1=2E Why do I say religion (as opposed to faith in the existence of God)
should be discouraged?
1=2E1---The pernicious tendencies of religion and the religion
dividend---
Beyond the history of religion as a pernicious force (e.g.
inquisitions, holy wars, etc.), and beyond its continuing ability to
divide (e.g. President Bush, "God is on our side." versus President
Lincoln, "I hope we are on God's side.") religion exacts a tax on the
development of our civilization that can be measured in lives lost due
to wasted effort. How much time, money and effort has gone into
filling the coffers of the Jimmy Swaggerts, the popes, and other
religious leaders? Could not the money for building new churches
instead be donated to cure cancer? Science does work. Childhood
leukemias are now highly (above 90%) curable, whereas just 50 years ago
they were nearly always fatal. Or how about putting some of that
wasted money into education for better schools and higher paid
teachers? There are likely thousands of worthy causes struggling for
cash that is otherwise wasted on religion. Now, I do realize 'some'
nominal amount of church money does go into cancer research and other
good causes, by what fraction of it? Half? I doubt it. So cut out
the middle man and send 100% of the cash to the good causes. Then
instead of wasting time at church functions, people could put time into
their communities. Yes, some nominal amount of church time is spent on
improving communities. But what fraction? Half. I doubt it. Cut out
the middle man, and while you're cutting out the middle man, cut out
the hypocrisy as well. Why do good members of faith X, Y or Z do their
good deeds? Out of the goodness of their own hearts, or for the Holy
reward of life after death for Christians and a harem for suicide
bombers? The religious do good to save their own skins and the skins
of those they care about. Their self-interested motivations are the
height of paranoid self-interest.
2=2E What is wrong with morality based on religion?
2=2E1---NO DOUBT there is trouble with religion---
This, NO DOUBT, is what religion is predicated on. No doubt equals
faith and conversely. Having NO DOUBT is the innate trouble of most
religious doctrine. That is, religion, by its own construct, is
innately pernicious, because only under a moral philosophy of NO DOUBT
can entire hordes of religiously motivated people throughout the ages,
by reason of their NO DOUBT faith, become (Teutonic) Nazis, KKK
members, al Qaeda members, witch burners, lynchers, homophobes,
misogynists, child molesters, and other numerous types of nefarious
-obes, -ists and -ers in order to raze entire civilizations, pillage,
plunder, murder, maim, destroy, burn books, imprison scholars,
discriminate, rape, butcher, segregate, and slowly eviscerate other
peoples. (I'm certain I missed a couple of good ones.) And these
religiously motivated people committed these crimes and atrocities
against humanity without a doubt in their minds for they were following
the will of their God, NO DOUBT.
2=2E2---Does lack of religion imply degeneracy?---
If there is no religion, no faith in God, then what? Can there be no
morality as Immanuel Kant would insist? Why does religion have to
equate to morality? How many millions of atheists are there out there
following the same basic morals of the faithful? Don't kill, steal,
cheat, etc., help others, etc., these morals need not have anything to
do with religion. These morals, which try to hem our wanton natures,
make good sense if one wants to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Does
the lack of religion make the enforcement of such morals impossible?
Ask the millions of atheists who aren't busy butchering peoples in
the name of some damned god.
3=2E Can there be alternative, less dangerous moralities?
3=2E1---Morality based on the scientific method is less arrogant and thus
less dangerous---
The scientific method is based on doubt up to reproducibility. Cold
fusion ala Fleshman and Ponds turned out to be bunk. It could not be
reproduced in other labs. But to follow a scientific based morality is
more than this. It is to doubt everything within context. Newton's
law of (scalar) gravity works well within its context--no extreme,
complex gravity fields. Experiment (the orbit of Mercury with its
exposure to a stronger part of the sun's gravity field) indicated there
was something not completely correct with Newtonian gravity.
Einstein's general theory of relativity took care of that, and we know
of no experimental violations of this theory. Yet we doubt Einstein's
theory is complete. We expect that someday, with sufficiently advanced
technology, the experiment will come that shows cracks in Einstein's
general relativity. This innate doubt of the scientific method,
should, if we are good "scientists", make us humble.
In a world where people shunned NO DOUBT religious faith, and instead
searched for demonstrable, defendable, repeatable facts both
scientifically and logically, it seems likely there would be less risk
of holy war and other such crimes against humanity. These people would
categorize scientific observations and theories according to their
applicability, testability, utility, and probability over other
competing models. They would realize there can be no ultimate theory
of truth, just models with certain ranges of utility. They would,
hopefully, be decent people in the conventional sense of not stealing,
cheating, killing, etc., and would, recognizing that humans also have
wanton tendencies, bind themselves to secular laws designed to prevent
crime and corruption for the better good of civilization. At the very
least, such people would limit their hypocrisy to helping each other
out because it benefits their society and hence themselves versus
helping each other out to save their souls in the name of some
dangerous faith in some god that all too often leads to holy war and
murder.
