As a child I was a devout Lutheran. I studied my catechism lessons and the Bible. We had good pastors who explained that Genesis should not be taken literally, and that science and the Bible were completely compatible.
Then I got to high school. It was the late ’60s and the church started taking back what it had taught me. It was OK to kill. Wealth meant God loved you. Women were only deserving of respect if they played their roles and didn’t make a fuss. Ditto minorities.
Leaving the church made me stronger, and the church weaker.
The church is very weak now, yet I’ve never felt better.
I don’t miss God at all. Any of them.
Mark Gisleson
United States
Summary: Gisleson makes one point: ecclesiasticism is faulty. Therefore there is no God. No age given, but done in the late ‘60’s.
12 comments:
Stan,
Here's another one (from a friend on facebook):
the claim that god doesn't exist -- or at least is extremely unlikely to exist -- isn't extraordinary at all. What's really stupendously extraordinary is the idea of a conscious, intentional creator of the universe, highly suspiciously anthropomorphic, who works through magic, has special plans for humans, monitors the thoughts and deeds of individual humans, and rewards or punishes us after death. Seriously? Just try to step outside your own belief system for one second, and then tell me that's the obvious default view of reality.
Look, the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ traveled to the New World after his crucifixion and lived with the Indians. Sounds unlikely to you? Prove it didn't happen! And explain to me why this scenario is any LESS likely than that JC was the Son of God.
There are plenty of explanations for life and for the physical universe arising without any conscious creator, from the physical-to-biochemical pathways described by Nick Lane and many others to the cosmology described by Brian Greene and many others, going back before the Big Bang. As to what was there before that -- and the ultimate question of why there should be something and not nothing? -- we may never know, and in fact probably won't ever know. But why is it so hard to be comfortable with saying "We don't know"? That doesn't mean we have to resort to anthropomorphized magic. "God did it" -- is that a satisfying answer?
I should say here that there are two concepts of God. One, I think, is easy to disprove. One is impossible to disprove, but I still don't believe it. Let me explain.
The easy-to-disprove god is the anthropomorphic version, the one who reflects human morality and "created man in his image" and cares about us --- or even knows about us. In some versions, the one who created the earth and all life on it about 6,000 years ago (that last part makes him particularly easy to disprove, but he's still not hard to disprove if you don't insist on the 6,000 years.) Just ridiculous -- so many falsifying questions that can't be answered without resorting to tautologies.
The other kind of god - the kind that's impossible to disprove - is the idea of some motivating intelligence in the universe who set the laws of physics in motion, and then stood back and simply let them run their course, without any moral content or any concern with human affairs. That kind of god is plausible, and impossible to disprove because THE UNIVERSE WOULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME IF HE DID OR DIDN'T EXIST. So belief in this kind of god is not a question of evidence - it's a question of intellectual and aesthetic choice.
I simply find the universe far more interesting as a random, accidental structure than as anyone's creation. That's why I choose not to believe in this kind of god. The reason I choose not to believe in the other kind of god is because it's absurd. Really, which is more likely: the big daddy in the sky, or Freud's idea about the sublimation of the infant's view of the parent? God-given morality, or the anthropomorphized projection onto god of the moral codes that reflect our evolutionary psychology, shaped over millions of years by the most effective social behaviors for survival in the evolutionary environment?
You really ought to read Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal." Again, Dawkins is not primarily an anti-religion polemicist, he's a biologist; and all those authors I mentioned are scientists, mostly biologists and physical anthropologists. Their ways of looking at the world are so much richer and more satisfying, I think, than "God did it," end of story.
Fred,
Wow, so many a-priori, not properly evaluated assertions from this piece here, specially the one you quoted in caps:
"THE UNIVERSE WOULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME IF HE DID OR DIDN'T EXIST"
And them comparing it to this text before:
"the claim that god doesn't exist -- or at least is extremely unlikely to exist -- isn't extraordinary at all"
A non-sequitur is evident. Once again, these kind of people are just very shallow evaluators. I don't know exactly yet what is that stuff they are still trying to evade... sounds like Fundamaterialism (the term which is somehow used here).
So belief in this kind of god is not a question of evidence - it's a question of intellectual and aesthetic choice.
This is one of the most shallow statemens I've ever read, for the reason that this person is still focusing in discriminating an exoteric interpretation of God, but at the same time, dismisses it as someting of "aesthetic choice" alone.
What is even funnier, is that there are even more "aesthetic choices" done in physics for the sake of it, not to find something useful with it: some string theorists are working with the model of quantum gravity, by working the math aesthetically, and also, not leaving the electroweak model as it is, as it should work, no matter how fuzzy that theory may be.
