Reality | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'reality' Category

Are belief and unbelief morally neutral?

Published

on December 12, 2007

in faith, morality, reality and religion

. 4 Comments

Alonzo Fyfe of Atheist Ethicist wrote, more than once, that

The proposition, “At least one god exists” and the proposition “It is not the case that at least one god exists” are both morally neutral.

Taken at face value, they certainly are, and nowhere in this post will I imply something like “you can’t be a good person if you believe in God” (many believers, on the other hand, love to frequently insult atheists by claiming the opposite…). However…

Imagine the following scenario (I think I read a similar example somewhere, maybe in The End of Faith, but I’m not at home right now and can’t confirm it): there’s a school bus driver whose bus’s tires are long past inspection time. People at his school have warned him of that, but he believes that his tires are “blessed” and will be just fine, that they don’t need changing. His belief is pleasing to him, even comforts him. The facts that they don’t grip the road so well, or that they look old, or that so many people have warned him about it (but can’t force his hand since that would be “disrespecting his belief”) don’t make a difference; he has “faith” in his ability, in his bus, and in its tires.

Then, one day, a tire blows up. There is a big accident, and dozens of children die. Is that driver responsible for it? Was he guilty of the deaths of so many schoolchildren? Was he morally wrong? Even though he loved children and didn’t wish them any harm?

Of course he was. In fact, he would have been morally wrong (and culpable) even if, somehow, he was lucky and no serious accident ever happened until his retirement.

He was guilty of ignoring evidence and clinging to an unsubstantiated belief, just because it made him “feel good”. He was guilty of being absolutely certain, when there was no reason for it. He was guilty of putting a cherished belief above reality. He was guilty of being irrational, of being irresponsible, of being intellectually dishonest, both with himself and with reality.

Honesty is not just not lying to other people, or not cheating on your taxes, or something that needs to involve other people. Honesty also includes being honest with yourself, and trying to be aware of reality to the best of your ability, instead of deliberately ignoring it, ignoring evidence and facts, just because they are somehow “displeasing” or would force you to abandon a cherished belief.

The point of that story is that the driver was irresponsible, and morally culpable, because he chose to dishonestly ignore reality. He had no right to close his eyes to a fact he didn’t like, to be intentionally blind, and to put others in danger because of it. This is regardless of whether an accident actually happened.

Faith — defined as having one or more beliefs that are unsubstantiated by evidence, and, often, despite contradicting evidence — is morally wrong, because it is intellectually dishonest… and potentially dangerous. After all, if you don’t require a shred of evidence to be 100% certain of a belief, then you can potentially believe anything. And many people do.

And, if faith is morally wrong, then belief in a god — which can’t happen without faith — is also morally wrong. Even if the bus driver happens not to have an accident, or if the believer happens not to harm anyone.

Gullibility Test

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 18, 2007

in reality

. 6 Comments

Hermann Klinke emailed me recently about this Gullibility Test. It’s relatively short, and may be educating in some areas.

I got a “91% free thinker” result, which is quite good, but then again I’ve always been a little paranoid, and it helps on this. The best part of the test, IMO, is the results page, which explains each of the questions (and the truth about them) in more detail, with links to more info about each. While I’m not 100% sure that all their explanations / data are absolutely correct (I’m paranoid / skeptical here, too…), most of them should be.

Ebon Musings: "A Much Greater God"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 12, 2006

in reality and religion

. 2 Comments

This is, in a way, a response to a pair of comments by Jon in my previous post. Jon agrees that the theists’ gods are too small and obviously man-invented, but that that doesn’t discount the possibility of a “real” god, a much greater intelligence, to which we are like amoeba are to us, and therefore incapable of understanding.

I could write about it, but I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel :), and, besides, there’s an essay at Ebon Musings that is better and clearer than what I could write right now. It’s called A Much Greater God, and I will quote from it (it’s much longer, and doesn’t start with the part I’m quoting; I really suggest you read the whole of it.)

