« Previous entries
October 14, 2007
Posted at 9:00 am by Richard and tagged death, eternity, funeral, joseph-brisendine, life, Nietzsche, philosophy, podcast, wedding. Popularity: 100% [?]
It seems common to think that Atheists cannot have a positive outlook on life, because the non-existence of god somehow denies life of any meaning.
I recently attended a funeral (not someone I knew, but I was there to support the family) followed closely by a wedding. And then, as if it was all part of some higher plan (irony intended), I find myself listening to this podcast which I downloaded a while ago, but hadn’t got around to listening to yet.
The funeral certainly reminded me of death (which, one might imagine, might be an unpleasant thing to think about), but because of my recent “brush with death”, I was able to appreciate the wedding so much more. Knowing that life will end (and will not go on forever, as many religious people might hope for) made the celebration much more special that it might have been otherwise. As Joseph Brisendine explains in the podcast - how long could you have a orgasm for before it became boring? Life is wonderful precisely because it ends.
If we were to “transcend” death, and live in a “perfect place” for eternity, nothing in this life would be special or have meaning, because we’d always be longing for this “other world”. And isn’t this exactly what religion teaches us? Religion (at least the Abrahamic ones, and probably most others) teach of an “after” life, which is supposed to be much grander and more fulfilling than this life ever can be.
It is claimed that without “God”, life cannot have purpose, but Nietzsche suggests (at least, Brisendine talking about Nietzsche) that it is only without God that this life can have any meaning.
The Philosophy of Nietzsche - Joseph Brisendine [67:52m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Permalink
Share This
September 16, 2007
Posted at 10:02 pm by Richard and tagged attis, c.s.lewis, christianity, criticism, dionysus, horus, jesus, movie, mythology, osiris, philosophy, youtube, zeitgeist. Popularity: 53% [?]
Even though I was never really a Christian (although I looked into it seriously for a year or so), I had always assumed that Jesus was, most likely, a real person. There’s a common argument which goes something like this:
“Either Jesus was crazy, or what he said must have been true. There’s no evidence he was crazy, therefore he must be the son of God”. Sure, there are plenty of other responses to this argument, but I think the two simplest ones are:
- Jesus was misquoted, or misconstrued
- Jesus never actually existed
I still maintain that if Jesus did actually exist, he would be quite unhappy about how his teachings have been butchered and interpreted today. So in some sense, I still believe the first option is quite likely. I had not, however (until recently) actually seriously considered the possibility that Jesus didn’t actually exist.
The bible talks about people we know existed, right? Various Kings and so forth? So, it’s fair to assume that Jesus also existed? Given that Jesus is such a central part of the Christian mythology, Christianity would fall if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was simply a myth, right (please, correct me if I’m wrong)? Well, this might just be true!
I first came across these two YouTube videos a while back, and it made me realise that, if true, it would be an amazing coincidence if he actually existed (of course, perhaps that was God’s plan to make Jesus even more difficult to believe, thus requiring more faith). Dionysus (one of the figures discussed in the videos) was supposedly born of a virgin, fathered by the king of heaven, turned water into wine, died and resurrected. Sound familiar? There are, apparently, many other mythical figures who have extraordinarily similar stories - all of which predate Jesus.
There seem to be many others out there who claim similar things, and while there is some criticism of some of these claims, there are, undoubtedly some parts of the Jesus story which were “borrowed” from earlier myths.
I plan to investigate this further, as I don’t believe it’s quite as clear as is suggested, but I wonder - how much of Jesus’ life has to be true for Christianity to remain?
Permalink
Share This
July 15, 2007
Posted at 5:03 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, atheism, belief, definitions, god, philosophy. Popularity: 93% [?]
Welcome Stumblers! This post seems to keep getting “stumbled” upon, so I just thought I’d leave this note to say, “Hi”, and please feel free to check out some of my other posts - the most popular ones are listed down the side of this page. Also feel free to if you like what you read. Also, I welcome , so don’t be shy!
While I was watching a documentary on the history of religion recently, my sister said to me “but aren’t you an Atheist?” At the time I replied, “no, I’m Agnostic”. It has made me think, however, about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.