4=2E Do we have to believe in God?
4=2E1---Can't prove existence or non-existence of God---must have
faith---
Immanuel Kant proved that we humans can't prove the existence of God.
Still, he thought faith (if not proof) of God's existence made sense.
He used a design type argument. If a watch needs an intelligent watch
maker, then our complex world too, it seems, needs an intelligent
creator. He also thought that lack of faith would make it impossible
for civilization to arise--we'd all be killing each other off like
godless savages, like the millions of today's atheists...errr like God
fearing warmongers do all the time. Kant did not consider the
possibility that we humans inhabit one of infinitely many universes,
with this one universe allowing for the spontaneous evolution of life
from a primordial soup of chemicals. Amino acids, which can be found
in meteors, when mixed up in a simulated primitive Earth environment
form polypeptide chains after all. In this case (infinitely many
universes), we don't need an intelligent creator. This is not to say,
however, that God cannot exist. One can no more prove his existence
than his non-existence, but of this more will come down below.
4=2E2---Occam's razor---it's not a close shave.
In its simplest form, Occam's razor states that explanations should
never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are
offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable.
I would hope that the people of the hypothetical, a-religious world
would prefer, using Occam's razor, to think of their existence as
having no explanation, and of having no special purpose other than what
they made of their own existence while they lived. They would be
godless, and they would, hopefully, be driven to help each other out,
not for eternal life (in a harem), but out of the goodness of their own
hearts. At least, being more realistic, I would hope that these people
would help each other out to help themselves econometrically thru
secular laws so that they could enjoy the fruits of civilization over
dwelling in caves. This is less hypocritical than and less paranoid
then having people "helping" each other out to save their souls at
the peril of holy war and mass murder.
4=2E3---But what about salvation? Tough--when you die to die.
Until we figure out how to cure aging and disease, and perhaps
transform ourselves into more advanced types of indefinitely long lived
beings, we die, and our lives will have had no meaning other than,
perhaps, the quality of our children we raised and what we contributed
to the better good of humanity while we lived. Eventually, though, as
Marcus Aurelius noted, even this personal meaning to our lives would
fade into time immemorial.
4=2E4---The alternative to believing we are nothing special via Occam's
razor, is to believe we are something special in the eyes of some
higher being, and this requires throwing logic out the window. If the
higher being is simply a more scientifically and technologically
developed being (or beings), then this is the least of the illogical
alternatives to believing we are nothing special. Hey, humanity is
little BloGorg's 1st grade biology lab experiment. Maybe this is why,
given little BloGorg's inexperience, that vast portions of humanity's
history has and continues to suck. If we chose to have faith in a
perfect, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent God, then we have real
logical and egomaniacal problems! Let us consider a few:
Can an omnipotent god make a burrito so hot even he can't eat it? But
seriously, in Judeo-Christian-Muslim type religions we are asked to
believe that God, who knew an eternity before creating us exactly what
would happen after he created us, namely, that we would screw things
up, will punish the wicked and reward the good. Given his omniscience,
I say the wicked were condemned an eternity before they ever saw the
light of day-I believe this unoriginal idea falls under
predetermination. We then must conclude that the supposedly perfect
creator (of ALL things) is the screw up. How dare he punish (typically
by roasting the wicked in hell) a single human being, and demand from
the rest of us that we worship him lest we suffer the same fate as the
wicked? Doesn't the buck stop with HIM? If so, then he is the perfect
masochist. Given just this first step into an infinitely illogical
morass of believing in omniscient, omnipotent, eternal gods of love,
how am I supposed to reconcile a perfect creator with an imperfect
system that is predetermined by his omniscience without just giving up
basic logic and selling my soul to some ***** faith-based scheme?
Then I ask myself just why would a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
eternal being need the worship of lowly humans? To satisfy an
infinitely weak ego? In fact, a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent,
eternal being is a dead lump of nothing that would have zero motivation
for doing anything. Create, or do anything--but what for? He knows
the outcome, hence he would have zero motivation. (Have you seen the
old TV commercial, "been there, done that"?) Someone, countering this
line, once asked me, why should I procreate? You know what the kid
will do he stated in his defense of his god. The kid will breath,
drink water, learn to read, etc. I procreate because I am not perfect,
eternal, omnipotent nor omniscient, and 'cause sex feels good. I
simply don't know whether my kids will become mass murderers or land on
Mars. Their world will constantly change. Science will reveal whole
new domains for exploration. Lacking omniscience allows for the
possibility, if not the guarantee of motivation.