Consider honestly the possibility that you might be wrong, accept the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, and then ask yourself: Does the evidence make more sense from this perspective? Is the world I live in the one I would expect to see if this hypothesis is true, or is this the world I would expect under its negation?

As an atheist, I too must face this possibility. What if I am wrong? What if there really is a deity somewhere out there?

I cannot discount this possibility out of hand. Granted, I have never seen any supernatural event occur, and the regularity of natural law gives me strong reason to believe none ever have or will, but that is an inductive argument, and induction by its nature can never give absolute proof. Even if a proposition has always held true within the realm of our experience, we are never justified in concluding with complete certainty that the same will always be true at all places and all times.

However, given that there is a bare possibility I could be wrong, the question arises - what next? That possibility alone offers no guide to finding out what the truth actually is. Assuming one of the religions in this world is correct, how would I find that out? Where would I begin my search? Without any a priori judgment as to which religion is correct - which is, after all, what I am presumably trying to determine - it seems the only thing to do would be to select and examine them randomly, but this is clearly unsatisfactory. Even if one of the religions in this world was the true one, I would probably never find it by this method. As “The Cosmic Shell Game” argues, there are so many religions on this planet that one lifetime would not be enough to examine all or even most of them in any acceptable level of detail.

Nevertheless, of the ones I have studied so far, my preliminary conclusion is that they are all incorrect; I have examined them and found them wanting. Most religions championed by people were obviously invented by people, and the tenets of their belief betray their origins. Their gods are just like human beings, only slightly larger. They become angry and then forgive, they show jealousy and favoritism, they can be surprised, disgusted, grieved or dismayed, they bear grudges and love those who stroke their egos, and they are capable of both tremendous good and terrible evil. The way most religions reflect the prejudices of their creators is all too obvious: what these people imagine to be a window through which they can see God is in truth a mirror held up to their own faces. We human beings are the contingent result of millions of years of evolution, our emotions arising from neurotransmitters secreted by our glands, our behavior influenced by primitive impulses of territoriality, kinship, pleasure and aggression, and our brain shaped and conditioned by countless thousands of chance events during our species’ history - and we have the temerity to believe that God would think and act just like us?

These anthropomorphic belief systems can be safely discounted. In fact, I would confidently say that all the religions propounded by human beings so far throughout our species’ history are most likely false. I have not examined each and every one of them in exhaustive detail, but as one belief system after another falls before skeptical scrutiny, as supernaturalism fails test after test, there comes a point when we are justified in forming an inductive generalization. Until and unless better evidence for one belief system turns up, we are within our rights to consider them all untrue.

But just because the religions created by humans are false, it does not logically follow that there is no deity at all. What if there is something out there, something that no one has discovered yet, something we have all overlooked simply because it is too vast and too unlike us? Beyond the savagery and the madness, beyond the fervent hopes and hot-headed delusions, beyond the pretenses and the postures - beyond the human-created religions that are above all else too small, viewing this world, this dust speck, this pale blue dot - or even one small local region of it - as the all-important stage on which the cosmic drama is played out, while the entire inconceivable vastness of the rest of the universe is simply a backdrop - beyond all this, could there be a much greater god? Could there be an entity “whose dreams are constellations”, as Robert Ingersoll put it, and whose individual flashing neurons are suns? When we look into the night sky, could we be viewing the latticework of thought on a scale beyond our comprehension? Could the entire universe be merely a fleeting idea in the mind of a being so vast we could not recognize it for what it is any more than an ant could recognize a skyscraper as the product of design?

This is the god of the cosmic microwave background radiation, of the universal expansion, of the vast star-forming nebulae and the cataclysmic explosions of stellar death, of the great walls of galaxies and the even more enormous voids. If cosmologists ever find a god, it will be this one, not the tiny god of Moses who thought that parting a miniscule amount of water on an insignificant planet so a single tribe could pass unhindered was a great miracle - that god is a child making sandcastles on the beach. This god, if it exists, would be large enough to fit the universe.

