Proof yields certainty within a formal system

There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life. A proof is something by which we can say something is definitely so, or definitely not so. This means 100% certainty. So how does one get 100% certainty? The history of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, seems to indicate that such a thing is impossible with one exception (See Descartes’ meditations) and that in all other cases there is always room for doubt. If that is the case, how can proofs exist, as they should be things by which we attain absolute certainty?

Proofs do exist, but you have to keep in mind that these proofs are derived in the context of a certain framework. Such a framework assumes basic rules and basic truths, from which more truths are derived. We call this framework a formal system (or a logic(al) system). More formally, we say that a formal system has a deductive system, consisting of the basic truths (axioms) and the basic rules (rules of inference). The formal system also has a formal language.

Mathematics as an example of a formal system

This may sound vague, so let’s just take the best example: mathematics. Mathematics is a formal system. Mathematics has a language: it has symbols (e.g. x), numbers (e.g. 1), and operators (e.g. +) and grammar in which these components can occur (e.g. 1+2=3, but not =12+=). Note that 1+4=6 is a mathematical statement, even though it is untrue (which can be proven!) – analogous to this is that “I eat ideas until I am born.” is a grammatically correct sentence, even though a non-sensical one. Mathematics also has a deductive system. This deductive system has axioms (ground truths) such as Peano’s axioms, which describe the ground truths for arithmetic. The deductive system also has inference rules; rules by which other truths can be derived from the ground truths. Note that the ground truths are assumed to be true; they can not be proven within the formal system.

Chess as an example of a formal system

A different and perhaps more appreciable example of a formal system is a game like chess. Chess has a language: these are not symbols like in mathematics, but the chess pieces themselves, and the playing board. The axioms correspond to the starting positions of the pieces. It also has rules for what movements are allowed for what pieces. A configuration of chess pieces can be said to be “grammatically correct” if it can be reached using the movement rules for the various chess pieces. If a configuration is found that can not be reached using the rules for chess, you can say that it is not a chess configuration, just like we can say that =12+= is not a mathematical statement. In this regard chess puzzles are completely equivalent to mathematical problems. Chess being a formal system is the reason a chess game can be described with a string of coded chess notations, and the reason why computers can play chess.

Back to the weird statements people make. When you read that somebody has “proven that God (does not) exist(s)”, you should immediately think the following things:

1. This person is talking about proof, so this person is using a formal system.
2. In this formal system, “God” is a formally defined concept
3. In this formal system, “existence” is a formally defined concept or attribute for formally defined concepts
4. Using the deductive system of the formal system, this person has shown that “God” has the attribute “existence”

But of course, that is never the case. These people confuse the context of the formal system with the context every-day life: e.g. the “God” concept within the formal system with something that exists outside of that formal system. When you are not talking mathematics or logic, chances are small your use of the word ‘proof’ is correct. That also means that somebody who is trying to convince you that God exists, you must not ask him to “prove it”

Evidence never yields certainty, but does not require a formal system

Evidence is very different from proof. Whereas proof gives you certainty about something within a formal system, evidence can never give you any certainty. It only assigns more certainty of the truth to that which it is evidence of. If there is a lot of evidence in favour of a particular idea, and little or no evidence to suggest the opposite, we should assign a large certainty that that idea is true. David Hume communicates this idea concisely in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding when he writes “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

Scientific evidence

In a pursuit of understanding the universe, we are quickly moved toward scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence for a scientific concept, and which is in accordance with scientific requirement. Eyewitness testimony is considered important evidence in court, but it is of no value in the scientific community, for reasons of possible bias and the shortcomings of human perception. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. This is largely understood, but that it can only pertain to a scientific concept is often forgotten. How often have you heard atheists demand for scientific evidence for God? I even asked for this myself, until I better understood the concepts I am trying to explain in this article.

“Scientific evidence for God” implies that “God” is a scientific concept. This is certainly possible, but depends entirely on what “God” means. I have never seen a clear definition of God, but I do often encounter attributes of this “God”. One of these attributes is omnipotence: the ability to do everything. There are various degrees of omnipotence that are argued over by theologians, but I’ll overlook this for the sake of clarity. I ask you: if God can do anything, what then can count as scientific evidence of God? The answer is either everything or nothing. In both cases, we can learn nothing at all. Omnipotence is an attribute that the domain of science can not deal with. If God has this attribute, then there can exist no scientific evidence for God, and it is therefore ignorant to ask for it.

Recommendations

So what to do? In short, this article argues that if people want to prove God’s existence, they must first define what “God” and “existence” are within a particular formal system. You can safely disregard any so-called proofs that do not explicitly offer this information. I have also argued that there can exist no scientific evidence for any being that is omnipotent. You can safely disregard any so-called scientific evidence for omnipotent beings. What are we left with? That is something for theists to solve. It seems that “God” is such an obscure concept that, if it possibly exists, it bears little to no resemblance to the entities described in various holy books. Until new information is released, I shall remain an unimpressed non-theist.

More Antichristianity: The Disturbing Reality of Religion | Evidence | Christian arguments under siege, Part I : The “pro god” arguments

]]>

You can read the article on this site both as a Swedish extract and with a Google translation.

It is clear that Åkesson use sweeping statements and hyperboles, such as claiming that Europe will have the highest rape statistics in the world, and that Muslim men will be overrepresented. This is nothing new and basically just fear-mongering, the truth remains that most rapes today are done by white middle-class men no one would expect to be rapists, and neither do they, hence the as usual complete denial. A lot of men who are white and belong to the middle-class are never convicted simply because the judges believed them more, only for the pure reasons that they were white middle-class men. We do not perceive them of being capable of raping, even when there is overwhelming evidence presented. The reason why is simply of what Åkesson just expressed; we rather believe in the dark ambusher coming from an Arab country, spying on lone women at night hiding in a bush near a parkway, just ready to attack.

I live in a pretty Muslim-dense part of my town, and there is a local store that sell Halal meat. I can’t really say it bothered me more than I think it is unethical to drain an animal of blood while it is still alive, as I consider it a form of animal cruelty. Neither have I never felt unsafe when walking alone at night in my area. A lot of children’s families live here, the worst thing I usually experience are teenagers who drive around with their vespas in the middle of the night. I have also yet to meet a person who was clearly mean to me. All of the people I’ve spoken to are nice, such as the guy who sits at the counter in the previously mentioned store that sell Halal meat.

Instead of actually explaining how he would like to proceed to solve the issues with identitiy crisis among second- and third generation immigrants, Åkesson retorts to fear-mongering tactics. What’s worse is the huge support SD have started to gain among the general population, so obviously it is working. I wish people were less blind and could actually see that Åkesson offers NOTHING to solve the problem, he just makes statement after statement of what is wrong. That is not a solution, just empty promises. So what is Åkesson going to do once he get to power? Kick out all immigrants from Sweden? That is obviously not going to work, no matter how you look at it. One reason is that the Swedish birthrate is too low.

I should add that sually any identity to the grandparents’ country is lost at the third generation as they become completely immersed within their “host” country, so I am not sure what kind of statistics Åkesson took part of, but it’s very contradictory to what I’ve learnt as an anthropology student. So I don’t see why Åkesson is quite worried. Yes, angsty teenagers in the surburbs are a problem, but they aren’t angsty because they are Muslims, they are angsty because the politicians do nothing to improve their situation and ultimately the become marginalized from society! One would expect our politicians to learn that it doesn’t work to dump immigrants on one dense place. Philipe Burgois’ book In Search of Respect is a perfect example of what will happen in Sweden in the future if we don’t try to spend money to improve the situation.

Lastly, there are a lot of claims made about what is Swedish, but Åkesson nor anyone from SD never offer any form of explanation of what they mean what being Swedish is. Am I Swedish for having a Swedish name and a Swedish personal number and for considering myself part Swedish? Or am I too, an evil immigrant here to poison the country and the so called Swedish culture because of my Korean heritage? I do not deny my Korean heritage and I consider myself just as much Korean as I consider myself Swedish. I just so happened to have a Swedish name that people mention me as and to speak Swedish fluently. It should be said that my Korean name is actually a part of my whole name, only the surname is left out for reasons I don’t know, but I think it was inconvenient for my parents to name me Fridh Kim or any variant of it, since they were married and it would be troublesome legally I suppose.

