it was emphemerality that gave value, we’d make our houses out of paper and our planes out of balsa, and write our books on sheets of ice.
Dandelion seeds are the perfect imagery- religion spreading like the pernicious weed it is.
@ Cephod & Una. The sequence is:
Open hearts, open minds, open wallets
Open hearts, empty minds, open wallets
Open hearts, empty minds, empty wallets
Empty hearts, empty minds, empty wallets
Empty hearts, opened minds, empty wallets
Opened hearts, opened minds, empty wallets
Opened hearts, opened minds, (sorry wallets are still empty)
My children.
I wish for you to know that I do not condone these messages. No one “wished” me to life. While it saddens me greatly to say this, there are organized religions that exist today that don’t correctly demonstrate my values correctly. I just want you to all know. I love you.
If you would like. Please check out my blog.
thesuprememaster.blogspot.com
For more of my word.
J.
@#56 Emmanuel —
You…keep a blog…using the persona of Jesus? That’s kind of bizarre, but ok….
Sastra #11 said:
beautiful.
this bill board makes a great mad-lib.
give me two verbs: swim, cook
then the completed mad-lib is:
“If you can swim,
you can cook.”
this version makes as much sense as the billboard.
Ah, the Methodists. Open hearts and minds….except when it comes to queers. At least they allow for imagination, though, I guess.
If it’s all about the benefits, no religion can stack up to pastafarianism. Beer volcano, stripper factory, and you don’t even have to believe it while your alive, you are eventually let into heaven anyway.
I agree with Tulse (#54) that it’d be nice to live long enough to be able to visit other star systems and (eventually) galaxies. But, lest you all forget, there is a limit on how long you can live, at least in this Universe. If physicists are right, the temperature of the Universe is bound to asymptotically approach absolute zero, and given enough time, even protons, electrons, and other elementary particles will decay. It is a long time until this happens (about 10^150 years, give or take), but it is not eternity, and your chances of being alive under such circumstances are pretty slim. From then on, only two possibilities remain: (a) find a way to preserve consciousness that is independent of matter and energy (and that would truly be hellish, because you don’t want to be eternally conscious in a universe of nothingness), or (b) find a way of getting to another Universe that still has interesting things to offer.
[Emphasis mine]
Good thing that Jesus continues to walk the land (and the water) healing the sick, casting out demons, spinning straw into gold, and selling top quality furniture with no money down until 2009, otherwise modern Christians would have no reason to believe other than the kind of blind faith that is praised nowhere in scripture.
Embarrassing to think the vast majority of people we live among today haven’t the skeptical sense of Bronze Age desert dwelling tribesmen.
#56/#57 Jesus is a prick. He doesn’t even have a blogroll. I suppose being the son of god and all makes him think that no one’s blog is good enough to be linked from his. Good thing fame and power never stopped PZ from maintaining a big blogroll (and no, I don’t think he’s compensating for anything).
Brownian, did you hear the page? Customer service request over on the Chick Tract thread. We have someone who thinks the Lake of Fire is the worst fate that can befall an unbeliever. I think his name is “Kenny”.
As a citizen of Maryland, I often point out to visitors that once you’re west of Frederick, you’re essentially in West Virginia. The “panhandle” doesn’t represent the rest of this fine state! I happily live in a neighborhood in Baltimore where my vehicle isn’t even the only one on the block with a flying spaghetti monster-ism emblem on the bumper. In fact, the Hampden neighborhood has a big FSM sculpture on the side of a building, and it says under it: “Believe Your Noodly Master, Hon.” I’ll have to send you a picture of that this week.
I’ve sometimes argued that the social implications of a belief are as important as its truth, especially when the truth of a given belief cannot be unambiguously proven. For example, I have previously argued here that believing nonhuman animals are the moral equivalent of humans is useless, even if it’s “true” in some absolute sense, because our history as humans is so inescapably bound up in the subjugation and killing of animals that really believing they were the moral equivalent of our fellow humans could only lead to self-loathing on a global scale, which is in no sense useful or pro-survival for the human species.
If I’m not going to be a hypocrite, I guess I have to at least listen to the argument that God-belief is acceptable, even if it’s “false” in some absolute sense, if it produces social good. The thing is, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite: The net effect of God-belief around the world seems to have been a whole array of social ills… which term actually understates the horrors that have accumulated around religious conflict over the millennia.