Near the end, he goes on to say:

I am not saying I believe in the being outlined in this essay; I do not. The disadvantage of a god that is too vast for us to recognize is that we cannot recognize it. It is difficult even to imagine what would count as evidence for the existence of such a being, and in the absence of such evidence, logically we must go with the simpler explanation. I acknowledge the possibility that a greater god exists, but possibility is not the same as proof, and until truly convincing evidence turns up, I will and must remain an atheist.

Note: I usually don’t quote so much from other sites, but I believe that, in this case, it’s more than deserved. If you have the time and inclination, I suggest you read the essay in full, it’s worth it.

Religion: not really harmful?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on November 14, 2006

in christianity, reality, reason and religion

. 21 Comments

An argument I’ve seen before, in blogs, forums and so on, is this: that it doesn’t really matter whether God exists or not; religion does good, makes people live happier lives, and so it should be accepted, perhaps even encouraged.

It’s not something a fundamentalist theist would say, of course, but both liberal theists and some non-theists have argued for that. Do you agree with them? Or do you see a problem with it?

I do see a problem. Several, in fact.

First, we must question whether religion really does good. One could, here, cite the usual examples: the Inquisition, crusades, witch burnings, the harassment of scientists, the slaughtering of other cultures, and so on.

To which the proponents of that point would reply: that’s mostly in the past. Religion also does charity work around the world. And, anyway, believing in an all-loving God, in life after death, in going to a place of eternal bliss (if you behaved and believed, that is) after you die, makes people feel better, more comfortable. That’s a good thing, right?

Well, first of all, while those examples are mostly past ones, there are still many bad things coming from religion these days: banning of contraceptives, pedophile priests, “intelligent design” / anti-evolution / anti-science teaching, banning of stem cell research, attacks on abortion, and the general anti-reason, pro-blind faith teachings.

Second, it’s not necessarily true that religion makes people feel better. Even though many Christian sites try as hard as they can to convince readers that atheists must undoubtedly lead sad lives of grey emptiness and hopeless despair, it’s simply not true - as you can confirm by reading many atheist blogs and sites. Not wanting to start that discussion again (at least for now), many Christians tend to believe that this world is Satan’s, that there’s no point to this life except as a “test” to see whether you go to heaven or hell, that there’s no reason to try, in any way, to make either the world, or your life, any better, since it’s not “the real thing” anyway. It’s certainly not all of them, but there are far too many Christians of the “take me, lord Jesus!” variety for it to be a coincidence. And most Christians, to put it simply, believe that their lives don’t actually belong to them. How is that different from earthly slavery? How is that “good”?

However, even if it was shown that theists, on average, were a little happier than non-theists, there would still be a problem with encouraging belief, independently of whether God actually exists. A huge one, in fact.

Reality. And the (then) necessary evasion of it.

Young children live in fantasy worlds of their own making, and that’s perfectly normal and healthy. But adults aren’t supposed to live like that. We’re supposed to live in the real world, no matter how much we love fantasy or science fiction (and I do!). Any scientist, any inventor, any creator, was only able to do what he did because he dealt with reality on its own terms. Because he accepted that reality exists, that it’s not fluid, and that only by dealing with it honestly, without deluding himself, could he begin to understand it, to learn how it works, and how to use it to his own advantage.

Suppose you end up on a deserted island. You’re hungry. Do you try to find some berries to eat? Try to make a rudimentary weapon to hunt or fish? You’re cold. Do you attempt to build some kind of shelter?

Or do you simply refuse to believe in the facts around you? Believe as if you’re in a dream, and will wake up at any minute? Or, perhaps, simply sit and pray to God to save you?

The first case is of a man who accepts that reality is real, and deals with it honestly. The second one doesn’t, and, while he may have some comforting delusions for a while, he’s the one — I think you won’t dispute that — most likely to die of starvation in a couple of days.

Honesty isn’t just something desirable when dealing with others. It’s not merely something “social”. Honesty, when dealing with reality, can mean the difference between life and death.

Therefore, a belief in something that doesn’t exist, that isn’t real, is dishonest. It’s an evasion of reality - an immature, cowardly one, too. Encouraging it is harmful - it holds back one’s development as a rational adult, leaving one like a crippled being who, as a supposed “grown-up”, still has to run to his little fantasies and delusions, because reality is too scary for him to cope with.

