Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: reverse causation

Poor MarkCC couldn't figure out how to not sign up for a Type Pad account to comment so I did and while it stays signed in for Pharyngula, not over here. Oh well! Not a big deal.

It's nice to see how popular atheism is becoming. It makes me think "I'm not the only one here, w00t!" A minor bout of paranoia comes up: "Am I atheistic since everyone else is? Do I really believe this way?"

Hm, it seems it linked to Type Pad anway.

"...more than ever before, people are making up their own stories of who they are." How dare they?! Clearly this mania for not allowing someone else to tell you who you are will lead to the decline of civilization. /snark

I wonder whether Barbara Bradley Haggerty, NPR's evangelical religion "reporter," will do a story on this.

A vast gap exists between being "in a religion" and being an athiest. Many, but not all, organized religious groups are no better than other corporations: quick to take money and low on spiritual quality. Many people believe in a spiritual life in all of its wonderful capacity, but have no ken for the self-serving, sometimes insane, views dictated by a self-designated incrowd of 'knowers'. We are in no sense athiests. Many scientists are in this group: in awe of our wonderous world.

I agree fully with cc2. I, too, believe the established religions (the major ones of which I know) are fossilized, and compromised (to say the least). But I personally believe the beginnings of Judaism and Christianity were inspired and based on Revelations. Don't have a clue why we haven't heard from Him in so long since, though.

Now I know all you atheists are salivating, and ready to pounce, but, just one question/consideration for your scientific minds - and Revere, I thank you for your beautifully ironic and (I might add) synchronistic pairing of your Sunday Sermon with today's other posting: how you just can't seem to trust nobody with power and the nefarious temptations and venal "opportunities" that come with it:

Do any of you see any correlation between the prevalence of corruption and self-serving among the leaders in all fields of human endeavor in this country, and the increasing loss of faith in something greater than man? And I didn't say religion. I'm speaking of deference to received wisdom (from only G-d knows where) and ideals of self-restraint, that are rooted in something greater than ourselves, and the increasing wont of everyone to define what's right and wrong for themselves (what I previously referred to as idolatry)?

I think it was the last idea, about which I held forth, that pissed everyone off here, and resulted in my being pilloried.

I know, I know. Correlation does not causation make. Personally, in this case, I'm quite certain the two phenomena are very much causally interrelated.

Paul (The Troll)/ cc2:

I believe that the future society will cherish the true community-which is inclusive and authentic. It has been the ongoing challenges for many parts of the world. For instance, I am a Taiwanese, and I never feel that I am inclusive in Chinese community. Perhaps, many Tibet people share this kind of feeling. It is not authentic. Therefore, we let the pseudo-community and chaotic relationship replace it.

Religious tradition and our perception of the real world have been distorted and split in many ways. I personally allow that the chaotic status co-exist to allow the worst status of pseudo-harmony.

The method of this Sermonnet which I have observed is to allow or augment the chaos. Satire actors, world-class, no doubtful.

Convergence is a pretty appropriate perspective to develop a personal faith and intelligence. I believe that the quality of life which are full of wit, grace and reverence are the most attainable criteria of civilized community.

Religion is a stick- not to be used to hit people ;-)-nevertheless to help you walk when feels that you are not yet balanced to walk. You can throw away when you donât need it. As a parent, we wish to see our kids to grow independent intellectually and economically by themselves and flourish someday. We donât mind in fact if they have followed our instructions which we gave them when they were a child.

The question is are we human beings mature to declare the era of atheism and throw away the stick and kick off our daddy without reverence? As a kid's stance.

Not believing in something is also a belief. If you are certain in a belief that can not be proven or tested, that's faith.

Religion, as the term is commonly used, is belief in a God that cares about the individual, even if he does not intervene directly during their life. The reward for those who follow his laws is in the after life. I can't say I buy this so choose not to practice any religion. Except at an extreme level, it seems to be a benign belief, and seems to give people comfort. I don't have to pay anything for others to practice their religion, and hey, it might keep people more honest and keep them out of a jail which we do have to pay for.