If there is anything that worries me right now when it comes to Swedish politics it’s if SD would get into the parliament. I am very worried over what will happen with the current Swedish democracy and freedom of speech. I do not deny Åkesson’s right to voice his opinions, but I do deny him the right to get into the Swedish parliament and I will actively do so by refusing to vote for him and his party. Any person who only argues for the right for his own freedom of speech and his own social rights only fool himself if he claims to support a democratic society where everybody is equal.

I do agree with Åkesson that our current immigration is a huge issue and that we have yet to learn how to manage to deal with all the angsty teenagers living in the suburbs. Clearly what our politicans are currently doing isn’t working, but this also includes Åkesson and his SD! I admit that one of the reasons why I want to become a scientist within the anthropological field is so I can go out in the field and actually gather FACTS so maybe they’ll start doing something USEFUL and TANGIBLE. I do want to be able to influence our politicians on a greater scale than what I am currently able of just being a normal citizen with an opinion.

It should also be noted that SD got strong Christian roots (hahahahahahaha!), as if I’d ever cast my vote for such a retarded party that make claims of how dangerous Islam is and that the Koran is so dogmatic and then come running making such weak claims that “but at least we got the NT who make claims about turning the other cheek!”. Yeah, right, like that’s exactly what you are doing Åkesson? Like referring to the NT ever stopped Christianity from still oppressing our society and still does here in the West. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. Of course, Åkesson wouldn’t define his homophobia as much as oppressing, just that the Bible says so and therefore it is right. Now, maybe Åkesson should start looking at himself first and the claims he and his party make regarding domatism, then maybe they got the right to critize Islam properly.

Such fucking idiocy. I wish people could actually see that Åkesson is just a big fucking hypocrite and if I could, I would smother him where he stands with my soceress’ fire ball. In fact, I wish we could tear down our whole current political system and abdicate all our active politicians. They are very good at talking and avoiding questions, very bad at actually making the changes they always claim they are aiming for.

More Antichristianity: Power, but to whom and why? | Satan pooping on Jesus? Hell yeah! | Humanist hypocrisy

]]>

The idea is far from new, and we may even find notions of this in other philosophical systems that may seem completely unrelated to religion at all. Friedrich Nietzsche spoke about his concept of the übermensch, the super human, and that we can only become truly free and be able to take control of our own lives once we discard such notions as religion. In the humanist movement a less metaphorical term is used, and it is simply just called empowerment. Once again, by discarding such things as religion can we become truly free and take control of our own lives. In the Enlightenment movement one could only become truly free by accepting rationality and common sense. Through logic and reason alone are we capable of realizing our own individual freedom. In Taoism, we can only become truly free by understanding our own importance in a holistic system, and realizing that it is not about I, the subject, but about we, as a single entity. The system in Taosim in how we can achieve true balance with the world is also very intricate, and advocate strong ideas of how to act and behave in different situations.

Maybe it is easier to understand why some people may turn to religion in the light of being an excuse to find self-empowerment which they alone failed in achieving without an intricate system such as religion with clear rules to follow in how such empowerment can be reached. I will not try to go into and debate as to why self-empowerment may be so intrinsically important to human beings, and why we ultimately still like to believe in the idea of our own prsonal freedom and power to achieve things we want to achieve, nor is it in the scope or interest of this website, but if religion offers a possibility to reach such self-empowerment, then it has surely succeeded. With that said, obviously religion is not for everybody, as shown with my examples of philosophical movements and ideas that are unrelated to religion and at times even strongly opposed such a notion, so maybe ultimately the reason why some people may seem to change religious affiliations as if they were changing clothes may lie in that the system they just joined simply wasn’t the way for them to achieve this empowerment within, may it be for philosophical or other reasons. For example, I really don’t find the notion attractive of living an ascetic life or fast once a year for a month, but if making a claim that my non-religious stance has helped to make me feel that I am in control of my own life, I will answer honestly that yes, I do believe so. I am not going to deny that religion ultimately is a powerful tool when it comes to finding self-empowerment, if it wasn’t, I am sure a lot less would be religious than what we are currently seeing today, the problem is of course all the other ideas that religion imposes that I cannot as easily accept as something intrinsically good, and if religion truly is representing a system for self-empowerment, maybe it would be time to develop something new that does not include ideas of human rights 2000 years ago.

More Antichristianity: Humanist hypocrisy | Seasons of rebirth | In Praise of the Devil

]]>

It can also be noted that the Autotune version of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking has now gained such popularity that it was mentioned on Nanok!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

Embedding fails.

More Antichristianity: A small pwnage | French christians trying to boycott Hellfest | Sverigedemokraterna did it again

]]>

It may be apparent that these causes are different, yet related. The most important aspect is the directionality these causes imply. It is this directional property that I will be focusing on a lot. One could say that the efficient cause looks from the past towards the present, whereas the final cause looks from the present towards the future. You could say that the efficient cause is the answer to the question “how”, and that the final cause is the answer to the question “why”. Another important aspect in which these two causes are different is intentionality. In case of the efficient cause, no goal is necessarily implied, whereas in the case of the final cause there is. A conscious entity is required for a final cause, as actions result from being a necessary step towards a goal.

Having said that, I assume bells have already started ringing. This description of two particular Aristotelian categories of causality will remind many of how the relationship between science and religion is often perceived: science answers the “how” questions whilst religions answers the “why” questions. In other words: science provides efficient causes, whilst religion provides final causes. The way science provides these answers is through the scientific inquiry: a method applied to a domain in which causal homogeneity and methodological naturalism are assumed. Therefore we find a directionality from past to future in science, as well as an absence of intentionality. This is why God can never scientifically be said to be a cause of anything, because an agent with a mind does not necessarily behave the same way the next time (this is also why creationism is inherently unscientific). Science is constrained, but progressive; assuming that the accumulation of information is higher than the loss of data, and assuming that there are people with novel ideas once in a while, we can expect more accurate models of reality emerge from science over time. In other words: For more accuracy, look later in the scientific archives.

Religion is different; as it (though not exclusively) provides answers to questions concerning final causes. The idea that religion is closely connected to this category of cause are supported by often invoked sayings such as “God has a plan for us all” or “God works in mysterious ways”; but also by concepts of “the greater good” and “God’s will”. The intentions of a deity for the future are the most important factor for providing an answer to the “why” of the events that occur in the present. Therefore we find a directionality from future to present in religion, as well as a clear presence of intentionality. The method that religion uses for discerning the answers it provides are wholly contingent upon interpretation of the “revealed truths” contained within “sacred books”. This means there is no epistemological basis for answers stemming from religions: they are wholly contingent upon an assumption of authority. Unlike science, religion is not progressive, but static. The prevailing method for one who wants to analyse religious answers is to look at the original texts. The earliest manuscripts are more authoritative than later ones, because these might contain alterations introduced by scribes. In other words: For more accuracy, look earlier in the religious archives.

There is also something else going on, because religious answers do not have to be constrained. Ideas spawned from religion do not even have to be consistent with logic. Such examples are abundant in theistic religions. Take for example the position of Descartes about the omnipotence paradox (”Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?”): he posits that God has absolute omnipotence, being above logic and able to do even that which is logically self-contradictory. The other attributes the Abrahamic god is often accredited with also result in logical paradoxes. These are the coexistence of God’s omniscience and free will, and the problem of evil (the coexistence of God’s omnibenevolence and suffering). Luckily, not all theologians are as drunk on God as Descartes was. They acknowledge logic as a constraint on God, as well as on the answers religion provide. As such, there exists room for debate, which is wholly absent with those who side with Descartes.

