People here tell me that I give too much time to knocking particular religions. I don't mean to. I mean to knock all of them. I mean, what's the alternative?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Writing in National Review Online, John Derbyshire provides a nice characterization of what it's like to argue with creationists:
I'll also say that I write the following with some reluctance. It's a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make…
I still don't know if I'm using that word right, but Science and Religion Today asked me a question about the award Chad wants to give me. They wonder "Do moderates have a responsibility to be more vocal in science and religion discussions?"
It's an admittedly vague question, and they left off my…
A new Gallup poll suggests that Americans are less worried about most environmental issues than they have been since Gallup began polling 20 years ago.
"Americans are less worried about each of eight specific environmental problems than they were a year ago, and on all but global warming and…
I don't even know what Wilkins is complaining about anymore, but he's got some kind of objection (or agreement? I don't know) to things I've said before or didn't say. This is the danger of getting into discussions with philosophers — they're saying something with great erudition, but sometimes you…
"I mean, what's the alternative?"
There's always the old standby of defining one's terms. I mean, you declare an intent to "knock all" religions. How do you identify them? With something like a birder's guide, or "by feel"?
This nicely illustrates one of [i]the two big reasons[/i] why religion and rationality are inherently incompatible:
1. The theodicy problem: [i]"Why do bad things happen to good people ?"[/i]
2. With multiple religions existing, many of them even with mutual exclusive dogmas, it is logically impossible to belive in any one of them without necessarily being an atheist with respect to the other ones.
Two points, one is that Jehovah at least sends you to hell for worshiping the wrong god. I don't believe he tolerates you worshiping more than him, for he is a Jealous God. (interesting that characteristics like jealous we all pretty much look down on but Almighty Jehovah claims jealousy as tho it were a positive trait)
Secondly as my husband pointed out in a world of infinite possible gods there may be one who loves cynical non-believers.
So many gods, so little time.....woe is us
I know there is one that I will not recognize as a God and his name is Obama.
I recognize the Jedi Mind Trick when I see it.
I love the yamulka on the turban look!
I remember when some Jewish friends of mine asked me if I would come over and turn on the stove on a Friday night -- i.e., play shavas goy. (I had other plans.) But then somebody else started telling me how the Old Testament says all your servants and members of your household have to keep the Sabbath as well, whether they're Jewish or not.
So that workaround is technically... not kosher.
I'd promised myself I'd never again comment on your Sunday sermons. (1)I really don't like to cause trouble and (2) I really don't like to upset folks, especially about such deeply held personal beliefs (or disbeliefs).
With that intro, I'll just make a few short and (hopefully) inoffensive comments: (1) revere, that was a most thoughtful and stimulating "sermon." It touches on every person's dilemma, if they choose to think about such metaphysical things at all. I mean no disrespect to those who have never questioned their particular faith, but I for one, have questioned it all. (2) My own resolution is to believe in a Supreme Being, and I'll bet (my soul, as a matter of fact) on the likelihood, that He cares naught by whatever Name you call or worship him. I also believe He loves every atheist (*my* belief - I don't speak for Him or atheists), for the mere fact that they have wrestled with this question, and He likely admires them for the heroic (Promethean) stand they've taken. (3) My belief is what He really cares about is that we treat one another as we would ourselves (including not harming others because of their differing beliefs about Him), and doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.
In the end, I suspect He considers moot, whatever position you've settled on concerning Him, so long as folks follow such basic (and I would think) univerally accepted moral codes in dealing with one another.
Paul @7 - Wow, that's saying a lot about what you think god thinks, for someone who says he doesn't speak for "him". Anyway, why do we need a "him" if all the speculation, worry and philosophy can be reduced to our trying to live by a universally accepted moral code? Why can't we humans just try to do that and rely on our laws to deal with the sociopaths?
If there is a powerful being that loves me that is its business. If there is a powerful loving being who sits by and watches children blown up by the bombs of humans then I hate such a being just as I hate the powerful humans who are doing this. If there is a being who is out there somewhere who doesn't have the power to protect the innocent children well then that being isn't worth even thinking about.
baryogenesis, just a small correction about your first sentence. I emphasized, as much as I could,that I *don't* presume to "speak for G-d." These are my personal *beliefs* I was sharing - I feel no shame, nor do I think offense should be taken, when humans engage in metaphysical subjects, about which, (obviously) there is no "known" answer - otherwise they wouldn't be classified as metaphysical.
K, a great deal has been written about why bad things happen to good people. It was after medical school rotations on pediatric wards and in children's hospital, seeing these little innocents die, that turned me into a very angry atheist, and turned me away from pediatrics (I personally found such outcomes too devastating). Later things in my life brought me around to my present *beliefs,* humbly expressed (if expressed at all), and especially in this forum.
Indeed. He even uses "Jealous" as His name (Exodus 34:14)
Paul, lots of books have been written on lots of subjects, that doesn't mean that what they try to prove is true. I have read lots of books on why bad things happen to good people. I have found none of them to provide any satisfactory explanation. You found the pain and deaths of little ones too devastating to deal with as a Dr and became an atheist. Now you are a believer. Neither action by you has helped those little ones has it. They still suffer and die in astounding numbers and God stands by. He is evil or powerless. However theologians and writers of books continue to make money off of writing excuses for God. And humans pay for those books because they so want an good god. That works for the theologians and writers of books. Unfortunately it doesn't work for the suffering innocents, but they are voiceless and don't get to write books expressing the contrary view. We humans demand a higher standard of behavior from human parents than we do of God. We are so merciful to God, allowing him any excuse or making up excuses for his reprehensible behavior. Apparently we so need to believe in a powerful god that we create one and then create endless ridiculous theologies to prove that a powerful god is good when all the evidence is that a powerful god could not possibly be good.