Then there are those religions which do not call themselves a religion, like the neo-malthusian pseudo science of AGW which we will all have to pay for with higher energy costs and a carbon tax, all on the say so of the high priests (alarmist scientists - a minority- who receive government funding) who also have a hypothesis that can not be tested easily or proven. Funding to disprove it is in short supply, as government provides most of the funding for climate research and data collection, and AGW is a global political movement.

Everyone pays, even us non-believers. That kind of religion seems more dangerous, since it pretends to be what it is not, pure science, just like we still pretend to be a Democracy when we can only vote for candidates who have received enough funding for their 30 second commercials. In Iran they can only vote for candidates the Supreme Leader approves to run. And more importantly, there is no freedom from this religion, and church and state are not separate. If you do not believe, you are called a denier, and some call you dangerous and call to criminalize deniers, and psychologists are saying it might even be a mental disorder, so we can either go to jail or an insane asylum for our belief.

Seems a dude named Galileo had a similar issue. Dark Ages here we come.

pft: Not believing in something is also a belief. If you are certain in a belief that can not be proven or tested, that's faith.

So not believing in the tooth fairy is believing? Not believing in things you don't even know about is believing? As some wag once said, "Bald is not a hair color."

This is written under the influence of a few shots of peppered vodka (Nasdarovya!!) - just a disclaimer, but not to be taken as an opportunity to dismiss its intended validity.

As quoted from "Pirkei Avos," (a Jewish tract titled in English, "The Ethics of the Fathers): 'The beginning of wisdom is the fear of G-d, and understanding is the avoidance of evil (doing evil to others, OK?).

One more, which I think I've presented here before: "The beginning of faith starts at the end of knowldge." I realize this is vulnerable to all kinds of cynical critiques, but to believers, it means that knowledge will always be finite, and at the end of the finite, is faith in the everlasting loving kindness, mercy and beneficence of G-d. And that's as meaningful and relevant as Revere's quote: "Bald is not a hair color." What the Hell??!

pft: you raise an interesting aspect of both the Jewish and Christian religions: the belief in an afterlife. Personally, (and probably out of ignorance), I remain totally agnostic about that aspect of religion. How does any mortal know what goes on, once we pass the threshold of life opposite to that of birth? It seems to me that if G-d wanted us all to believe in an afterlife, and its consequential ties to our known realms of life, we'd all have an inkling about it, just as most of us have an inkling of faith in G-d, Himself, based on all the wondrous miracles we witness every day, all around us.

Again, it's just personal, but I have a hard time believing that those who wrote about the afterlife and all its detailed consequences, had some kind of exclusive monopoly on this revealed knowledge. As I said, I don't disbelieve in it, it's more that all bets are off. I think any knowledge of its existence and its details are above our pay grade - all of our's.

That in no way diminishes my belief in G-d and his laws of decency that men should follow in their behavior toward other men. Whether our ultimate end is dirt, or afterlife, what's important is what we do in this life, this reality we'v been born into. I don't really care if my end is dirt, and maggots - this time not limited to debridement, since all the tissue is necrotic and all of it fair game for the little critters. Whatever happens after we stop raging against the dying of the light, and go, gently or not, into that good night (Dylan Thomas - I'm not a plagiarist), is really irrelevant (or, as I mentioned) G-d would have made each of us privy to what we can expect "when we shuffle off this mortal coil" (Hamlet).

What happens to us afterwards is totally irrelevant. It's how we comport ourselves while we're here, and whether we acknowlege allegiance to Something greater than our puny, self-important selves. Again, I quote de Unamuno - if G-d didn't exist, we should live our lives as thought He did. Quantum Sufficit.

O.K. Paul (the troll), that's enough shots of peppered vodka (Nasdarovya!!). Although .... I do understand.
Couple of things to comment about on your comments:

It's above the pay grade of the mind BUT not the soul.