I know that some of you who read these arguments for dropping God will
cite the "father analogy" when I will point out the misery of the human
condition. When you were a kid, they will say to me, and your father
denied you ice cream as a punishment, he was doing it for your own
good, to protect you, to teach a lesson, and so forth. As a child, you
could not have understood his logic, and you probably thought he was
being a bad guy for no good reason they will droll on in their
brainwashed fashion. He is our Father and we are His children. In
response to this insupportable analogy, my father was not a perfect,
omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being. The god being foisted on me
supposedly is. This is a FUNDAMENTAL distinction people never seem to
realize. And, counter to those who, using the "father analogy", claim
we are too pea-brained to understand God, I claim that we humans are
sufficiently intelligent to question God along the lines in the
paragraph above. If you are perfect, eternal, omnipotent and
omniscient, then why X, Y and Z? I'm not arrogantly claiming we would
have the ability to understand this kind of God's mastery of science
and mathematics. I'm asking basic questions and pointing out
self-evident contradictions-like how can you condemn Hitler when YOU
created him? Finally, if I'm too pea-brained to ask God questions,
wouldn't I be too pea-brained to worship Him? I wouldn't have the
sufficient brain power to worship him properly.
Yet another related defensive tact on behalf of religion goes along the
lines, without bad you can't have good, that's why we have bad in God's
world, so that we learn and appreciate things. What good comes of
genocide? What lesson did the annihilated peoples, the children,
mothers and fathers, learn? What benefit is conferred when a five year
old dies of cancer? God had to create a child to teach his parents a
lesson? Or to pay for an oncologist's shiny sports car? Or God, the
omnipotent, as some say, needed the kid's help in heaven? Really? The
variations of the illogical contradictions of an omnipotent, eternal,
perfect, omniscient god of love are countless.
5=2E Why religion and faith in God should die
5=2E1---Religion should die because of bullets 2 thru 3, and faith in God
should die because of bullet number 4.
6=2E Does killing religion and God save humanity?
6=2E1---An a-religious humanity following a doubt-based morality is not
guaranteed survival. A humongous comet may yet squash us like the bugs
we are--splat! We humans, because we are innately competitive, and
have difficulties with basic morality (e.g., we kill, steal, cheat,
typically in the name of god) may yet treat ourselves to nuclear winter
or death by advanced viral weapons. Yet, given that the scientific
method based morality can be equated with DOUBT and that religious
practice can be equated with NO DOUBT, it seems reasonable to believe
that an a-religious world would be a bit more stable and likely to
survive than a religious world. After all, a herd mentality requires a
threshold number of initiators, if there are less initiators there is a
reduced likelihood to herd. Who do you see as more likely to cause
trouble, a group of like-minded fanatics with no doubt in their belief
system, or a tough looking group of rowdy doubting Thomases.
7=2E Is science Lily white?
7=2E1---Since I seem to be advocating scientific, doubt based morality
over religious based morality, I'm sure people will point out the dark
ways of science. Does science bring us evil? A-bombs? H-bombs? Hey,
when was the last time we had a full-blown world war? We are having a
religious war against Islamic nuts by the way, a war replete with
beautiful beheadings in the name of Allah. Back to the A-bomb, how
many American and Japanese lives were saved by using Fat Man and Little
Boy? Or was President Truman an agent of Satan set out to deliver the
handiwork of demonic scientists? History will show that fifty-nine
A-bomb scientists signed a petition to President Truman asking him to
instead demonstrate the bomb's power to the Japanese on a remote
island. Are there and have there been evil scientists? Yes. Are
there and have there been arrogant scientists? Yes. Have (and do)
some scientists get tempted to play God? Yes. Are there and have
there been evil priests? Yes. Are there and have there been arrogant
popes? Yes. Have (and do) some people of religious faith get tempted
to play God? Yes. These points, picking out individuals from a
population, are not THE POINT. Scientists do not make the scientific
method any more than religious leaders make up religion and its well
document malpractice. Our various societies as a whole can destroy
humanity through scientific means---say by means of a weaponized super
bug in the name of some or several nations' national defense. We are
actually doing a nice job of it already. Do we non-scientists drive
economical cars? NO WAY! We want our bigger LAND ROVING SUV penises.
We waste and pollute. We're okay with kissing the rainforests good-bye
to fill 'em methane farting hamburgers (cows) so long as beef stays
cheap. We, excepting a few deranged do-gooders, generally don't push
for more reasonable uses or our resources, until, that is, it hits us
in our pocket books. The bottom line is that if we're going to make
it, it's going to take all of us. See my article on "Some thoughts
concerning law...in a post-Darwinian world of conflict, crime, social
inequality,... at:
http://www.convergingtechnologies.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3D39
8=2E Improving our chances.
8=2E1---I say that if we want to improve the lot of humanity, religion
must die. Some can point to all the humanitarian good religion has
done and continues to do. Though I can't prove it, I suspect the net
harm done in the name of religion far outweighs the net good it has
done. A body count of saved versus killed off in the name of God could
be one metric among others. But how would you count those who died of
cancer because decades worth of charity and time has gone to building
opulent churches, making rococo clothes for popes, etc. over basic
research?