In short: the only reason, the only possible motive to encourage religion would be if it was true - that is, if God really existed, and did so according to people’s beliefs. Because they certainly only cause harm — both in the physical and mental senses — otherwise.

Reply to A Christian Reply to An Open-Minded Atheist Reply to Christianity (PART 1) (whew!)

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 30, 2006

in atheism, christianity, reality and religion

. 8 Comments

So, this post is a reply to this post, which is a reply to this post of mine, which was itself a reply to… yes, confusing, I know.

Anyway, here goes nothing…

Because the majority of Christians are not even Christians in the real sense of the word. And because the majority of people operate and live as if God doesn’t exist. Just look at a typical day in the life today and contrast it to the life and times of Jesus and His followers. The differences are huge. That’s why I say that atheism is all around us. Where there is no belief in God being expressed, there is a belief that there is no God being expressed. More about this down below.

First, it’s the “No true Scotsman” fallacy again. If we asked them, they’d say they are Christians.

You say they aren’t, for a reason: they’re not fanatical enough. To you, it’s not enough to believe in God and try to follow the usual tenets of Christianity. No, to you, you have to live for God all the time, doing everything in terms of “does God want this?”. Any entertainment you watch must praise God, any book you read must be about God, any movie you watch is “atheist” if God isn’t mentioned every 5 minutes.

As I said before, to me, that’s no more than a death in life. And only someone who hates his own life would choose to “live” like that.

The sad thing is that there are some Christians out there to whom you aren’t a true Christian either, because you’re not fanatical enough. They’re the ones like this nutcase. Or the ones who bomb abortion clinics.

The Bible knows it too. It often states that the sheep of this age are in desperate need of a shepherd. And it tells us to let Jesus be our shepherd.

Thanks, but I don’t need a shepherd. I’m not a sheep. I’m a human being. I think for myself, instead of just following others.

The true meaning of Christianity is becoming lost in this bombarding age of distractions.

Like I said above. Anything which doesn’t mention God or Christ or salvation is, to you, a “distraction”. You must really hate this world and this life, don’t you?

For the only good Christian is Christ. And no one can or ever will compare.

From everything I’ve read about Christian history, Jesus was everything but a Christian. Christianity was founded by Paul, who never even met Jesus, and whose writings, while repeating to exhaustion how Jesus was divine, ignore completely any of Jesus’ teachings, and anything he ever did or said. This is not some “evil heresy” from an atheist; it’s right there in your Bible.

You choose to deal with your perception of reality, not reality. We have no proof of what reality is. We cannot prove that what we live is in fact real. Fooled by the experience, we believe that we’re alive and this is reality.

So, you accept that it’s likely that you didn’t really write the above in your blog? How can you be sure that you did? You cannot prove it. Maybe you only think you remember it.

You know, in the Dark Ages, peasants lived in fear of the unknown, “seeing” demons and spirits in every darkened corner. They had no idea of what was real and what wasn’t. Reality, to them, was something fluid, ever-changing, and unknowable.

Then the Renaissance came, and it took man out of the Dark Ages. However, some of us still choose to deny reality…

The Bible is over 2000 years old and still holds true when talking about society and the world around us. The times have changed but they really havent.

The Bible promotes slavery and the inferiority of women. In fact, many Christians fought emancipation due to that.
Most liberal Christians (which you’ll call “untrue Christians”) accept that the Bible reflects the prejudices of the times. But there are some who take it literally.

Do you really wish to go back to slavery and women as inferior beings?

If not, I hope you’ll also accept that the Bible does not hold true when talking about society and the world around us.

Time is an illusion.

Lunchtime, doubly so. (Never say such a thing to a Douglas Adams fan! :))

Just read through portions of it. Clearly, its not the thinking of man that has gone into this book. It’s the thinking of a God.

Oh, I did. More than you imagine. That’s why I know that no god would be so incompetent to write - let alone allow himself to be represented by - a book so prejudiced, so self-contradictory, and which paints a picture of such a small, jealous, childish, spoiled god.