One has to wonder, though: if God is constrained by logic, is he then not also constrained by the natural laws that humans discovered through the application of logic and the epistemological toolbox we call the scientific method? And if that is so, why not recognize the basis to religious answers is logically fallacious to start with? This is one of the important questions in examining the relationship between religion and science. Though both give answers to different Aristotelian causes in principle, religion often moves beyond it’s turf. This may be evident in religiously inspired pseudo-science, such as creationism; but also in writings by philosophers who drank the God poison. On the other hand, science has been conquering land from religion on the battlefield of ideas. Questions that were previously unanswerable by science were answered by religion. In the light of the ever-improving scientific models of reality, ancient religious doctrine is approaching the absurd. Where the constrained light of science does not shine, religion stands rooted in it’s usual method: mere guesswork.

More Antichristianity: Some answers | An objective look into systems that seek truth; their inner workings, merits and dangers | Ray Comfort’s at it again – The vendetta against intellectual pursuit

]]>

Plato stated that there are basically two realities: one which we can sense with our 5 senses, and one which is objective and is independent to the reality which we can actually sense. This reality is also said to be timeless and cannot change. For sake of easy reference, this objective world will from now be called O, whereas the material reality that we can study will be called M. Plato’s main idea is that M is a shadow of O, because M constitutes of many attributes that makes it “weak” or “lesser” in terms of existence, such as being finite, as compared to O.

Now, I thought that O vs M is a good analogy to ask, what if we compare O to god? I don’t think this idea is very farfetched in theory, because there are actually many similarities between the Christian god and O, most notably that:

- M is a reflection of O
- O is supposed to not be able to change in nature and is timeless
- O exists independently of M

If switching the word O with god, this would happen:

- M is a reflection of god (which can be interpreted as M is god’s creation)
- God cannot change in nature and is timeless
- God exists independently of M

Now, there are however a few flaws in Plato’s theory, most notably the one about independence. Because if O exists independently of M, then how can we know for certain that M is merely a reflection of O? We simply cannot know what O is, because O is supposed to be seperate of M. We cannot study O at all.

This argument is strikingly similar to the argument that Christians keep repeating, except that they are contradicting themselves, because:

1) Christians claim that god exists in another realm of existence outside the material world and can thus not be interacted with or studied
2) Christians claim they have had personal experiences with god, such as being told something by god, or felt a divine presence

But 1) and 2) are almost mutually exclusive because:

3) Christians also claim that we cannot understand or know god

So if 1) is true, then 2) cannot be true, because how can they know it was god if they also at the same time claim 3)? So 2) is actually a contradiction to 1) and 3), because even if they claim to know that was indeed god, we simply cannot know.

While I am not trying to argue for some kind of extreme skepticism here, at least I think that using Plato’s theory as an analogy shows that Christians can never know for a certainty that god indeed exists, and if they claim they do they are contradicting themselves. We cannot logically prove whether god’s existence is true or false, particularly if using a similar argument like that of Plato’s, but I don’t think that is what is important, but rather which I have shown here. Due to logical uncertainty, I think any religious person should not be so quick rushing at saying “goddidit” or “it was god, I know it”, because according to this, how can they can truly know? It could’ve as well been Satan or any other divine being. It is exactly that kind of naïvety that they often claim anti-religious for doing, when the anti-religious do something they do not personally agree with, (”you follow Satan but you don’t know it”), but I think here I have evidence for that they themselves shouldn’t be so certain of god’s existence, or they are as hypocricial as they claim others to be.

More Antichristianity: Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 1 | Christian arguments under siege, Part I : The “pro god” arguments | A tack on Cartesian dualism: Christianity I

]]>

I should forewarn the reader that I am a mathematics major and as such, I have tried to apply a sort of governing formula for my discussion here. I have tried to outline it and provide examples that are fitting to the problem at hand.

Here is how I am going to approach the Bible for this particular exercise I wish to discuss. I look at the ultimate goal of the Bible to be an algorithm that essentially outlines God’s plan. It’s a sort of rulebook, if you will, that outlines what God’s program is going to do and what believers can expect. We see the “expected” outcomes in the forms of “prophecy”. I am also taking something for granted, the fact that Christians frequently say how God’s word is “truth” or “absolute truth”. This axiom, to me, means that God never breaks his word (i.e. he never lies)… according to the Bible at least. Thus I will assume that God’s algorithms for “governing” his creation are not going to be broken as well. Christians can say “God can do whatever he wants” in response to some of my points. However, that means that God would break his word as laid down by the Bible (i.e. he really lied to us).

I can now get into the purpose of the paper. The most major criteria governing who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell can be summed up with the two following rules (as quoted by many Christians to me).

#1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body and soul.
#2) Love your neighboor as yourself.

I wouldn’t say these are actually unique to the Christian faith, as I have heard similar statements made by the Jews. There is even an allegory I remember reading about an old Rabbi who was challenged once about Judaism’s message. Basically the story went that the challenger said he would convert to Judaism if the Rabbi could teach him all the knowledge of the Torah while standing on one leg. The Rabbi rose to the challenge and said “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” As you can see, this little saying isn’t really anything new. Anyway, this is one of the major things Christians use to preach the Gospel and win people over to their way of thinking. I really want to focus in on these two sayings and apply it to some very extreme cases that are real world examples.

The first person I want to discuss and introduce is Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi. Gandhi is considered, historically, as one of the worlds most influential people for civil rights. For those needing the history refresher he was the leader of a non-violent civil disobedience movement against the British occupation of India. He essentially wanted to free his people from British rule through non-violent means. His story has been heralded the world over as one of the greatest in human history. He is synonymous with many symbols of peace and he has influenced many movements of civil rights around the globe. The world is, frankly, a better place for his existence. Not only did he help his own people, but he has influenced others to stand up against oppression and demand their freedom as well.

There is one huge flaw with Gandhi though. He followed Hinduism. Now this is a major problem. Being occupied by the British means he would have had exposure to Christian ideology and religious teachings. This means exposure to Jesus’ teachings. While Gandhi clearly followed criteria #2, to the level that he didn’t even want to harm his enemies, he did not follow criteria #1. That’s right, he did not think Jesus was God, nor were any of his motivations for peace influenced by Jesus. This means that Gandhi has been sent to Hell. Yes, I am fully aware that I did not see God physically send Gandhi to Hell, but if God did not, then God is a liar. Not only that, the #2 requirement doesn’t appear to be warranted for the #2 slot in the hierarchy of rules governing our world. Requirement #1 seems to be a far more defining factor. Thus Gandhi is in Hell due to a technicality. I wouldn’t say this really shows the just nature of God, but it could be argued that Gandhi knowingly rejected God and thus God didn’t want to force Gandhi into wanting his help, that invalidates free will. I understand this factor, but it doesn’t technically make it “just”, though it makes sense within the system. But surely this must be an isolated incident?

Let me introduce you to the second person I want to discuss, his name is Adolf Hitler. Hitler, by many, is believed to be embodiment of evil. Truly no redemption could ever be awaiting this man. Or could it?

Let me go on a quick tangent. I have heard Hitler’s name referenced as an Atheist as an example of how atheism is a real threat. I hate to break it to people out there, but Hitler was a Christian. Below you will find some quotes, the most important being from “Mein Kampf” which was written in his own words discussing Christianity.