Some might argue, well, maybe organized religion causes social ills, but personal belief is good, because it gives people hope and a reason to look beyond their own lives and lifespans. But one of my personal tests for the social/moral value of a philosophical position or belief is this: If most people believed as you do, and acted on that belief, would the world be improved or damaged? By this measure, the hypothetical advantages of personal belief cannot be disconnected from the vast social cost of widespread belief.
Shorter me: Any belief system that produces good effects is tolerable, even if it’s not objectively true… but God-belief seems to fail that test.
That’s right. Start by leaping off a tall enough place, and you can spend the whole rest of your life soaring through the sky.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 5, 2008 10:16 AM
That reminds me of another favorite aphorism of mine: Build a man a fire, and he’s warm for a day. Light a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.
I wish religion would go away.
(looks around)
Oh well…
No, no! You have to blow on a dandelion when you make your wish! Here, I’m gonna try. “I wish, I wish, I WISH religion would go away! Bblllllllppphhh!!!!!”
(looks around)
aw, fuck.
Not bizarre at all, for surely the very most up-to-date answer to “WWJD?” has to be BLOG!!
;^)
“Jesus removes your burden of guilt!”
I use Woolite. It works just as well. The trick is not to let the blood dry because then it’s a bitch to get the stains out even if you use bleach.
As far as I am concerned, it only takes a single word to sum up theology.
I thought evolution relieved the burden of morality. What the heck?!
Missed a bit–that last line should read:
Open hearts, open minds, open doors open wallets
Kseniya at #65:
I hear ya loud ‘n’ clear. *Slaps a cherry on top of the Brownmobile and speeds away*
…and…
Thus, evolution = Woolite
… but Woolite weighs more than a duck…
so…
Evolution is a witch!!! Burn it!!! [/Python]
Woolite? OK. So… Gene Wilder is the purest human this side of Jesus?
Well, it’s a true statement, as far as it goes. If you wish, you can believe. Of course, you end up believing in a whole bunch of crap that is either false or without any foundation in reality, but you will believe. Some of us change our beliefs when they are proven to be wrong, but that isn’t the way of the religious zealot.
Sometimes I wish I was an extra-terrestrial. At least I know why earth contains so pecurial ape-like creatures:
A race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings once built themselves a gigantic supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate once and for all the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
For seven and a half million years, Deep Thought computed and calculated, and in the end announced that the answer was in fact Forty-two – and so another, even bigger, computer had to be built to find out what the actual question was.
And this computer, which was called the Earth, was so large that it was frequently mistaken for a planet – especially by the strange ape-like beings who roamed its surface, totally unaware that they were simply part of a gigantic computer program.
And this is very odd, because without that fairly simple and obvious piece of knowledge, nothing that ever happened on the Earth could possibly make the slightest bit of sense.
Mothra, Yes you nailed it. Marcus Ranum, Cold water works best for blood I find.
Oh I don’t know…. Ray Kurzweil is doing everything he can to survive until his consciousness can be uploaded into a machine/computer.
Bill, #67. Can you direct me to where your argument is laid out in more detail? It sounds like the same notions religions always use to justify subjugation and killing, that some group or baramin is not our moral equivalent, are non-human and we “have dominion” over them. Luther focused on the Jews, Columbus on Americans, the Ku Klux Klan on blacks, Michael Vick on pit bulls. You claim that the findings of science–that humans are just one more species and our Aryan-ness, Christianity, white skin, or particular DNA sequence carries no unique moral superiority–is “true” but we shouldn’t “really believe” it. It’s spot on that realistically facing the Holocaust, Inquisition, slavery, and factory farming, can lead to a whole lot of self-loathing, but rather than being anti-survival this is actually the first step towards beneficial remediation, as with Germany’s renunciation of Hitler’s preachings.
If we wish, we can believe: that–Rushdoonies/Christians/Aryans/Whites/Humans/Americans–are special and get to kill everything else. It’s a useful belief all right.
Allow me to join my voice to the other Marylanders apologizing for this loopiness. For what it’s worth, Hagerstown is in what, in Maryland, passes for a rural area. Pennsylvania has been described as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in between. Hagerstown is a bit of that Alabama that leaked south.
Wasn’t it Tom Paxton who sang
I believe, I do;
I believe it’s true.
I’m a simple minded man, I believe…?
Jesus Fucking Christ! (best timing)
I live in Hagerstown! There’s something you don’t see every day!