No, but I meant that an Atheist would engage in self-indulgent social gatherings more than a real Christian would. By attending and being attentive, you’re giving glory to the sport. And, unless you work there, if you’re attending a sports stadium more often than you would be attending a Church, then you’re probably not being Christian-like.

Again, I don’t think you really know any atheists. You simply use that word for any Christian who doesn’t praise God every 10 seconds. Fact is, most people in such sports gatherings are Christians. In fact, I’d say that the percentage of Christians there is greater than outside.

That’s the problem with humans. If it’s common, its believable. The minute it evades our tangible spectrum of reality, we take it as being impossible.

Not quite. We simply ask for evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is none.

Having an imagination is a necessary component for faith. We were all given an imagination for a reason.

Oh, but I have an imagination. I love fantasy. However, I don’t confuse it with reality.

I don’t mean that there are more atheists than Christians. Though there are more Christians than atheists, most Christians live and operate in a way that is more atheist than Christian-like.

To you, it may seem that way. To me, it’s the opposite.

You say they are like atheists because they don’t give up everything in their lives - their joys, their dreams, their goals, their very right to live - for God. Because they don’t praise God every minute. Because they don’t live for God, even though they believe in him and pray to him. Because they don’t go to church every day, only on sundays.

To me, they’re Christians. They believe in God, they pray, they believe they will go to heaven, they accept things on faith without questioning, and they think atheists are “evil unpatriotic monsters”, or some other garbage. They aren’t curious. They don’t want to learn more. They aren’t interested in science or truth, they just want to go on living their comfortable fantasies.

They’re Christians. They simply aren’t as fanatical.

But, believe me, they’re much closer to you than they are to me. They’d see you as perhaps a bit strict and unyielding, but an altogether good example to follow. They’d see me as trouble, and would forbid their daughters to date me. Don’t believe me?

Christianity is a love for all of mankind and a hate toward human nature, which is sin.

No, it isn’t. I don’t even believe in “human nature”; I think we make choices. Each and every one of us.
“Sin” implies the existence of a god. I don’t think there’s one. And, anyway, that belief is nothing more than a source of guilt and self-hatred.

I really don’t understand how someone can be free and love life, and then some preacher comes and says “you’re a sinner, your nature is evil, and you must repent and hate this world and your life and…” Really, how can anyone be so blind as to accept such rubbish? That preacher just turned someone’s full, healthy life into a world of guilt and suffering; who’s really “evil”, here? Why are we sinners? Even if the Bible was correct, we’d be sinners because of what some ancestor did? Since when is anyone culpable for the actions of someone else? What distorted “justice” is that? That’s monstrous… and yet we’re supposed to accept it as true?

Without a god, we are free. Our lives are our own. I don’t understand how people can give that up.

If I was never told about God then I would use words such as comfort, peace, hope, love, security, guidance, light, and joy, to describe what I felt. And would you look at that. What a coincidence. They’re all the things the Bible says God is, and more.

So, the god of the OT, who, in temper tantrums, killed not only the offender but, usually, everyone around him… the god who said that people who worked on saturdays should be put to death… the god who tortured the innocent Job just to prove how great he was… the god who (it’s right there in the Bible) “hardened” the Pharaoh’s heart just so he could perform all of his murderous pyrotechnics, including killing all the cattle of Egypt several times (!), and every first born, including innocent children…

… was that a different god?

The "death" of skepticism?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 18, 2006

in reality and reason

. 2 Comments

Steve Pavlina, whom I’ve already mentioned here a couple of times, is one of my favorite bloggers. His posts about improving one’s life are incredibly insightful, brilliantly argued, and a joy to read - not to mention that he (through his posts) actually helped in my decision of quitting my job and writing / blogging full time.

However, lately there’s been a growing vein of new age mysticism in his writing, which is worrying - and, in a way, enlightening about human nature. It also serves as a warning.

A recent example is this post, The Death of Skepticism.