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” (Mein Kampf, pgs. 562-563)

“We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. … We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.” (Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928)

“Anyone who thinks he can arrive at a religious reformation by the detour of a political organization only shows that he has no glimmer of knowledge of the development of religious ideas or dogmas and their ecclesiastical consequences. Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party.” (Mein Kampf, pg 114)

On discussing unworthy priests:
“…but for one such unworthy priest there are a thousand and more honorable ones, shepherds most loyally devoted to their mission, who, in our present false and decadent period, stand out of the general morass like little islands.” (Mein Kampf, pg 115)

As you can see the man was Christian. If you really need further proof go pick up a copy of the book, go to the index, and look up “Catholic Church”. There you will find all the reading you need on the matter. Now at this point you can see I’ve outlined that Hitler followed criteria #1. At this point you are probably thinking I’m crazy because only criteria #2 remains and how could Hitler fit that criterion? Let me explain. Amidst all that genocide and ethnic cleansing was a man who was trying to save his people. His “neighbors” if you will. Not only that, he took it a step further, he was actually trying to save the entire world from the Jewish threat. It doesn’t matter if none of it was true, the fact is, Hitler was doing it from a caring place in his heart. Sure he was angry about it, but that’s why he stood up to save the people! If you read “Mein Kampf”, as I have, you will see this plainly. His ideas weren’t coming strictly from a place of hatred, but from a place of love for his people.

Now, as a Christian, he would repent his sins, as that is part of the process. You ask for forgiveness, no self respecting Christian would say this wasn’t important. Hitler being well educated and intelligent would do this. So, I have to assume that he would ask for forgiveness of his sins and thus God adhering to his rulebook would absolve Hitler of sins. What does this mean? It means Hitler is in Heaven.

Now I thought I was going to get myself caught in a technicality for God meting out his justice. It is generally accepted that Hitler committed suicide, and most Christians seem to regard this as a major sin. I suppose it’s because they tie it in with “thou shalt not kill” and there are numerous passages discussing the sanctity of life. So Anath went and did some research for me. We couldn’t really find any passages specifically stating that if you commit suicide you go to hell. In fact we found that Samson technically committed suicide and God basically helped. Saul also committed suicide. Judas committed suicide as well. Judas, to me, seems to be the most tragic of cases. Judas was rather “pre-destined” as it is alluded to in the text that he was meant to do what he did. So it seems rather unfair that he didn’t seem to technically have a choice in this. Though, if I remember correctly, he supposedly repented (someone can correct me if I am wrong about this). Either way, I couldn’t find any specific statements that said you go to Hell immediately if you commit suicide. Rather, I find this sort of thing mentioned in Dante’s “Inferno”. Maybe the notion came from there?

In conclusion, you can plainly see the justice system as designed by God. Apparently this is supposed to be perfect. But under God’s rule Gandhi is in Hell and Hitler is in Heaven. Maybe my moral compass is broken because I have strong atheistic leanings, but internally I have a problem with this system. If it allows this kind of a thing to happen I would say the system is broken.

Ultimately what does this come down to? It appears to me that criteria #2 is actually rather negligible. It’s more of a “good message” concept rather than actually necessary. To me, it seems this is somewhat overridden by the forgiveness clause that Christianity also follows. Maybe #2 is there so that you can justify good works in light of God, so you can say “I do good things because I love God” or “God wants me to do them”. But that doesn’t change the fact that you can be a serial killer, a mass murderer, etc and ask for forgiveness of your sins and get to Heaven. I know that’s a major perk for winning over people, especially with the “no one can ever be perfect” message. This is akin to me wearing a blue shirt then having someone walk up to me and informing me that I am, in fact, wearing a blue shirt. For some reason a lot of people need to be told its okay not to be perfect, rather than coming to terms with that on their own. Maybe God really does sort these people out better, but based on what I read in his “word”, I don’t get that impression.

More Antichristianity: Nietzschean musings: God’s suicide | Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed (Sham Documentary by Ben Stein) | Mental Retaliation

]]>

First of all, McCane assumes that the goal of these new atheist books is to convince Americans to there is no God. As far as I’m concerned, only Dawkins’ book does that. Dawkins argues that there the idea that a God exists is not supported by evidence at all, and that therefore this belief is a delusion. Hitchens writes about religion and not god in particular; he argues that religion has bad influence on the world. Where he does mention God is mostly to criticize this God’s behaviour as being immoral (this is particularly true for the Old Testament God.) Dennett did not write about God at all in his book, and simply argued that religion should be studied in a scientific framework, as opposed to it being off-limits to science.

And even though Dawkins does argue against the existence of a supernatural creator, I think he is well aware he is no going to convince anybody who is firmly rooted in the belief that this being does exist. The title of his book suggests an entirely different audience – people who have serious doubts about this particular belief, or are already atheists but who have never examined this belief philosophically or scientifically. Or perhaps it was written to provide those closet atheists who live in a community of theists some ammunition to come out. Nor should one see Dawkins’ book merely as a reason why one should not believe in a god, but also why one would not believe in a god.

Secondly, McCane suggests the new atheism failed because Americans will not be swayed about religion by logic and science. He cites that a survey showed that only 2% of people say logic and science play a role in their choice of religion. He says Americans are pragmatic about their religion, as most go through a series of religious affiliations in a lifetime as spiritual seekers. There is a duality I feel about this percentage. Two important aspects about religion is that it provides a moral code and that it provides ideas about the universe. On one side, I think it is sad that only two percent of people care enough about logic, science and reason to use it in determining what religion offers the most accurate ideas about the universe. On the other side, I am glad that only two percent thinks their religion is supported by logic, science and reason, because I feel they often oppose these religious ideas.

More importantly, it is important to realize that you can’t convince somebody who doesn’t accept the epistemic value of logic (and indirectly, science) about anything. It is the same as talking to a brick wall. No argument and no fact bears any weight any more. There is a symmetry here with “us atheists” who are confronted by theists who will make claims based on their particular holy book. Because we do not accept these books as infallible, we must investigate those claims on more than their souce. The difference is that people who still use logic, have more to go on than the inerrant authority of whichever book or person. People who do not believe in an afterlife can not be scared into submission by threats of hell, and people who do not accept logic can not be persuaded by any argument, no matter how sound the argument is. In the mindset of those 98%, any book that disputes their particular religious beliefs is best ignored. No wonder it doesn’t work for them.

Thirdly the new atheism failure is said to be due to it being intolerant of religion, which clashes with the now widely held value of religious tolerance. I am willing to concede the point that the new atheism is perceived that way, but I dispute the fact that it is really as intolerant as people might think. Religion, like politics, is one of those subjects people have decided talking about during dinner is not done. Not only is it a subject that people might disagree over fervently without getting anywhere (remember the 98%), it is also considered sacred or holy. Vocal and written opposition to deeply held religious beliefs can easily be hurtful, especially when the conclusion to such opposition is that you are delusional. On the other hand, these conclusions were not reached as a goal to attack religious people. These are conclusions reached through arguments, and remembering the poll, only 2% of all religious people have reason to be offended by such conclusions in the first place.

The new atheism is more about bringing atheism out of the closet as an acceptable position, and to bring religion down from it’s uncritiqueable pedestal and into serious inquiry -  which is the only thing Dennett is arguing for. Toes will be stepped on, and people will be offended – not only by words as delusional, but by secular and atheist ideas in itself alone – but that should not stand in the way of intellectual discourse. In conclusion: I do not think the new atheism has failed at all.  By putting arguments for atheism and against religion out there, in it has helped making atheism and scepticism a valid position. The books are interesting in themselves for their ideas and arguments, and make up for a modern addition to a historical plethora of written material on the subject of religion.

More Antichristianity: Crimes of Atheism | Cartesian Dualism: Atheism II | Confession

]]>

Anyway, we left off with typo drama and a bit of bragging.  Now it’s my turn to confront the nonsense.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Anath said:
I’m not too frustrated, I’m having a grand time since this sort of thing is very stress relieving and it is finals so I am very stressed. : )

>>Concerning man’s evolutionary descent, I will here remind you of a fact that I am sure you are aware of: not all evolutionists are Darwinists. In my post I mentioned and was speaking of evolutionists, not Darwinists. There are contentions about man’s origins. Perhaps you have merely dealt with the evolutionists that follow Darwin.

I am still waiting for your examples. I have yet to come across one person who believes in either “Darwinian” evolution, or ANY form of the Theory of Evolution who does not assert that we had a common ancestor that was hominid/primate/mammal/animal/eukaryote… Only Creationists and ID proponents do not believe this because they believe for some bizarre reason we were made out of dirt, or are somehow not Apes. EXAMPLES, PLEASE. If you want to make a statement you NEED to back it up.