8=2E2---But modern religion is truly enlightened and tolerant.
Some might argue that modern religions are now more enlightened. Which
religions? Those practiced in Bosnia? Africa? Iraq? Or by our own
homophobic, segregating, discrediting president? Did President Bush,
while he was pandering to homophobic voters, conclude the American
constitution needs to be modified via an intellectual path, or out of
religious conviction, tantamount to NO DOUBT? I saw him claim on TV
that the base of great civilizations have been the union of man and
woman. America's government is modeled after Greek and Roman states.
Does President Bush not know that those toga wearing peoples had no
problem with homosexuality? Does President Bush not know that as much
as 10% of humanity is genetically predisposed to homosexuality
according to an increasingly growing pile of scientific evidence? No.
If we are to believe in Bush's faith in God, Bush has no god given
doubt that homosexuals, as "aberrant" with sinning ways, do not deserve
the same legal rights as heterosexuals--never mind the point that his
universe creating god created those sinning gays. Religion, even today
in an "enlightened" western power, is just as vile as it ever was, and
still preaching holy war. How many times has President Bush stated it
is America's duty to spread freedom, which is God's gift to humanity?
9=2E Putting logic aside, can religion ever be expected to die.
9=2E1---Religion will die? Should humanity survive to evolve into
post-corporeal beings, then I do believe religion will die, but I don't
expect it to do so in the near future. Not until humanity--should it
survive--has transformed itself into beings with indefinitely long
lives will the need for religion die. So long as we live but a handful
of years, the need for religion and faith in God will continue to
exist. Moreover, there really could be a "god gene" (which we will
drop when we drop our carbon-based bodies). According to Dean H.
Hamer, the "god gene" could be a real, built-in engine driving Homo
sapiens sapiens religiosity. See the book review below summarizing
Hammer's ideas.
10. A call for atheist preaching.
In the mean time, given that religion will be with us for some time to
come, we godless people must accept and tolerate those religious people
among us as they accept and tolerate us--and I'm not trying to be
funny. Throughout large chunks of the world, atheists and the faithful
live their lives in peace. Moreover, just as religious people have a
need and a duty to save heathens so that all may enjoy some kind of
holy paradise, we godless people too must do our best to "unsave"
people so that we may all enjoy a more real (Occam's razor based)
reality in a safer, more stable world. We have to preach unGod and
unSaving logically, as I have tried to do in this post, as well as push
to get rid of religious tax exemptions, especially when priests
illegally meddle in vote pandering. --End--
Dear fellow members,
I work at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where, among other
activities, research is conducted in simulating artificial societies.
Recently, a large-scale supercomputer study was released simulating the
effects of a terror strike in virtual cities in the United States.
See:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=3Dt&ct=3Dres&cd=3D1&url=3Dhttp%3A//www.washing=
tonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/03/AR2005070300880_pf.html&ei=3D=
xz76QrnDFanKigG2jfCRDg
Along these lines, I have recently published a science fiction book to
popularize the state-of-the-art research ideas I like to work on
regarding transhuman conflict ( ISBN: 1419609440 ). It received a
glowing review from a New York Times best selling author. It is
available at Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1419609440/qid=3D1123599258/s=
r=3D1-1/ref=3Dsr_1_1/104-4797061-6659156?v=3Dglance&s=3Dbooks
The "Buy Now" button is missing (will be fixed in a few days) BUT the
"1 used & new" button works.
I encourage you to read the online reviews and would welcome feedback
from fellow members.
With warm regards,
Alex
HAMER'S BOOK REVIEW
REVIEW: From Publishers Weekly
This book's title is more rhetorical effect than factual accuracy:
Hamer, who discovered the controversial "gay gene" in the 1990s,
reports that he has now found a gene that may correlate in some people
with their level of spirituality-not with belief in a being we would
call God or with the performance of traditional religious practices,
but with what psychiatrist Robert Cloninger called
"self-transcendence." This trait is a capacity to feel at one with all
life and with the universe as a whole, and Cloninger measured it with
personality testing. The so-called "God gene" is a particular location
in the human genome known as VMAT2, which affects the brain's
neurotransmitters. Hamer admits that the gene probably accounts for
less than 1% of the total variance in human spirituality. The book's
later chapters become still more speculative, as Hamer, a molecular
biologist at the National Cancer Institute, considers the scanty
evidence of health benefits of spirituality, which would make faith an
adaptive evolutionary trait. Hamer emphasizes that the existence of a
"God gene" would neither prove nor disprove the reality of God.
However, this gracefully written book may intrigue people of all
faiths-or no faith-who wonder about the ultimate connection between
science and religion.
Copyright =A9 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved.
.
|