Now, Steve, as I said, is obviously a very intelligent guy, and a great writer. But… there is something seriously wrong in a post like that one. I won’t dissect his entire post here, only some parts which should be ringing every alarm bell in any rational human being.

Apparently it’s cool to be a doubter these days.

Ahem… In which planet do you live, Steve? I’d like to move there, because it sounds much more rational and sane than the planet I live in, where skeptics are called “materialist”, “cold and grey”, and, if you’re in a more fundamentalist country like the U.S., you’re also a “communist”, “traitor”, “terrorist”, “anti-american”, and absurdities like that.

Steve, IT’S NOT COOL TO BE A DOUBTER THESE DAYS! I wish it was, but it isn’t. There are almost no skeptics left - it’s absolutely “uncool” to be one. Religious fundamentalism is rising. Cults and sects thrive everywhere. “Mediums” of all kind are getting rich, and more and more appear each day. If anyone is “persecuted”, or at least discriminated against, it’s atheists, secular humanists, and skeptics in general.

I realized that if the universe were actually subjective, I’d never recognize it as such if I believed it was objective, since I’d simply manifest an objective universe.

I see several problems with that:

1- did you never dream, or imagine stuff? As a child, didn’t you ever believe that there were monsters under the bed, or stuff like that? Did the monsters actually appear? Did they come into existence? I don’t think so.

2- are you the only being in the world? By your “logic”, if thoughts create reality but you weren’t doing it because you believed reality was objective, then others should have been doing it, anyway. Did you see anything? Did anything strange happen? Ever had a neighbor with “weird powers”? Sorry, but I’m betting otherwise.

Unfortunately, testing for subjectivity is an oxymoron. You can’t actually test for a subjective universe. The whole idea of testing implies doubt, and doubt will corrupt the test if the universe really is subjective.

Sorry, Steve, but this is nonsense. This kind of mentality requires - and ends causing - a conscious intellectual reduction, so that you begin to believe things your rational mind knows not to be true. You have to “repress” your reason, and force yourself to believe such things are true - and, after you do, since the human mind is easily influenced, it’s easy to “see” them, even if they aren’t really happening.

If you convince yourself that you have mental powers, that you feel precognitive “flashes”, then you will feel them, but you will only notice - and remember - those that coincided with reality. You’ll count the hits and ignore the misses - even if the “misses” are a much greater number, and the “hits” are no more than the average for any person. After all, you are forcing yourself to believe.

Looking at it from a different angle: if, for your “powers” to work, you need to be completely un-skeptic, free of doubt… then why not ask someone else to test them? You may be doubt-free, and leave the skepticism needed for testing to another person. Or are your powers so feeble that even someone else’s skepticism is enough to hinder them? Do they only work if you’re surrounded by blind believers, who believe anything? Is the proximity of a rational being like kryptonite to you?

Really, it actually does me good to see posts like this. It’s a lesson - even geniuses can fall prey to irrationality, to wishful thinking. Much like freedom, the price of rationality is eternal vigilance.

"Closed minds"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 13, 2006

in logic, reality, reason and relativism

. 13 Comments

Unless you’re some kind of religious fundamentalist, it’s likely that you will agree that an open mind is a positive quality. And, when arguing, both you and your opponents should be on guard against having a closed mind, that is, refusing to even consider the possibility that you are wrong.

However, some people - I see this from time to time - use the “you don’t have an open mind!” argument in a very peculiar way…

It goes like this:

Person A: “2 plus 2 equals 4.”

Person B: “That’s very closed-minded. You’re not even considering the possibility that you’re wrong, and that 2 + 2 equals something other than 4. You refuse to listen to any opinions or ideas different from your own. Other people may believe that 2 + 2 equals, say, 5, and who’s to say that you know better than them? How can you be so arrogantly sure? You talk about keeping an open mind, and yet you accept on faith than 2 + 2 equals 4, and refuse to think further about it. That’s dogmatic, like any religion.”