>>I do not remember claiming that my discussions would be limited to biologic life. In fact, I remember discussing plate tectonics in a much earlier post. Ah, yes, evolutionists do have theories concerning the origin of the universe, do they not? I notice a trend of responses to my posts constantly referring to Darwinism. I never declared that I only would discuss Darwinism.

I will read the stuff on dark matter after finals, but it does seem a bit odd the way you are presenting it.

Now you missed the purpose for this paragraph which I believe you should read again: “Also, evolution says nothing about anything other than life. It says nothing about the universe at large or solar system or the movements of planets or the deaths of stars or the big bang or abiogenesis. It has to do with adapting life, and ONLY adapting life. Discussing the estimation of the age of the universe is in the realm of astronomers and cosmologists, NOT “evolutionists”.”

I did not mean you cannot discuss these topics but let me rephrase for more clarity. It is not “evolutionists” that have theories about the universe (meaning anything other than biological life) as a whole but rather it is ASTRONOMERS and COSMOLOGISTS. Astronomers and Cosmologists may follow the Theory of Evolution or they may not. There is a high correlation between scientists and those believe the theory is true, but remember your order of carts and horses. These scientists are ASTRONOMERS and COSMOLOGISTS before they are “evolutionists”, so to state that “evolutionists” have a theory is erroneous, as there may be astronomers and cosmologists that do not follow evolutionary theory. You would be better off stating that “astronomers and cosmologists” have theories about the universe, because that is true. Also it is erroneous to assume that an issue with these theories impacts the theory of evolution in any way, or can be used as an argument against it. When discussing geology, cosmology/astronomy, or anything OTHER than biological evolution, keep “Evolution” and “Evolutionists” out of it. As stated before, it is fallacious and erroneous.

>> Peer review

I don’t “worship” peer review either, I am skeptical of everything. However I am much more likely to look at an article in a peer-reviewed journal, since it means that there is a higher chance the article is not total nonsense, and any oddities WILL be addressed in the future as more scientists try to repeat the experiment. No peer reviewed paper is gospel, and no scientist reviews peer reviewed papers as gospel. Why do you think they/we do?

And also, look, I know you’re trying to find any way to gain credibility here, but leave out nonsense like this:
>>In my study of science so far, I have experienced a reasonable amount of success. For several years my grade average in general science has been above 95. My average in chemistry was 93.

Your high school grades aren’t going to prove anything and have no bearing on the real world. Displaying actual understanding of the subject proves something. I also got straight A’s in high school, straight A’s in college (including college-level science classes), and even got 100+% A’s in Religion class in private Christian school, which CLEARLY has no connection to my reality. So WHAT? Who CARES? Grades mean NOTHING, just that one can regurgitate and spit for the test. How about you go back and readdress my points on operating “outside” nature and dolphins and antibiotics and predators other things I posted a rebuttal for rather than bragging about how well you did in high school and playing English teacher?

If you want to talk the talk, WALK THE WALK. Running away without addressing serious points and cowering under the shield of “I believe it is true so I’m not listening na na na na!” is, I repeat, foolish.

And now comes the epic posts. Hopefully my “step up or step out” comment inspired him, because Aelnathan breaks the character limit and has to move to using THREE posts to state his argument. However, I’m only going to blockquote once. You can safely skim the first three to five paragraphs though, its just Aelnathan continuing to play English teacher, berating everyone who’s omg so stupids to make and call out typos because its so not helpful for the debate… while insisting he’s being constructive and clever.

I am also going to annotate it in bold, because its too long to have annotations at the end.

Aelnathan said:
First of all, for Cleric’s benefit, I will here declare my understanding that this medium through which we are currently conversing is not intended to be a beacon of grammatically correct English speech. Spelling error is not a fatal sin here, nor is the occasional double negative. Though I have noticed spelling and grammar errors in your previous posts (whether it be your failure to capitalize the first letter of “Noah” in your March 16 post, or your more recent replacement of “theorm” for “theorem” in your May 6 post), I have not previously commented on them, because I realize the casual atmosphere of this discussion. I am sure that anyone could pick out errors in my own posts. However, it is not necessary (nor productive) for one human to label another human a fool in discussions like these. I am not quite sure why the word “fool” was decided upon. Perhaps the person responsible for this word’s utterance was attempting to engender anger in myself, hoping that I would return with some biting remark. However, I do not believe such activity is helpful, and so instead I commented on the confusing layout of the derisive sentence of which I was the target. It is amusing to note that you, Cleric, have used a similar method yourself before. On July 23, 2008, in response to a post R. Schrader had made about your review of Expelled, saying,

“But they deliberately forget that long ago by Gods word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 2 Peter 3:5″,

you said,

“By the way, I like how you pluralized “god” in relation to the creation. This at least shows that you might have a clue about the Hebrew translation of “elohim” in the beginning of Gensis, where it reads “gods”. However, you might just be bad at writing and didn’t make it a possessive. Anyway, if you could get back to me that would be great!”

One could argue that my comment on your post was somewhat fairer, considering that I made it obvious that I understood what you were trying to say. At any rate, English is but a mode of conveying knowledge, whether it be helpful or inflammatory. Science is the discussion here, and the varying nuances of the English language are of neither great concern nor pertinence. When one is being insulted, however, the least one could ask for is a clearly stated deprecation. All in all, it is obvious that grammar is not tantamount to scientific proficiency. If I have skill with it, it makes me no better a person or scientist than the next person. It has not been my intent to disparage you, Cleric. I was merely illustrating yet another occurrence of the “Misspelled Moron” phenomenon that I and others have observed over time. Generally, this singularly amusing principle can be seen when a person proclaims another to be an “ideot” (instead of “idiot) or “moran” (instead of “moron”), botching their attempts to insult another by portraying their own fallacies with spelling. Perhaps theses occurrences have little to do with the subject at hand, yet it is interesting nonetheless.

Now that the “English Incident” has been resolved, it is time to move on to other things. I am happy to hear that you, Anath, have found such a convenient method of stress-relief, and if I am of service, I am glad. However, in many cases, the treatment SRVD (Stress Relief Via Debate) often has seriously frustrating side effects. Side effects may include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, denial, incredulity, disappointment, and stress-generation. If these symptoms should occur, stop using SRVD immediately.

I have quite logically been asked to support my claims of discord among evolutionists concerning man’s ancestry, and thus I now provide my ex-planation. What follows is a quote from the book This View of Life, written by the renowned, Darwin-Wallace Medal-winning paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson: “On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pus-syfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the des-cendant of any living ape—-a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—-and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise (1964, p. 12, This View of Life [New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World]).
I hope this makes my point concerning the contention of man’s origins clear. By Simpson’s comments, we can see that such an argument, at least at one time, existed. That’s right, because the debate about semantics in 1964 is so relevant to our level of knowledge today. Additionally there was a conclusion drawn here, and I think it was the opposite of what he wanted..

In response to the apparently “erroneous” exercise of pointing out fallacies in the biological theories of evolution by means of commonly held astrophysics, I will in turn ask my own question. If it is forbidden to apply astrophysics to theories concerning the dawn of life on Earth, why is it so often used as a method to disprove Creationism? Why do so many scientists ridicule the idea of a young universe (and subsequently a young Earth, and thus recent emergence of biological life, etc.), stating examples such as “It takes over a million years for the light of the Andromeda Galaxy to reach Earth” or that “Since it takes so many billions of years for a star to become a red giant, the fact that there are so many red giants proves that the universe is very old”? If one side of the debate is allowed to use such methods, than it is only fair that the other may also use such methods. I do not see why this item would be so controversial. In addition, much of today’s accepted theories concerning the origin of the universe are “evolutionary” in nature. Stating that the exceedingly complex universe of today arose from the “primeval atom” or whatnot suggests that the universe has evolved to greater complexity in its components and as a whole. Whether it fits within “Darwinism” or “evolutionary biology” is irrelevant. I must apparently clarify my aims of discussion yet further. I never said that I would limit myself to discussing Darwinism or evolutionary biology. I have all along been discussing evolution as a whole—-stellar evolution and related topics included. To harp about my departures from the mysteriously formed rules that only the evo-lution of biological life can here be discussed is immensely absurd.