And the body is just a vehicle, not the be all and end all. Soul is .....
Soul exists inside the body buried, nay smothered, by the mind.

----------------------------------
Let revere and others be the atheist's they want to be. As someone who believes in GOD I have true respect for their choices.

Dear Lea,

I fully agree with all three of your insights. You state them as though I might not. They ring very true.

My expressing my opinions, however, seems to be taken on this sight as an attack on atheists, which it is not meant to be. Disagreeing with someone's faith or lack thereof, is certainly not within my province.

Every soul must travel its own path of discovery in this realm; as I'd mentioned before, mine also meandered through the thickets of atheism - then agnosticism - then fianlly into faith.

My first appearence here, as many may remember, was truly that of a naif wandering into a forum of non-believer believers, and I inadvertently threw the proverbial bar room stool - and an angrier mob I've not seen since I was a kid watching on black & white TV, the "Westerns." Whew! I'm still not sure I escaped that virtual lynching - this may be my virtual wraith posting here.

But Revere's posting of those two juxtaposed (and causally related) phenomena was just too juicy for me to resist. I mean really, what healthy old curmudgeon could resist such a sweet ambush? Gotcha!! And I sort of like my title (it's SIR Troll to y'all, and don't forget it).

Peace, Lea - let a kid have some fun will ya? Everybody else - lighten up - it's still Happy Hour here. Le Chaim!!

Looking back at my last post, something struck me as not quite properly expressed - in fact it appears disingenuous (nice euphemism for "dishonest).

I conflated two ideas that require a distinction.

(1) My point about the causal relationship between falling standards of behvior of men in power or in positions of trust toward those who entrust them with power or their life's savings, and the increasing incidence of declared atheism in this country is indeed a negative statement about the vulnerability of a society/civilization increasingly populated by atheists, as a proportion of the total population. It can't be taken as anything but an insult to all atheists - thoughtless stereotyping. Yet, there is still something of substance in the observation, that concerning herd psychology, or better yet, herd immunity - a critical mass associated with an increasing proportion of atheists within a population - diluting the laudatory observations about individual atheists I cite in (2) below.

(2) In the original post, I ended the above (not fully developed) thought with a disclaimer that I really don't mean to insult or disrespect individual atheists (which I really don't). But the pragraph, is simply contradictory. I can't help but see many atheists as noble humanists, of the highest ethical standards, and brave in their own way, staking their world views (theological/cosmological) on only that which can be proven by hard science and the scientific method. A brotherhood (the scientists) who build upon one another's solid research, who have mostly improved the lot of all men.

More than likely, those bastards in government and high finance who sold the rest of us out were more than likely (based on probability - the majority of citizens are not declared atheists) members of churches and synagogues, who neatly insulate their prayer time from the rest of their secular lives, in which they behave as treacherous sociopaths.

So how to reconcile (1) & (2)? I think atheists (those individuals who have thoughtfully adopted their non-belief) are reacting not so much to the existence or non-existence of G-d, but rather to so many of their fellow men who perfunorily practice their religious rituals, leading to a superficial hypocracy that distances them from the original deeply spiritual concepts of their religions.

Unadulterated spirituality is etherial and tenuous. Once the process of fossilization of the religion sets in, with its attendant hypocracies and compromises, the original belief system readily deteriorates into the twisted trappings of brutality and religious war, religion used for profit and the attainment of power, and all the other uglies that cause many who still keep the faith as individuals (of whom I am one) to disassociate themselves from any particular established religion.

I see a parallel process occurring with the non-belief of atheists. The original "loner" and "outcast" atheists are as thoughtful and philosophically driven as those who keep their faith in G-d, and distance themselves from the perversions that have come to pervade so much of established religion.