The kind of physics I think is applied most of the time nowadays for solid-state electronics, comes from Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, and recently from spintronics' theories, not yet as easily from the electroweak's operator models.
So in conclusion, just focusing in attacking the exoteric explanations which he/she confuses with the main arguments for theism... once again, demonstrates that this person is not attacking the main arguments for theism, and rejects theism without further evaluation.
Kind Regards.
Yonose,
I presume that you are familiar with the Perennialist school of comparative religion.
Isn't is a little disingenuous to take what are clearly supposed to be personal anecdotes and scrutinize them as if they were logical arguments (which they are not)? I thought this blog would try to uphold the values of reasonable analysis it says it supports.
Chris,
Well, I was not, but the thing is that in many ways of mystical/occult literature, perannialism as practice is implicitly taught... I still agree that some findings of ancient knowledge are as important since then, as nowadays.
Debunkey Monkey,
From personal anecdotes anyone could implicitly get to conclude something, then, the logical arguments to get to that conclusion, are also non-explicit.
Is up to the individual to evaluate his/her own anecdotes carefully, not by thought processes alone, not so hastily, or with excessive rationalizations (which I recognize has been -and is- a really hard task for me)...
I don't blame atheists alone at all, but some of you should do a more thorough evaluation of your beliefs (I'm a former strong agnostic)...
Kind Regards.
The problem is that if you ask me for a story about how I became an atheist, I'll probably tell you about the time a friend and I were talking and we mentioned parts of the Bible that were clearly not true. I then drifted into atheism ever since.
That's the subjective thought processes that began to reshape my views. The logical reasons for me being an atheist are completely different and far more boring.
My subjective feelings and thoughts are not logic and not subject to the rules of logic. It's really disingenuous to imply that I would be making the case that, "Part of the Bible wasn't true, therefore there is no God."
Anyway, have a good day. :)
"Isn't is a little disingenuous to take what are clearly supposed to be personal anecdotes and scrutinize them as if they were logical arguments (which they are not)? I thought this blog would try to uphold the values of reasonable analysis it says it supports. "
When a noted Atheist blogger asks for your "reason to be an Atheist", and you don't give reasons, you give anecdotes, then you have failed to provide that which was asked for.
I see no reason to conclude that the Atheist "reasons" are anything else than Atheist reasons. It seems to me that attempting to make excuses for them is a method for trying to downplay their content as being representative. I think that this should be seen as demeaning to those who gave their reasons; it presumes that they did not follow instructions, and that can be interpreted several different ways.
But I see no objective reason other than that to deny the validity of what Atheists write about themselves, especially en masse, and in the company of other like minded Atheists. Unless, of course, one thinks that they are more emotional than rational.
"When a noted Atheist blogger asks for your "reason to be an Atheist", and you don't give reasons, you give anecdotes, then you have failed to provide that which was asked for."
Oh Stan, lying doesn't become you. You just made up a quote. I took the time to find PZ's blog entry where he asks people to write essays entitled "Why I am an Atheist," and not once did he say to give "reason[s] to be an atheist."
In fact, PZ never even mentions the word, "reason," which you keep repeating.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/08/call-for-submissions/
He mentions the whole idea was inspired by a book of prose: nothing to do with logical reasoning. In other words, he was clearly asking for personal experiences.
The blogger here seems to have good intentions, but like I said, it's disingenuous to to pretend personal anecdotes are trying to be logical arguments.
Debunkey Monkey
We went through this long ago. The word "why" is an entreaty to give reasons.
why,conj
1. the cause, reason, or purpose for which [that is ~ you did it].
Merriam Webster Dictionary, New Edition; 2004.
PZ asked "why". What they have done is give their reasons.
And your assessment of their mere anecdotes as not being actual reasons is without any merit other than your attempt to apply skeptical doubt without any corresponding evidence in support for it. Your are merely casting doubt without corresponding evidence for supporting that doubt, very close to Radical Skepticism. Is that a close assessment of your debunking methodology?
The fact that their reasons tend to be emotional and not based in logic or rationality must seriously grate. But facts are not optional.
D. Monkey:
I only tolerate charges of lying once. That sort of behavior gets itself removed. This conversation area is for adults.
Stan, if you don't like being called a liar, you shouldn't make up quotes. The fact is, intentionally or not, you lied. Learn from your mistakes, and don't attack the messenger, so to speak.
And please don't play word games. PZ was clearly asking for personal anecdotes as opposed to just logical proofs of atheism. The first thing he mentions is that the whole contest is based off of a book that shares the personal experiences of atheists through letters. This is not an opinion, it is clearly stated.
Debunky monkey speaks the truth.
Post a Comment