<sigh>

Yes, relativism is a terrible thing - it denies the existence of facts, of an objective reality. To a relativist, there are no facts, only opinions, and there’s nothing that says that one is better or truer than another. A relativist prides himself on “an open mind”, because, after all, he’s prepared to believe anything and everything, without judging, without using his mind at all.

However, that attitude is nothing more than a refusal to think and to deal with an objective reality on its terms. It’s pure cowardice - reality is scary, so you deny it.

An open mind does not mean denying the existence of facts. That’s just an absurd distortion of the concept.

A reply to my Anti-Intellectualism post

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 9, 2006

in reality, reason and religion

. 1 Comment

Kent Newsome has commented (thanks, Blogger Web Comments) on my post about anti-intellectualism, a few days ago. And I feel I must comment on one of his comments.

[...] I feel compelled to point out that I don’t buy the fact that intelligence and learning are inconsistent with religion and faith.

The essence of faith is to believe what you cannot prove. If you question it, if you can make the argument that it is logically impossible, yet you still believe it- that is faith. The more capable you are to question it, the stronger your faith is when you conclude that you believe it anyway.

True, that is faith. But how is that different from beliving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

If faith is knowing that something cannot logically, rationally, be true, and, yet, still believing in it… then why stop at one rationally impossible thing? Why not believe in anything that suits your fancy? Why not believe that all pink objects are alive and sentient, for instance?

If your mind and your reasoning tells you there probably isn’t a god, your eyes see no traces of a god, science explains more and more, up to a point that what is left for God, even if nothing further was explained by science, isn’t really that much… and you still believe there is a God… why? Why is that? What is the source of your belief?

Wishful thinking? A “feeling you can’t describe”? The need for “something greater than yourself”? Indoctrination?

And why “God”? Why not someone or something else, equally supernatural, unknowable and untestable? Why not several things at once? The existence of the supernatural already contradicts science and observation of reality, so why not believe - with all your heart, of course - in two different supernatural beings whose existence contradicts one another, as they are both supposed to have created the universe, at different times, and in different ways? After all, “faith is knowing that it is logically impossible, yet believing in it”… right?

Neanderthals and the Bible

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 30, 2006

in reality and religion

. 24 Comments

Here’s a question for any Christians who believe everything in the Bible is true (I’d call them “fundamentalists”, which was what they used to call themselves, I believe, but the word has a negative association these days): what about Neanderthals?

If you believe in the Bible, including Genesis, you believe in Creationism, and that means that such a thing as “cavemen” could never have existed; the first men in the Bible, both in Eden (Adam and Eve) and shortly after (Seth, Cain, Noah and so on) are described as civilized, having a society, building cities, and so on.

So, according to Bible-based Creationism, there never was such a thing as Neanderthals (or indeed any of these species), living in caves, being more advanced than apes yet less than men. Not to mention that they are supposed to have lived millions of years ago… hey, isn’t the universe just 6000 years old?

But… where do all these fossils come from?

Logically, a Christian would have to accept one of the following:

the fossils are all fakes, created by scientists and other “enemies of faith”, to discredit Creationism
God created the fossils to “test our faith”, making them appear much older than they really are, to all scientific tests - not to mention the fact that they are from beings that never actually existed
Genesis is, at least in part, a fictional book

So… which is it?
Biblical costumes for Easter Passion Plays and Christmas events.

Stupidity and consequences

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 1, 2005

in reality, reason and responsibility

. 3 Comments

I bet most people have been in a situation like this: you warn a friend or relative not to do something, because it will have bad consequences. That person ignores you and does it anyway. And then you do something to protect that person from those bad consequences - maybe even sacrificing yourself so it is you who suffers them.

And you probably believe that makes you a good, caring friend.

Here’s some news: by doing that, you are only harming that person in the long run. And believe me, I’ve committed that error myself. But I try not to, any more.

Continue reading ‘Stupidity and consequences’

The “power” of prayer

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 31, 2005

in mysticism, reality and religion

. 14 Comments

The Christian Bible says that “faith can move mountains”.

Me, I believe all the faith in the world can’t move a grain of sand one millimeter.