And yeah, now I remember passing that billboard.
Really? I was under the impression that they were vastly more welcoming than other denominations. Or are they still on that awful “hate the sin, love the sinner” tripe? That was the position of my parents’ Dutch Reformed Megachurch last I was there, and it’s utter garbage. If what I’ve heard from my parents is correct, they’ve moved past that to the ‘choosing to be gay’/’gay lifestyle’ horseshit. Damned greedy narcissistic whitebread suburban assholes. Oops, I mean, Bless their hearts.
We Post/Pre-Hagerstownians should have a Pharyngula meet, obviously!
*cough*
Science gives you what you need, magic gives you what you want.
As a million wish-fulfillment stories, everything from The Monkey’s Paw to a lot of the genie stories, point out: magic only gives you what you want if you’re very very careful. More people should take that into consideration…
Hmmm… you want me to help you find the evidence that you plan (based on the example of the rest of your post) to use to accuse me of being a genocidal maniac? Sorry, this isn’t a court, and I don’t owe you any free discovery… especially when you seem to want to use it to make specious accusations. I’ve been through these arguments before; if you are really interested, look for threads that touch on extreme claims of animal rights.
For someone who’s just asked for a fuller explanation of what I mean, you seem strangely quick to assume you already know! Your formulation is nowhere near reflecting my thoughts; in addition, there are some real problems embedded in it:
1. The term “moral superiority” is emotionally loaded, and not precisely synonymous with the sort of moral nonequivalence I’m talking about. If I assert that I can freely consume an ear of corn without concern that I’m engaging in cannibalism, I’m not claiming to be superior to the corn; I’m only claiming to be a different sort of entity. The suggestion of moral hierarchy is unnecessary.
2. In any case, I don’t see how we could talk about moral superiority (or lack thereof) being a “true” finding of science: It seems to me that such moral judgments are human philosophical constructs not subject to the objective observation that is at the heart of science. My reference to the hypothetical ultimate “truth” of such moral proposition depends on some (equally hypothetical, and almost certainly nonexistent) metaphysical source of Truth. When you design an experiment that can determine “moral superiority” in some objective, repeatable, falsifiable way, you let me know, won’t you?
3. Besides, who said anything about moral superiority being genetic? The genetics argument cuts both ways: On the one hand, all life (at least “as we know it”) has remarkably similar DNA, but it’s also true that each species’ “particular DNA sequence” is distinct from every other species’ (I’m no biologist, but isn’t that pretty much the definition of species?). If there were some sort of DNA basis for moral value, you could just as easily use genetics to assert moral nonequivalence as moral equivalence… but I’ve actually made no such suggestion either way.
Of course, physical/morphological and functional distinctions between species do have their roots in genetics (e.g., human sentience/sapience/cognition inheres in human neurophysiology, which springs from human DNA)… but what moral value we place on those distinctions is a matter more for philosophers than for geneticists. In any taxonomy of biological characteristics, there are countless different criteria on which to divide Life into us and them. All such distinctions are real… but whether any one of them is justifiable or meaningful or useful (which I guess I’m asserting is synonymous with “meaningful”) is always up for discussion. (Unless, of course, you believe in a metaphysical authority figure that has given you the answer.)
4. Tossing “Aryan-ness” into your list is pure Godwin.
Your list includes horrifying volitional acts/projects of human history: In each case, we could have, at least theoretically, not done them. Contrast that with the domestication (which is just a polite word for enslavement and slaughter) of animals, which was, has been, and as far as I can see always will be a fundamental structural requirement for the existence of human society: If we (as a species) had originally chosen not to assert what you call “dominion” over nonhuman animals, you and I would not be here to have this argument. Precisely what “beneficial remediation” do you have in mind for that?
You seem to suggest that my assertion of the moral nonequivalence of humans to other animals puts us on a slippery slope toward genocide, but I think it’s actually exactly the opposite. If we assert that animals “deserve” all the same rights as our fellow humans, and then contemplate the inescapable facts of our history, only a limited number of conclusions are possible:
1. Animals have souls just like people, but it’s OK that we enslave, kill, and eat them because God gave us permission.
2. We live under an insupportable and irremediable load of guilt, and by rights should commit species-wide suicide in atonement. Note that while I categorically reject all “sins of the fathers” arguments, we’re not talking about sins here, but about a fundamental structural element of the human condition. (This conclusion is remarkably consistent with an Orson Scott Card novel that suggested, entirely without irony, that the moral thing for a time-travel project to do would be to go back and thwart Columbus, to redress the sins of Europeans against indigenous American peoples, irrespective of the fact that it would mean the obliteration of all subsequent history, and all the people who had lived during those centuries… so don’t tell me nobody would think this way.)