But here is a the critical difference (as I see it) Those reared in religious traditions based upon the beliefe in a higher Being, who has revealed immutable laws governing right behavior among men, with non-negotiable distinctions between Right and Wrong, and that there exists Something greater than man, pass those concepts along through countless generations. And though we witness so many perversions of the original ideals through the tinkering of men (because men will be men - i.e., human nature), still, within each generation, the received wisdom is accepted and practiced by many, if not most, because man yearns to do good in the sight of his G-d, and that immutability of beliefs gives most of the population a collective conscience, a standard to conform to, and by which men can measure one another, and ideally, treat one another with reciprocal honor and trust.

So we witness the persistent kernel of beliefs within religions, through successive generations of men, which serve as their lodestar, should they choose to follow and conform to those beliefs. And here is where the idea of herd immunity (from evil actions) and conformity come into play. There will be many men who will resist antisocial behavior because of the vast proportion of believers who will be witness to and unhesitatingly, unabashedly condemn aberrant behavior, either shunning them or punishing them or banishing them (imprisonment) - herd immunity from evil.

Now take the pioneering atheists, the thoughtful, sincere, and yes, brave ones. Willing to stand alone with their belief in a cold, random indifferent universe, men who have evolved from pond scum through random selection and survival of the fittest (i.e., fit enough to live long enough to propogate the species). Their core set of beliefs is non-belief. But once atheism becomes an accepted religion of non-belief, who and of what nature are those who convert to this non-religion. What is the immutable core of positive beliefs that are to be passed on? Where are the constraints, the mores, the code of conduct codified. One appealing aspect of atheism is the freedom of men from any overseeing Creator.

So we have folks behaving badly despite the constraints of the religions to which they belong, despite the censure of their co-religionist when their bad behavior is exposed. But there is a process of renewal and restatement of the original creed with each generation of children raised under that religion's auspices. And a proven track record of a large proportion of religionists within every generation hewing the line.

What is the projected character of a society of atheists, who believe in nothing higher than men; free men - free to behave in a manner they can rationalize as being right. Does any man who commits antisocial acts ever see himself as others see him. No, he rationalizes and justifies his behaviors - even paranoids do that. What happens when a critical mass within a society is comprised of non-believers - believers in nothing beyond themselves? Will these men honor contracts and commitments when they turn cumbersome of disadvantagious? How many generations will it take for a society of atheists to devolve from the original ideas and ideals of the pioneering atheists into one of chaotic anarchy?

Anyone can objectively speculate about such actions and their results without intending to insult an individual atheist, who happens to be of the highest moral character and demonstrates the greatest dedication to the welfare of men. I shouldn't think such questions should be considered inflammatory, any moreso than many of Revere's judgmental free Sunday sermons that ridicule religions and their adherents.

Speaking for myself, the questions posed above are rhetorical; I'm pretty certain of their answers.

Paul: What happens? You get Sweden. The US (highly religious) is a lawless wild west compared to Sweden and other countries where many people are secularists and don't believe in any God. Since there are many Gods people believe in, I assume whenever you invoke that denotation you are simply referring to the one you believe in, not the one most people believe in.

You are mistaken on many counts in your comment, Revere. I "invoke the denotation" of His Holy Name as G-d, to prevent the otherwise inevitable irreverential treatment of His Name when written material is either trashed or deleted. You also assume from this that I am an Orthodox Jew. I am not, though I have read many tracts derived from the Torah. However, I have also read the New Testament. I understand the concept of the Trinity and it doesn't seem any more enigmatic as our story of G-d's introducing Himself to Moses at the burning bush as "I am that I am," not "what I am - that I am" - talk about enigmas.

There is an excellent diagram representing the relationship among the Father, Jesus the Son of G-d, and the Holy Spirit. It demonstrates that the Three, at the same time constitute G-d, and are individual Entities related to One Another. You may view it here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity]

In short, I have no chauvinistic concept of G-d as belonging to or being partial only to my people. He created all the people of this world, and I believe He cares for each and every one, just as he does each and every one of His creatures. "...not even a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice...." (Mathew 10:29)

As for Sweden your statement is vague, leaving an incorrect impression: "...compared to Sweden...where many people are secularists and don't believe in any G-d." In fact 78% of her nine million people belong to some Curch: 75% are Lutheran. The other 3% comprise Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox,free (independent)churhes, Muslims practicing Islam.