While I generally describe myself as “agnostic”, and avoid describing myself as “atheist”, I could be viewed as both, depending on your definitions. As there seem to be many different views on what Atheism and Agnosticism entails, let me be very clear about what I take the meaning of these words to be.
Belief
Definitions for both Atheism and Agnosticism rely on the notion of “belief”, which itself can be contentious at times. For my purposes, when I say “belief”, I refer “to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true” Belief, here, does not imply any lack of certainty - even though it might sometimes in common usage.
Atheism
Atheism, it seems, can mean many things - but broadly it seems to fit one of two definitions:
- the doctrine or belief that there is no God, or
- a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
The first definition is the one which I had always taken (I’ll call this “hard” Atheism), and it is why I have never described myself as an “Atheist”. To me, to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God - possibly even more so. While it may (hypothetically) be possible one day to prove that there is a God (perhaps he shows himself in some incontestable way, or we find a scientific method for exploring “heaven”) proving the universal non-existence of something is impossible (we can prove something doesn’t exist in one place - say, a box that’s empty - but proving universal non-existence is very different).
The second (”soft”) definition of Atheism, however, is one I’d not been aware of until the last year or so. It seems this definition is common among Atheists, but in my experience it is certainly not the generally understood definition of Atheism. In this definition, Atheism is not the opposite to theism or religion, but an absence of it. It is in this sense that I am an Atheist, although without qualification, I still feel the word “atheist” misrepresents my views.
Agnosticism
This is where we get to Agnosticism. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge” and as such an Agnostic holds they they have no knowledge about the existence of God. This is not necessarily a “fence sitting” position, however, as Agnosticism (like Atheism) can be viewed in two subtly different ways:
- a religious orientation of doubt, or
- a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God
Certainly using this first definition (”soft” agnosticism), one could argue that the holder of this world-view is “fence sitting” - possibly still exploring or reasoning to discover the truth, or perhaps unable or unwilling to. But again, the second definition offers an entirely different position. A “hard” agnostic does not simply doubt the existence of God (and may, in fact, have faith that there is a God) but makes the claim that it is impossible to ever know if God does or does not exist.
When I describe myself as “Agnostic”, I make the claim that it is impossible to know if any of the Gods described by traditional religions exist. I am also, however, open to the idea that perhaps “God” (if he exists) is nothing like that described by traditional religion, and therefore may one day be provable. For me, the problem with the traditional notions of God are that proponents of these Gods leave no way to ever truly prove his existence - as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy joke goes:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
The Christian God, therefore, will always be out of the reach of science because as soon as it becomes answerable by science (no matter what the outcome), God will be relegated (by some, at least) to an even further “far away place ” so as to ensure the existence of God can never be proven.
So in this sense, I am a “hard” agnostic when it comes to Gods like that of Christianity (only because no one is willing to say exactly where this God might exist) but a “soft” agnostic when it comes to other possible higher powers. Either way, the existence of any such higher power seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible).
Permalink
Share This
July 14, 2007
Posted at 10:35 am by del.icio.us and tagged atheism, biology, creationism, design, evolution, feuerback, god, hegal, history, humour, islam, kant, koran, Links, marx, osama, pascal, philosophy, proof, religion, science, sex, stupidity, terrorism, usa, violence, virgins, women. Popularity: 38% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
July 12, 2007
Posted at 12:57 am by Richard and tagged christianity, humour, jesus, mohammed, philosophy, religion, socrates. Popularity: 11% [?]
I thought Jesus and Mo was a perfect combination to highlight the illogical nature of religion, but I was wrong - who could pick apart Christianity better than Socrates?
It’s a long read, but it seems to sum up Christianity quite well. A small snippet to tempt you:
Socrates: If God created man’s eyes, legs and mind, he also created man’s desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?
Jesus: He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.
Socrates: Who created man’s nature?
Jesus: God.
Socrates: It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.
Link: Socrates Meets Jesus
Permalink
Share This
June 23, 2007
Posted at 12:23 am by Richard and tagged conflict, dr-phil, freedom, hijab, philosophy, politics, religion, richard-dawkins, science, stupidity, university. Popularity: 15% [?]
Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously.
“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”
Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science - no question.
That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:
For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.
Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense
Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity - he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.
But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:
Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?
Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.
Permalink
Share This
« Previous entries
Posts
