For people who continue to make the assumption that their religion and their version of god have the monopoly on righteousness and the divine path, godlessness is often seen as the opposite of their ideal and is often equated with evil. Of course, there’s no use debating against fundamentalists who discriminate on the basis of your non-belief because there’s no way that they’ll ever admit that they’re wrong even if they already seen glaring anomalies within their own belief systems and religious organizations. I refuse to engage these people.
The month of December is a very exciting month for the predominantly roman catholic population of the Philippines. There are constitutionally-mandated extra wages and holidays as well as meteorological changes that inspires everyone to be a little bit more optimistic and kind.
Forget the fact that it’s merely a christian version of a once Pagan/roman feast. Christmas gives people hope and thanks to its strategic schedule (a week before the new year begins), everyone is generally happy around this time. I bet even the poor, the sick and the dying are happy. And in case they aren’t people reach out to them with countless gift drives to make sure that they feel part of the celebration.
With this much time, effort and resources flooding in to celebrate the significance of an event, you almost want it to be true. People want it to be true. Humans evolved through time following Darwinian concepts like the Survival of the Fittest, but it’s not all about physical prowess. As man’s brain developed, his emotions became more sophisticated and his mental well-being also needed sustenance. It was no longer about who could catch the most fish or lift the most food. Being able to be sane enough to provide for oneself and one’s family became pertinent as well. In a world filled with the dangers of natural disasters, unexplained phenomena like eclipses , wild animals and other hungry men, man needed something to hold on to – one concept that could eventually answer all the paranoia that that scenario must have promoted.
It’s still pretty much the same time – the dangers have changed, but we still live in a dangerous world. We still are exposed to factors that make life scary and downright random. But regardless of the time frame, wanting something to be real doesn’t have any effect on the veracity of the existence of a particular entity. People don’t necessarily understand that, but what the hell,right?
—-
In closing, let me share a photo of artwork made by children at the Cancer Institute:
You just want it to be real.
even if every part of you tells you that i can’t be.
Bookmark at:StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 24548 times by 2958 viewers
I don't see religion as a directly beneficial survival trait naturally selected because it helps reduce anxiety in those that have it. Rather, following the works of Pascal Boyer and Michael Shermer, religion started as and is sustained by the misuse or malfunction of our cognitive abilities.
Shermer likes to point out that we humans are "pattern seeking, story telling animals." Humans, and other animals, have a tendancy to see patterns in nature. It is vitally important to survival. We can deduce that during a drought most animals would converge in water holes. We can also figure out that whenever there's a thunderstorm, chances of forest fires increase. And people find faces in clouds (pareidolia).
As these predictively regular occurrences are noted by our ancestors, they began to hypothesize as to the reasons for the pattern. With our evolving brain, we have now become story tellers. Thunderstorms are caused by angry gods, droughts by the death of a god. If you do a certain activity and something bad happens, you might be tempted to see this as a pattern that needs to be explained through a tale. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Pascal Boyer suggests that, based on ethnographic studies on various indigenous groups, that humans tend to see intentionality in all actions. The tree did not just fall down, it was pushed down. Aristotle had a similar thought. He believed that an object seeks to go to its natural state. Birds fly because it's in their nature, while rocks thrown in the air fall down because they are compelled to return to their natural state. If everything is intentional, then if we can't find a human agent, we posit the existence of an unseen spirit realm. Thus is the beginning of spiritism and eventually religion.
References:
How we Believe by Michael Shermer
Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer
Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer
hmm.. Im just wondering Benji. If God does not exist, for you. Where do you derive your notion of "evil"?
Is Evil just a word for you? Why even consider something to be evil, If we are all merely a product of randomness and chaos?
I'm just wondering how an atheist would respond to something like that.
Thank you.
I don't believe in "evil" as a concept. Again, "good" as defined by a religion or philosophy is still up for debate and is still relative.
Bad things happen. These random acts are not related to all the other random bad acts that occur.
I really scoff at the premise that claim that their "fear in god" is the thing that keeps them sane and grounded. If you are to stretch the argument, the only thing keeping them from "sinning"/ doing crimes like murder and the like would be their fear of punishment. People use their god as their motivation to do good and refrain from doing bad things without really qualifying the innate value of an act that would be of benefit to oneself/ others.
Atheists who continue to behave as law-abiding citizens with a sound social conscience are more exemplary, imho. None of them are trying to get on god's good side. They just do what they do because those are the things that they feel is right.
Thank you.
Thank you for answering my question Benji. However, I think you failed to answer my question at its root.
you say:
"I really scoff at the premise that claim that their “fear in god” is the thing that keeps them sane and grounded. If you are to stretch the argument, the only thing keeping them from “sinning”/ doing crimes like murder and the like would be their fear of punishment."