And since when is the U.S. a lawless "Wild West?" The only lawlessness I've noted of late is in our Capitol and on Wall Street - not in the Bible Belt of which I'm aware. I live, peacefully, in GA.

Paul: I said once I assumed you were an Orthodox Jew because of the G-d syntax. You said you weren't so I have not said so again. You have a particular conception of God. It is private to you. Your God isn't the God of Lutherans or Catholics or most other religions. They have their own gods. You have yours (although you assume yours is the one true god, apparently).

As for lawlessness in the US, I've lived in Sweden. Compared to them, this place is legal anarchy. The Lutheran Church is the official state church in Sweden. Most Swedes are secular and couldn't care less. As for "peaceful" Georgia, the south is the most crime ridden pat of the country according to statistics and also the most religious. The northeast is the least crime ridden, and also one of the least religious parts of the US. This means nothing, one way or another. I obey the law because I want to be a good citizen. You say you obey the law because some god told you to. Different strokes.

Revere, Why are you persistent in presuming what I've already (honestly) claimed is not the case. It's almost as if it is you who are assigning everybody else to their particular G-ds. It's dogmatic to state that "(my) G-d is not the G-d of Lutherans, or Catholics or most other religions." You state so matter of factly (and dismissively) that "They have their own G-ds," and that "I have mine." You sound like a teacher arranging a classroom for some play, with the children playing pre-assigned roles. How do you know that each of these religions has their own G-d. They may have differing theologies about the One and Only God, but the last I checked, people pretty universally consider G-d the Creator of all things and all folks. There are very few pagans remaining, at least in this country; only in that context would it be historically correct to make such definite anthropologic statements about different folks having different g-ds.

And where in world - how in the world could you conclude that I "assume my G-d is the one true God, apparently." Not only is this not apparent, your statement absolutely contradicts my entire last post. I don't think I could have stated the complete opposite of your conclusion any more clearly.

The fact that you lived in Sweden is an anecdotal statement. Considering your scientific interests and profession, I would assume you associated with intellectual folks, who might represent a very skewed sample of the Swedish population - i.e., atheists. I cited up-to-date statistics - do you discard these based merely on the fact that you lived in Sweden. Did you get to know and discuss their religious beliefs with 9 million Swedes??

Finally, please show me some statistics that the South is more lawless than, say, NYC or paricularly Washington, DC, or Baltimore or Philly (where I was born and raised, attended college and medical school). It wasn't until I moved out to Southwestern PA, right across from the West Virginia border (which is part of the Bible Belt) that I lost the "Philly shuffle," - constantly looking over both shoulders to see if you were still safe.

Paul: We have reached an impasse. I consider you to use a private language that cannot be falsified and you consider me obtuse to your true meaning. Let's call it a day.

OK Chief. I'm gonna call it a night. Haven't pulled an all-nighter since college (not considering being on call as physician in the same category.)

Your blog and your crew are certainly engaging.

(What "private language??") I call it English composition

Good night, Revere.

Paul:

The creative minority, be they called the chosen or the leaders.

God cares for everyone and most likely He likes to work with the creative minority. :-)

Not position, not privilage to describe from outside; yet the heros with thousand faces.

The sign is the inherent glory in every individual. Let it takes wings to fly. Have a beautiful day! Everyone.

The creative minority; as stated in Matthew 5: 17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them."

Some people guess that 3% of the population stress the value of creative minority or less.

For me, people can not fulfil the the respect of science nor the convergence of religious truth are similar to abolish the Law of the Prophets, they are not in the domain of creative minority.

Paul,

Well said.