Concerning your stance on peer-review, have a care! You are in danger of being lambasted by a certain poster in virtually close proximity! You risk being labeled a “fool”! Ah, well, your views on peer-review are pretty much my own (… Cleric holds the same views I do on the topic, I don’t get it.). It is a very real possibility that certain potentially in-cendiary findings may be suppressed indefinitely, however, and consi-dering how much faith is put into this fairly recent system, this possibility is disconcerting to say the least. As said by Dr. Richard Horton, a man much more highly qualified and experienced than myself, the peer-review system is “easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” [see my previous post for a more complete quote, as well as its source]

Your comments on my rather junior education so far are quite right, though to assert that such truly meager achievements have left absolutely no mark on my life is somewhat untrue. My average of 97 in English has certainly shown results, much to the unfortunate chagrin of some. However, I hope this most recent post has imbued my side of the discus-sion some greater measure of credibility (No, it really hasn’t.). If you wish to return to the subject of the bounds of natural evolution, dolphins, and the like, I will most happily oblige.

Concerning the bounds of natural evolution, and man’s apparent transcendence of it, I will ask another question. Why did we ever leave the jungle? Why would an ape ever find the need to evolve to a higher intelligence? You made a rather succinct statement before concerning the evolution of dolphins when you said, “Why would you think they should have developed hands with opposable thumbs? Would that have helped them swim faster and escape predators? NO. They adapted to fit their marine environment. We adapted to our arboreal one. Different solutions for the same problem.” Again, I ask, “Why did we ever leave the jungle?” The gorilla is incredibly well-suited to his arboreal environment. If the dolphin never found the need to evolve to a more complex physical form (to exploit its intelligence) because it was so well suited to its marine environment, why would our ancient “primate ancestor” find the need to evolve to a more complex mental form? Man’s intelligence, in the strictest sense, is unnecessary. Yes, it has led us to become the dominant species, but that is not necessary for us to survive. In many ways it could be argued that man’s “intelligence” will be his downfall, what with the possibility of nuclear war and the like. Other questions also remain. How come man has lost the hairy coat and great strength of other primates? Would not these features have been beneficial to carry on to higher levels of evolution? Please, do not bring up talk about Darwin’s theories of “sexual selection”, or try to say that primates of our intelligence level would find hulking hairy brutes repulsive if our race were hulking hairy brutes. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The perception of beauty is relative. Apes mate just fine without any cosmetic fanfare to speak of. Why does natural selection drop off so many traits beneficial to survival, replacing them with subjective, aesthetic appeal? In this light, the system does not seem very efficient; it seems rather wasteful, to be frank.

I hope that so far I have been found to be walking the walk. However, I am not finished. Yes, I am sure that this will bother some, but I will now return to the subject of the origin of the universe, and how the most commonly held secular view is rather pertinent to evolution as a whole. The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe by secular scientists. However, the theory’s entire existence depends on two assumptions,

1. That physical laws are universal
2. The cosmological principle, which says that the universe on large scales is ho-mogenous and isotropic.

Yet the claim that the universe arose unaided from some superhot, super-dense clump of matter during the Planck Epoch breaks one of the fundamental physical laws—-the second law of thermodynamics, which in the version relating to entropy states, ” In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.” This renders the Big Bang Theory little more than a peculiar paradox, at least when it is expected to occur unaided. Nearly all of the evidence of astro-nomical observation indicates that the universe was certainly once much smaller, but when scientists try to explain its completely “natural” birth, they find that there is only so far they can go before scientific principles literally cease to exist. As demonstrated by such natural processes as photo-synthesis, entropy can be fought in small systems, yet even these events contribute to the greater total entropy of the universe. The only logical explanation for the occurrence of a Big Bang would be that some outside force instigated its activity. From a secular point of view, perhaps this could be attributed to some mysterious, enormous external energy force. But then the question of this external energy’s origin arises.

I believe now I have addressed the questions asked of me. I will now proceed to give an alternative view on the origin of the universe. Perhaps a Creator is involved with the universe. Yes, I know, eyes are rolling, sighs are emerging, but I must proceed to quote Genesis 1:1, which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let us ponder this for a moment. This could potentially answer many scientific incongruities on the origin of the universe. If there is a Supreme Being, beyond the reaches of physical law (in fact, with Him being the architect of physical law), He could have easily started an incident much like the Big Bang. Conversely, the supreme power of this Being would also endow Him with the ability to shape the universe to his desire, like the account given in Genesis. With this idea, the variety of life could attribute its existence to a creative Designer, and Man’s intelligence and status as the dominant species could be explained by Genesis 1:28, which says, “And God blessed them [humankind], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Perhaps in the early days of Creation, entropy did not exist. Perhaps when man chose to sin, he broke the perfection of the universe, forever altering it so that instead of perpetual paradise, the universe would slowly fall into decay. Yet, fortunately, Christ promises that He shall return before is destroyed. In Mark 13:20 He says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those [end] days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.” Anyway, this is what I believe. In light of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, at some point the physical laws of science cease to exist, whether it be the “scientific” explanation of the Big Bang or the “supernatural” explanation of “Let there be light.” In the case of the Big Bang, we find universal physical laws being applied were they by nature cannot, and with Creation we have a description of hands that transcend the boundaries of science. Both require faith. I believe in the latter explanation, for it depicts the construction of the physical laws of the universe, rather than suggest that they sprang into being out of a substance that did not follow the laws in the first place.

In closing I say this: if there are elements of Creationism that seem lacking, give science enough time. One of the formerly popular theories concerning life’s emergence from the inorganic was the theory of Spontaneous Generation, popularized by Aristotle in such books as his The History of Animals. For around two thousand years this theory was accepted by most scientists, until it was scientifically dispro-ven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century (who just happened to be a Christian). There are gaps in the Theory of Evolution, most glaringly so perhaps in the fossil record. Assuming that life slowly evolved from one life form to another, there should be hundreds of transitional forms for every single species. It is rather odd that these transitional forms have remained so elusive. Here I quote Darwin medal-winning botanist E. J. H. Corner.

“The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution – from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced – the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory – and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?” (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from ‘Evolution’, p. 97, in “Contemporary Botanical Thought”, Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)

You can read the quote yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._H._Corner

Anyway, I hope now my views—-and the reasons for them—-have been made clear. I bear no ill will toward any of you, and I hope you share the same sentiments. It has been a pleasure having this discussion, though somehow I feel that it is not yet over. In any case, farewell for now.

–Author of the Aelnathan

Pain. in. head.
Cleric made a follow up post indicating that he’d refrain from commenting “at the risk of sending someone on a typo tirade”, so that left me. My reply ended up taking up two posts.

Anath said
.I will try to keep this organized topically.

>>Why did we ever leave the jungle? Why would an ape ever find the need to evolve to a higher intelligence?
>>Yes, it has led us to become the dominant species, but that is not necessary for us to survive. In many ways it could be argued that man’s “intelligence” will be his downfall, what with the possibility of nuclear war and the like.

One of the things that characterizes man is our very efficient form of locomotion, which allowed us to populate every environment. You are thinking in VERY small terms with evolution here. Remember that the whole purpose of evolution is not to benefit an individual, or even an individual species, but the “immortal coil” = our GENETIC CODE. The purpose of anything is more efficient replication of the genetic code. You have to take a step back here and think about evolution on a very large scale. Through trial and error, the code finds ideal solutions for problems it faces in replication. Take a step back for a moment and think of some of the first complex life, and then we’ll fast forward and apply what I am about to say to humans, because it is much easier to understand when we address it on a small scale.