3. We’re no more different from animals than we are from other humans, so there’s no reason to treat other humans any differently than we treat animals.
Since I reject No. 1 and doubt humans’ willingness to execute themselves a la No. 2, I think if you convinced the majority of people there was no moral difference between them and the animals, they would come to a conclusion very like No. 3. There may be some existential “truth” in that position — nature is famously “red in tooth and claw,” after all — but it’s not the basis for any society I would want to live in.
Asserting the moral equivalence of humans and animals would IMHO not elevate the animals to be our equals in our own minds (howevermuch animal rights activists wish for this outcome); it would instead reduce us to “mere” animals in our own minds, and break down behavioral barriers that are based on our sense of specialness. Thus, I see preserving the notion of human specialness as a hedge against genocide, not a justification of it.
Since the moral equivalence (or lack thereof) of humans and animals is a matter human construction, and not subject to objective scientific test, why should we not adopt the construction that leads to the most desirable societal behavior? (Recognizing, of course, that “desirable” is always up for discussion.)
Now, having been over this ground several times before, and having used up too much of PZ’s supply of pixels on this post already, I will not engage in any back-and-forth. I’m not a Nazi, but if it pleases you to call me one, I won’t waste everyone else’s time fighting with you.
“He’s not the Messiah – he’s a very nazi boy!“
And if you want it to work every time, applied science only gives you what you want if you’re very, very careful.
Wide spread use of DDT, Thalidomide, Freon, Asbestos, Petroleum and more are examples of gambles that turned out to be short term gains; long term pains. That’s the disadvantage of using something that actually generates results.
Magical thinking, on the other hand only provides the appearance of short term gain. In other words, religion is a placebo. Most of the promised benefits will not occur, but the solace can be real.
“Religion is a placebo.”
I like it. It wants to be on t-shirts and bumper stickers.
Etha #23: “Yeah, I have had some people ask me, “Well, what are the benefits of being an atheist.” I don’t even know what to say. I mean, sure, there are benefits…not having to go to church…not having to reconcile one’s own morals with some of the rather morally questionable parts of the Bible…etc…but this shouldn’t have any bearing on your philosophy/belief system. You should decide to believe/disbelieve in god(s) because you think it is the *truth*, not because you like the benefits afforded you.”
One of the great stories about Gautama was when a king asked him for secular reasons for why the king should become a Buddhist. After much roundabout, Big G compared the life of one of the king’s servants (slave), with the servant’s life if he took orders – hours slept, respect from the king, quality of food, clothing, etc. Monastacism won hands down in Quality of Life.
Short answer: if you enslave yourself to fantasies, others have leverage to enslave you. A very practical reality.
Man, this makes living in Maryland even that much more unbareable. Though it’s still not as bad as what I’ve seen driving through Pennsylvania!
If you can wish, you can believe.
But if you’re right, it will be pure coincidence.
WEDNESDAY night orgies? When was the day changed and why didn’t anyone tell me?
Bill; my apologies for coming across as picking a fight. My reason for responding to your post specifically is that you seem more than most to have thought this through. I’m not accusing you of Nazism, or genocide, and I thank you for your lengthy and enlightening response. (although my cats object to your claim that domestication is just a polite word for enslavement and slaughter–UR DOIN IT RONG!)
The fundies I talk to say God’s chosen people (them) have dominion over all else, and interpret this a la Ann Coulter–“take it, rape it, it’s yours.” I feel this is a useful belief for Nazis (since the thread was discussing them) and anyone else who wants to be superior. Secularists are horrified, but they say; one chosen animal (them) has dominion over all else…and then often follow Ms. Coulter! The only real difference between these positions is in how they define the other creatures they feel justified in persecuting. Christians wish they were superior to other creatures, including 99% of the human race apparently, and use God’s approval as a reason to believe. Secularists wish they were superior to other species, and just believe.