But, of course, don’t take my word for it. Here’s something to do, if you’re a Christian (but it can work as well if you subscribe to some other creed which says faith has power over the material world):

Pick a perfectly normal coin.
Pray to God, fervently, with all your heart, for it to come up as “heads” when you throw it into the air.
Throw it into the air.
Write down the result in a piece of paper.
Repeat 2-4 a large number of times (at least 100, preferably more).
Calculate the average for “heads” (number or “heads” results divided by number of total throws).
The average is a number between 0 and 1, so multiply it by 100 to get a nice percentage.

So, tell me… did it go the way you expected? And did you go the way you prayed it to go? Were they the same, by the way?

I’d bet (assuming a perfectly normal coin, well thrown, a large number of times) that the average is close to 50% - about half heads, half tails. If so, that means it was random - that prayer didn’t change a thing. (If it was 90% “heads” or more, though, and you can reproduce it whenever you want, even using other coins, or having someone else do the throw while you pray, then, why, you’re a million dollars richer…)

What happened (assuming the normal 45%-55% result)? Did God refuse to be tested by our “heathen” “secular” “worldly” science?

    ”I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
    ”But,” say 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 though of that” and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

— Douglas Adams

Conversations with “mystics”

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 30, 2005

in honesty, reality, reason, religion and thinking

. 12 Comments

Let me know if this is familiar to you. (Though maybe you’ve been on the opposite side…)

You meet someone, maybe through a friend or co-worker, who has a strong belief in the supernatural. Maybe he/she (”she” from now on - blame my laziness) loves astrology, and believes in it with all their heart - up to the point that she says “it’s not a superstition, it’s a science”. Or maybe she’s a devout Christian, who believes that there is a God, that Jesus Christ died for mankind’s sins, and she is sure that she will be “saved” through Jesus. Maybe she is a “new age guru”. Or believes in alien abductions (probably including cattle mutilations and anal probes as well :)), or believes she has “alien experiences” or “out of body experiences”. Or is a wiccan, or a druid, or…

In short, she is a mystic.

Let’s say that this is one of the open minded ones, and that she has above average intelligence - she’s a “challenge”, in a way, and you both want to discuss the nature of reality with each other. So, you talk. And talk. You refute many of her points, one by one - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is no proof of any kind, only “I saw it” claims. Occam’s razor says that if two explanations explain something, then the most likely one is the one with the smallest number of entities - in other words, if something could have happened without a god or aliens, then there were probably no gods or aliens involved. Many animals die every year, and insects tend to eat the “softer parts” first, like eyes or testicles, so they appear “mutilated”. There are many contradictions in the Bible, and in the beliefs or most religions; and many people have several conflicting beliefs, like Christianity and astrology (which Christianity absolutely condemns), yet they are OK with it. Many claims of “supernatural” events were later explained as perfectly natural occurrences, and every “medium” has either been proven to be a hoax, or has refused to be tested scientifically… which amounts to pretty much the same thing. James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge is still unclaimed, though anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers - and, again, be tested scientifically, by a man who knows every trick of stage magicians, because he’s been one himself - could claim it. And so on, and so on. She will lose every argument she dares argue about rationally.

Eventually, the conversation will end in always the same way.

“But I want to believe in these things!”, she cries. “You lead a cold, empty, materialistic life, while mine is spiritual, it is fulfilled!”, she says. “Who cares about whether it’s real or not? It gives my life meaning, it makes me happy, and that’s what matters!”

Who can argue with that? I certainly can’t, because, at that point, that person has thrown reality, has thrown truth out of the window. She is, in a way, admitting that it doesn’t matter whether God / the spirits / the aliens are real or not, that she chooses to believe in them, therefore her life is more fulfilled this way. Nothing - including the original founder of her belief appearing and saying “sorry, it was all a joke, can’t believe you people took it so seriously!” - would change her mind, because the object(s) of her belief have been replaced by the belief itself.

And, as I said, I can’t argue with that. Because, to me, reality is what matters. It’s the only thing that matters.

Is my life “emptier” because I don’t fool myself? I don’t think so.