Imagine we have a small pool with the “first” micro organisms containing the “first” DNA. All of these organisms have advanced to the level where they have advanced metabolic processes and self replicate regularly. Currently there is only one strain. This strain replicates enough, and the pool is populated, but there is only ONE common food supply, lets say glucose, to feed thousands of these little microorganisms. Overpopulation kills a certain number of these microorganisms and they are unable to replicate. This presents a problem for the genes–they need to ensure that they replicate properly in order to “survive”, and now they are faced with COMPETITION (key word) from rival strains. They need to adapt NOW or go extinct. Now it so happens that the waste product of the glucose-based metabolic process is a citrate, and since it is the waste product it is in abundance in the environment. This means that in order to beat competition in this environment, the ideal way is to find a competition-free source of “food”… or the citrate. Within a few generations, there will be micro organisms that have developed a mutation that allows them to digest citrate and replicate with significantly less COMPETITION. Sound impossible? This is actually an experiment that has occurred in labs in the past few years. Here is a link to the official site and here is a link to an article explaining the results.

Now that we’ve imagined microorganisms that “solve problems” through developing new traits in order to eliminate COMPETITION and allow themselves to replicate more freely, lets turn back to humans. Why would humans leave the jungle? Why would they come down from trees and seek food and shelter elsewhere, and develop the intelligence and skills needed in order to create our own environment? ELIMINATING COMPETITION. GREATER FREEDOM OF REPLICATION. The jungle is a crowded place. There are panthers and snakes, rival primates, dangerous insects, and so on. We faced a lot of competition in the jungle, so it was highly advantageous for our genes to “solve the problem”, and find a way that we could innovate and skirt the competition, but we are more complex organisms than e coli, so simply changing food source was not enough. The solution our genes found was bipedalism and our efficient form of locomotion. Our intelligence came later. Our ability to walk efficiently for miles on two hind legs and use our forelegs to carry infants and or gathered food is what set us apart and allowed us to spread into any environment worldwide. The gorilla ancestors came up with a different solution to the competition problem.

Further, we are an omnivorous species, which allows us to make use of nearly any food source in our environment that we could catch. An increased intelligence allows us to come up with creative solutions to catch greater game, as the greater intelligence of wolves allows them to collaborate in a hunt. But also remember that brains are VERY “expensive” organs to operate so we see our diet change our physiology, as we eat more meat and higher calorie food, we have more fuel available to run a very expensive brain, which in turn lets us catch more game, find more efficient methods of finding vegetable matter, and thus fuel even more expensive brains. The “smarter” we got, the “smarter” we were able to get, and the more advantageous it was to be “smart”! No, it was not “necessary” to have a brain as advanced as ours is, but remember what was said earlier: The whole purpose of evolution is to benefit the GENETIC CODE and increase chances of replication. Bare survival is the minimum goal of evolution, the “higher” goal is to create “replication machines” that allow for minimum competition and increased replication. Survival helps with this goal, but our genetic code has hit on the solution that makes us the ultimate “replication machine”; adaptable to every environment, able to ELIMINATE competition, able to sustain our own food sources instead of relying on fickle nature… THAT is why we became what we are. But what will come after us? There will most certainly be a more efficient replication machine, but that is the future.

Now for dolphins:
>>If the dolphin never found the need to evolve to a more complex physical form (to exploit its intelligence) because it was so well suited to its marine environment,

Remember again, our physical form came before our intelligence, as did the dolphin’s. Carts come AFTER horses! The dolphin’s solutions to adapt and overcome competition are much different than ours, and involved going back into the water and re-adapting to marine life to become one of the top predators, as remember, it is a mammal and has out-of-water ancestors. Mammal brains are also much more advanced than fish brains so going back to dominate the water with intelligence and speed was a very good “choice”.

>>Other questions also remain. How come man has lost the hairy coat and great strength of other primates? Would not these features have been beneficial to carry on to higher levels of evolution? Please, do not bring up talk about Darwin’s theories of “sexual selection”, or try to say that primates of our intelligence level would find hulking hairy brutes repulsive if our race were hulking hairy brutes. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The perception of beauty is relative. Apes mate just fine without any cosmetic fanfare to speak of. Why does natural selection drop off so many traits beneficial to survival, replacing them with subjective, aesthetic appeal? In this light, the system does not seem very efficient; it seems rather wasteful, to be frank.

Genetics is a complex thing. Perhaps the answers are largely genetic, and remember it is not necessarily true that an advantageous trait will continue to be advantageous or is necessarily correlated to another trait. Our ancestors may never have had the “great strength” of other primates in the first place, and an excess of hair may not have been advantageous in certain environments. Why would you presume it would be, or has to be a “cosmetic” loss or gain?

It also appears you do not understand sexual selection at all… it is not about pretty faces but appealing TRAITS, and I’m not sure how you think that natural selection has “dropped beneficial traits to replace them with subjective, aesthetic appeal”? That makes no sense in terms of replication. Advantageous traits and what we might call “aesthetic appeal” correlate in nature, they HAVE to in order for the advantageous traits to replicate, and we are the only species that seem to separate the two due to our capacity for abstract thought. Dominant Bull Sea Lions aren’t “sexy” to Cow Sea Lions, they exhibit their strength and fitness to get mates. Species like Bowerbirds create their elaborate displays to prove that they are “fit” to mate, and some other males present females with gifts to display their hunting prowess and prove that they can care for offspring. None of this has to do with sex appeal or beauty, and most other primates follow these basic guidelines where a “fit” male gets a “fit” female, and they are “fit” not because they’re gorgeous super-models, but because they somehow display the fact that they have a good set of genes. Again, with these creatures (and us, but I’ll get to that), the traits that are beneficial to survival and traits that will gain them mates positively correlate, so it IS efficient, especially for the genes, which is what matters.

Now us… again, natural selection has NOT dropped off beneficial traits to make us “beautiful”. We find certain people beautiful because they display a set of genes that is beneficial and advantageous. (There is a lot of research done on this, so I can provide you with a lot of sources if you’d like.) There are certain visible characteristics that indicate heath and vigor, some that indicate strength, and so on. For example, Symmetry is one of them. If you go through a series of faces, and rate them in terms of how attractive you find them (HONESTLY), the higher rated faces are generally the most symmetrical, and scientists have created composite faces out of features taken from multiple different faces to prove this correlation (so it wasn’t just “Do you think Angelina Jolie is attractive? What about this random person on the street?). Symmetry of body and facial features do indicate that the genes are generally “good”, without major defect, so we are attracted to symmetry in the same way a female bowerbird is attracted to the male bowerbird who creates a very symmetrical nest. It is a genetic solution with its base in our GENES, and is advantageous to our GENES. Similarly, we can also find mates who are good genetic matches by smell, as specific pheromones will smell good to someone who is a good genetic match that will potentially make an good complement in terms of disease immunity among other things, that will ensure future replication. Again, a very highly efficient system for REPLICATION. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about individuals, or even individual species. Truly advantageous traits are never replaced because the creature will never replicate. We simply overthink the reproductive process because we have the capacity for abstract thought and can actually make of list of “ideal traits” for a mate.

>>Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have a friend who is making his career studying this, so I will see if he’ll type up a more thorough response later, but for now I guess my explanation will have to do.

You miss one KEY word in your definition. CLOSED. Thermodynamics relates to a closed system. Sticking external energy in makes it an open system, but to our knowledge the universe is not an open system, it is a closed system, and the idea of an infinitely dense amount of material spreading out and cooling fits perfectly with the second law, especially with the idea of energy change. Whatever the initial dense material was, it had a LOT of potential energy, and the expansion was simply taking that potential energy and changing it into other forms. Here’s a site that goes over entropy.

As for the time before, we do not know what happened, but that does NOT imply that “goddidit”. It simply implies that there is a hurdle to overcome. There are alternative ideas to “goddidit” that involve black holes, collapsing and expanding cycles, and so on, but we do not yet have the math needed to prove any of them. We also can not prove the “goddidit” idea either. Now I will address your version of “goddidit”, god-of-the-gaps Creationism.

Remember that I will be using the Bible as literature written by human authors.
Time for point by point.
>>Genesis 1:1, which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let us ponder this for a moment. This could potentially answer many scientific incongruities on the origin of the universe.

It would answer nothing in terms of scientific incongruities unless it were an experimentally testable hypothesis. Perhaps there is a chance it is the answer, but it will answer NOTHING in SCIENCE until SCIENCE can confirm it. All it can do is make you feel good and pretend you have an answer that you do not have. The reason I say you are pretending to have an answer is because you can not empirically prove that your answer is the correct one, when you can do that, THEN you will have an answer.

>>If there is a Supreme Being, beyond the reaches of physical law (in fact, with Him being the architect of physical law), He could have easily started an incident much like the Big Bang. Conversely, the supreme power of this Being would also endow Him with the ability to shape the universe to his desire, like the account given in Genesis.

Do you understand that you have provided a cop-out here? This is nothing more than God-of-the-Gaps. “Since we can’t explain it (yet), it must be a being outside the physical laws and ultimately powerful.” This is no different than assuming your house is haunted because the TV keeps flicking off and you can’t figure out why. You haven’t ANSWERED anything, just made up an unfalsifiable statement. If it is unfalsifiable, it can not be a scientific explanation, and thus not an answer. PROVE that your version of a god-being did this with a falsifiable hypothesis. Test it. Report the results. Then we will agree that this solution is plausible. Until then, do NOT propose that your answer is correct, or even plausible. YOU HAVE NO HARD DATA.

>>he variety of life could attribute its existence to a creative Designer, and Man’s intelligence and status as the dominant species could be explained by Genesis 1:28, which says, “And God blessed them [humankind], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Remember the Bible was written (inspired if you like) when we had already achieved the level of intelligence and other capacities necessary to become the dominant species from natural methods. At the time this was penned, mankind had cities, agriculture, animal husbandry, technology and had thus fulfilled “god’s promise”. This is simply repeating the state of things ex post facto, and thus does not require a supreme being to have inspired it. Other societies made similar statements independently.

>>Perhaps in the early days of Creation, entropy did not exist. Perhaps when man chose to sin, he broke the perfection of the universe, forever altering it so that instead of perpetual paradise, the universe would slowly fall into decay. Yet, fortunately, Christ promises that He shall return before is destroyed. In Mark 13:20 He says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those [end] days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.” Anyway, this is what I believe.
PLEASE read the page I linked to you about entropy. If for some reason you believeentropy to be general “disorder” or “chaos” you have GREATLY misunderstood the concept. Even if we take Bible literalism, in order for Adam and Eve to breathe and metabolize nutrients in the first place there HAD TO HAVE BEEN ENTROPY. You may believe it, but your beliefs do not align with reality and are thus wrong. Either change your unfounded belief to align with reality or admit you are living in a deluded fantasy.

>>In light of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, at some point the physical laws of science cease to exist, whether it be the “scientific” explanation of the Big Bang or the “supernatural” explanation of “Let there be light.” In the case of the Big Bang, we find universal physical laws being applied were they by nature cannot, and with Creation we have a description of hands that transcend the boundaries of science. Both require faith. I believe in the latter explanation, for it depicts the construction of the physical laws of the universe, rather than suggest that they sprang into being out of a substance that did not follow the laws in the first place.

Again, we simply have not discovered a viable model yet. THAT DOES NOT MEAN GODDIDIT.

>>In closing I say this: if there are elements of Creationism that seem lacking, give science enough time.

Nonsense. Creationism fails to provide a falsifiable hypothesis, thereby it cannot ever be proven or disproven. Once Creationists step up to the plate and provide the most basic requirements, then scientists can do something about it. The theory of spontaneous generation had a falsifiable hypothesis: “Organisms spontaneously generate”. You CAN prove or disprove that. Creationism lacks this.

>>Transitional forms and quote

Did you even look at the DATE on that quote????? It’s from 1961! A LOT of discovery has been made since then. I am not surprised that a scientist of any kind doubted the evidence for transitional fossils and other aspects of evolution in 1961. If you can find serious, reputable biologists post-2000 making the same claims, then I would be impressed.

Additionally, we are finding fossils of transitional forms all the time. I have also read in a textbook on Evolution of Insects about scientists observing potential transitional forms, that these transitional forms may NOT be obvious in terms of obvious fossil differences. The transitions that we are studying currently are BEHAVIORAL, specifically having to do with mating behavior, or in color, neither of which would appear in fossils. There is no reason to insist that transitional forms do not exist simply because they aren’t obvious in the fossil record when we are observing transitional forms through behavior and color in the field.

This is the insect evolution textbook I was talking about.

Anyway, I’ll try to remember to post next week instead of skipping!
Then you get to see Aelnathan get hung up on wording instead of concept, and make more bizarre statements about thermodynamics. Tasty.

More Antichristianity: Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 1 | Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 2 | Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 3

]]>

Anyway, at the end of the test I received the answer that I was not religious at all, and that religion did not control any part of my everyday life. How the test turned out if you say, believed in god and believed that homosexuals are not allowed to marry I don’t know, but the answer was obvious: either you were religious or you weren’t. And this is where I reacted as well. How can the humanists attack the religious people, and stereotype them to such a degree that they all sound like they were extreme fundamentalists? This was my very first contact with the humanist movement, and it certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, and I got sorely disappointed with their approach.

So, what about the humanist movement? The humanist movement is pro secularism, that is, seperation of church and state, and aggressively work for it to remain so. So far so good, I don’t really see this a bad thing in itself. Humanists also believe in the empowerment of the human being, and that is one of the reasons why I disagree with humanism. It focuses too much on human life, and it puts the human into the center of the universe. While I agree that human empowerment is much better than believing in a skydaddy to rely onto, I can’t quite agree with something that almost sounds derivated from Nietzsche’s idea of the übermensch either, I care too much about the other lifeforms we must co-exist with to say that my human life is more important any other lifeform. Being a humanist implies you believe in the strength of a human being, and while I am sure many people would hate me for using the word faith here, it is irrational faith that make people believe humans are more important than what they are. Nihilistic as I am, I cannot understand how a group of people can forget how little their lives matter to the vast universe, or the earth itself. Another problem I got with the humanist movement is that it’s an organizaton, it’s a group. And it’s becoming almost as bad as the religions they seem to love attacking. Why?

First of all, I will outline the basic definitions of what religion is in an anthropological definition, and even more so fundamentalism, which does not necessarily encompass the belief in a supreme being at all:

- Shared belief system (the belief that the human being is stronger without the belief in god)
- Strict rules or values/dogma (Seperation of church and state, adopted liberalistic ethics. Anyone deviating from these ideas would most likely become ostracized from the group)
- It is an organization with a leader to unite the group members

In addition, to officially be counted as a humanist, you need to pay a fee, just like Christians here in Sweden pay a fee to the Church of Sweden if they are members. Of course, one can be a member without paying a fee, but not officially. Thus far, including propaganda sites like the one I provided at the start of this post and very aggressive methods where they rather seem to be attacking the religious than the religious organizations, it’s as if the humanist movement is becoming a religion itself, and a fundamental one to add. I completely respect their wishes to seperate the church and state in countries where they are not, or to let the church and state remain seperated in countries where they already have been, but when they attack the religious people instead of the religious movements? That’s like shooting themselves in the foot and furthermore, they give atheists bad names! They reinforce the idea that atheists hate religion, and that’s the least rational atheists want.

No, there are many ways you can criticize religion and seperate it from church and state without attacking its believers. Such as stop addressing people personally and address the name of the religious organizations, like the Church of Sweden, or the Pentacostals. It’s really sad, all in all, that they are becoming the thing they so strongly oppose.

More Antichristianity: The True Nature of Religion: The Search for Self-Empowerment | We get email #2 | A short list of questions

]]>