- Certainly, a religious person would fear the stern arm of the law. But what if, hypothetically, there was no law. Are you saying that it is very conceivable that a religious bible-thumper, stranded in an island, could kill someone over the last piece of bacon? He could. But I'm betting his religious convictions would undoubtedly get the best of him.
you say:
"Atheists who continue to behave as law-abiding citizens with a sound social conscience are more exemplary, imho. None of them are trying to get on god’s good side. They just do what they do because those are the things that they feel is right"
But why even abide by the law? (If it is because of your fear of being ostracized if you don't, then I understand.) But Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual? How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given chemical reaction? That's all our thoughts are, isn't that right? Or, if there is a distinction, could you show how the premises of your atheism might produce such a distinction?
I'm sorry I ask too many questions.. Your in no obligation to offer clarifications.
Thank you =)
I remember a book story way back in grade school. it's title is "There's No Such Thing As Bad Boy". Interestingly, what is good that is stated in the Christian's Bible can be identified to the "good" that people follow, with or without the knowledge of the Christian God. It's even interesting to note that the Bible isn't silent about the salvation of "non-believers". yes, they too can be saved.
oh btw, when i say "saved", it's the Christian concept and story of salvation. for an atheist, salvation is unnecessary.
Ofcourse. Christians do not claim that the Bible is the author of Morality. No one would believe that prior to the 'Ten Commandments', civilization was at a state of immoral frenzy, killing, stealing, fornicating as they pleased.
There have been ethical advances that are due to the propagation of the faith, but that is not where the action is. Christians believe—as C. S. Lewis argued in The Abolition of Man—that nonbelievers do understand the basics of morality. Paul the apostle refers to the Gentiles, who did not have the law but who nevertheless knew by nature some of the tenets of the law (Rom. 2:14). But the world is not made better because people can understand the ways in which they are being bad. It has to be made better by Good News—we must receive the gift of forgiveness and the resultant ability to live more in conformity to a standard we already knew (but were necessarily failing to meet). So the gospel does not consist of new and improved law. The gospel makes the world better through Good News, not through guilt trips or good advice.
I second to that apologist.
"It’s still pretty much the same time – the dangers have changed, but we still live in a dangerous world. We still are exposed to factors that make life scary and downright random. But regardless of the time frame, wanting something to be real doesn’t have any effect on the veracity of the existence of a particular entity. People don’t necessarily understand that, but what the hell,right?"
- yes, that's right, the reality of this world is harsh, but that's really how it works.
and I'd rather have a hope that someday our God will bring salvation in this world than not. It's not out of fear, it's about the joy and excitement that God will come for us. This excitement what pushes a lot of people to live and more importantly to have a deeper meaning of their lives, that we're not just beings who accidentally sprung out of this world, but we are beings who have a pupose.
let's take for instance that in the end of the world, it happens that there is really no god, it's just fine, I lose nothing, but what's exciting is that at the end of time and there is really God, then that's gonna be the most wonderful thing that will ever happen to this world. I would opt to believe because I'm gonna be in a very safe side. though hypothetically thought, it might seem it's a coward position, but it's not, it's taking side in this world, because it's only either you believe or deny. I choose to believe eventhough no man and science can ever explain the fullness of the diviness of God. I choose to believe blindly because I know no matter what this world brings, I will be safe with myself taking side with HIM. It's all about spirituality and how you experience the goodness of God in our lives. This is something no one can ever explain. How happiness with God is not temporary or incidental in an event but forever felt. How through our experiences that we feel the goodness of God.
It might seem what I said is just wanting to make God real, but I believe not, it's just how I can simply tell of Him in my own words. I'm not in the position to declare the fullness of God because I simply can't and won't know. But one thing is for sure, God has always made ways to reveal himself to people, like to apostle Paul. He has a special time being prepared for you just like the prodigal son.
by the way, i'm not from US i'm from The Philippines. I don't know how to change that flag
Thank you Glenn.
You've just articulated to us, rather eloquently, your own personal version of 'Pascals Wager'. Blaise Pascal proposed this idea that in the end believers lose nothing either way, as opposed to non-believers having a 50-50 shot at losing everything.
I admire your convictions. However, lets pray that others do not stop there. Continue seeking God, and he will give you more reason to believe in him other than the fear of being at the losing end of the wager.
No one can ever prove Gods existence empirically. He is beyond anything that is empirical, since he created everything. Therefore nothing can encompass Him. When you go to the kitchen and see spilled milk, you don't ask the milk how it got there. The milk is the accident!
Atheists,
No one can prove to you that God exists. Only you can prove it to yourself. Seek Him with an open heart. Lose the pre-suppositions and seek him. Contrary to what Atheists believe, us Theists are not suspended in a state of wishful thinking. Alot of the people who espouse to have felt God's presence in one way or another have done so because they sought Him out with an open heart.
Pascal's wager still comes across as the single most unsophisticated reason to believe. Belief, in my honest opinion, is not a matter of choice. There are just some ideas that seem to seem to fall under the category of "delusion" and "wishful thinking" once you think about it.
The jump from the "existence of god" argument to the "how the christian god is the REAL god" is just so vast that I often feel like that the christians hijacked the concept to a certain extent.
I agree that Pascals Wager is a somewhat shallow reason for believing in the divine. But a legitimate reason nonetheless.
I quite agree with you that we ought not to resist evidence that may at first sight appear unwelcome or unsettling. But this is not really a deep agreement, for we immediately go on to differ over which one of us is failing to honor this quite obvious principle. You say that there is no compelling reason to believe in God. But ask yourself, why is there something instead of nothing? Is that not compelling reason enough?
It seems to me that it is either 1.we created ourselves, 2.we existed eternally, or 3.we were created – are the only options we have that could answer the most important cosmological question of all time : Why are we here?
"The "jump" in belief of a God to the Christian God is tricky. But Rick Warren explained his "jump" profoundly : "We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision."
Jesus forces you to make a decision. Its either you believe or you don't. Its either this mild, meek, wonderful, and generous man who imparted such great wisdom on human morality was the worlds biggest hoax. Or he was the real deal. No other religion forces you to make a decision like that. You either believe, or you don't.
Merry Christmas, Benj c;
Things are as real as people want them to be.
Hi there! I’m Roxanne Flora, a student from the College of Mass Communication in the University of the Philippines Diliman. Our thesis is about the Bloggers’ Code of Ethics. Being one of the winners in the recently held Pinoy Blog Awards, we would like to ask if you could be one of our interviewees. Thank you so much! We hope to hear from you soon! Happy holidays!
Roxanne P. Flora
09062819274
roxannepflora@yahoo.com.ph
make it real then.
-arvin, nagbabalik. haha!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
new link din. update. update!
I have long ceased to believe in the sincerity of sects and religions, but that does not imply that I do not believe in God. I agree with the Apologist that there has to be a transcendent entity Who forged life out of primordial emptiness. It could be nature or destiny or some principal Being Who is responsible for bringing a perfect order of the universe. From birth until now we cannot exist solely upon ourselves unless we possess tremendous power able for us to defeat Death, but the presence of Death itself tells us that there must be a superior force who exercises that power to exact a boundary to our existence. Death is a part of that macrocosmic order, without which man is ever-powerful, and without the existence of the omnipresent Controller everything will be unwieldy and in utter chaos because of vast conflicting powers. Anyway, whatever the product of our reasoning is not solely a result of our mental/physiological process; it emanates from one invisible source. Aquinas called it Reason coming from God. Similarly I call it an invisible endowment from the Creator.
Thus, God does exist.
Evidence, people, evidence. Where is the evidence that your god exists? The assertion that there *has* to be a transcendent entity is simply an assertion; a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "I don't understand, therefore god did it."
"Evidence, people, evidence. Where is the evidence that your god exists? "
- The problem lies in the way you ask the question. You, seem to be asking it from a scientific point of view. No one can blame you for choosing such a path to take, since we all have a propensity to adhere to the restrictions of our materialistic world view.
The evidence, however, becomes more palpable once you realize that the question is not a scientific one, but a philosophical or religious one.
You, ofcourse, cannot find within this universe evidence of anything that transcends this universe.
Why is there something when there can and should, if you subscribe to an atheistic worldview, be nothing? Why is there rationality when there can and should, if you subscribe to an atheistic worldview, be nothing?
The question is not scientific. It is philosophical and religious and should be derived as such.
Apologist, if you admit that God has no empirical basis in fact, you have just conceded the argument.
Micketymoc,
I didn't concede anything. I did not say that God had no empirical basis. I'm sorry if my comments were phrased sloppily as to be misconstrued that way.
God, ofcourse, has "empirical basis", because a lot of our notions about Him were gained by 'experience'. What I meant to say, and would concede to, was that we will probably never have 'empirical evidence' of His existence. I alluded to the 'spilled milk' argument on this. If the material universe can encompass God, then he wouldn't be God. I don't think there is anything new about this 'concession'.
Like I said, on the existence about God, it is a Philosophical and religious 'question' and not a scientific one.
So we're going the non-overlapping magisteria route huh? Well, good luck. If the matter is beyond the reach of science, then it is most certainly beyond the reach of theology.
Science is concerned with things that exist and how they work, so if you say he exists, then he is subject to scientific scrutiny. So far, nothing really is in favor of his existence and people seem to just come up with ways to make the subject untouchable.
"so if you say he exists, then he is subject to scientific scrutiny. "
Are you saying that everything could be subjected to scientific scrutiny? Can Science tell us how to live a 'well-lived' life? Is a well-lived life subject to scientific scrutiny? How about rationality? How does science account for a 'rational mind' evolving from an irrational universe? Can 'morality' be subjected to scientific scrutiny as well?
The subject is not "untouchable". Your a smart man. If you use your logical reasoning and ask Philosophical/ religious questions on the subject, you will arrive at the conclusion that the only 'logical' answer is a God exists.
If you try to tackle the questions from a scientific standpoint. Then, ofcourse you wont arrive at the same conclusion (So far as we know. Who knows though in the future). God won't be God if he could be subjected to empirical testing. You don't ask the spilled milk how it got there.
So, no, the subject isn't "untouchable". You are simply using the wrong method to try and "touch" it.