There’s no denying that “we” have dominion in some sense over various others, but what was or was not “human” is a social convention that has been defined mainly on religious grounds, those with souls, and is still being defined that way by Neo-Nazis, Rushdoonites, and their ilk. Just moving the goalposts to those having certain DNA—as opposed to skin color, baptism, set of beliefs—skirts the important question of what it means to ‘have dominion’. Atheists should have no problem with religious people who interpret that as Jesus probably did and disagree with Coulter.
We agree that objective science says nothing about morals–the distinction that non-equivalence needn’t entail moral hierarchy is a good one–and humans are simply one animal species amongst others, and any superiority or moral hierarchy we have to create and provide support for. As often as not atheist’s claims are based on a wish for, and belief in, our own superiority that is even less supported than those of the bible-thumpers. Bill’s post #90 offers some nice thoughts if anyone is still interested.
My mom and dad always used to say:
“Wish in one hand and shit in the other; see which one fills up faster.”
Can’t imagine why this reminded me of that.
De nada. My apologies if I overreacted… it’s just that this sort of “thinking out loud” on this topic has garnered me some nasty responses in the past, so I guess I’m a bit gunshy.
Since we’re not fighting after all, I’ll toss in a few more (hopefully brief, but with there are no sure things) thoughts:
Yeah, my cat probably objects, too!
But seriously… you and I could perfectly legally sell our cats at any time, and could have them put down more or less at our own convenience. If it were somehow metaphysically “true” that cats were people (as opposed to that notion just being the anthropomorphic whimsy of their owners), it would be hard to justify calling our relationship with them anything other than master-to-slave, regardless of how benign the conditions of their bondage. We only don’t slaughter them because our culture rejects (for the most part) eating the same animals we keep as pets. In Korea, where dogs and cats are generally not kept as pets, dogs are raised and slaughtered for food in very much the same way as pigs. (And while I’m somewhat reluctant to admit knowing this, they’re quite tasty.)
Well, as I’ve said, I have a small problem with that word “superior,” but I do have a “gut feeling” that there’s a real distinction of kind between people and not people. If I’m not to believe (as I don’t) that this distinction is the result of some divine mandate, and I’m not to engage in wishful thinking, I have to rationalize (in the precise, nonpejorative sense of the word) this innate sense of difference that I have.
As it happens, I think there are some functional and physical characteristics that make reasonable criteria for dividing Life As We Know It into people and not people: The ability not only to form complex abstract thoughts and narratives, but to communicate same to others and to record them for posterity; the ability to design, fabricate, and use sophisticated tools; the capability to intentionally change the physical environment on a large scale (i.e., “intentionally” = not coral reefs and “large scale” = not beaver dams); possession of both opposable thumbs and vocal organs; etc. (Note, BTW, that these criteria are not inherently dependent on DNA, even though it happens that I currently know of only one species that meets them. Show me others — space aliens, perhaps, or artificially “enhanced” animals as in Heinlein’s “Jerry Was a Man,” and I’ll happily expand my definition of “people” to include them.)
But even though this model strikes me as reasonable, I’m aware that it’s a matter of my own intellectual construction, rather than of natural fact. So on what basis can I “believe” it? That’s where my notion of social usefulness comes in: As long as this model is plausible, and more useful (in the sense of driving good behavior and/or not creating irremediable bad effects) than other models, I simply choose to believe it, until I encounter some objective fact that renders it implausible.
You see, it’s not so much a matter of deliberately believing some comforting thing that I know to be false. Rather, if I can’t know what’s “true” in some cosmic sense, why not use the model that produces the best results?
In any case, that’s the internal issue I’ve been working on in these conversations, the several times it’s come up: I eat meat and wear leather and own cats, and yet I’m thoroughly convinced I’m not a slavemaster or a mass murderer or a cannibal. To me it’s not a question of whether those things are morally justifiable; it’s a matter of trying to understand and codify why they are.
Hey, kids! If you’ve ever played the “Let’s Pretend” game, then you already know how to play the “Christian Believer” game… it’s fun and easy!
Nothing stupid Maryland does will ever surprise me.
the appeal of heaven is the absence of pain, not living forever.
living forever would not suck if you were free of worry, pain, fear, anxiety, etc. that is what they are promising.
benefits of atheism?
having you mind open for anything that may come along.
plus, i see how the “believers” suffer with doubt – not fun.
This is still not clear. Into what could an electron decay? Even proton decay has never been observed, nor is there a known theoretical reason why it should happen.
LOL!
If you can wish, you can believe.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball!