WaveSpace - Atheism

Honest Review of Religulous

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:38:32 -0400

Bill Maher's Religulous was completely one-sided, presenting a totally biased and simplistic view of religion. I loved it!

It should be noted that, with a couple of exceptions, he doesn't exactly talk to the best and brightest religious personages. Nor does he give them time to make any good points; they're frequently interviewed long enough for him to make a joke at their expense, then he moves on to the next scene. He uses fundamentalism to paint with a broad brush all people of faith. Nor does he even consider any of the positive things that can come out of religion and faith.

However, the movie manages to succinctly make a number of good points here and there. One is to dispatch the notion that America was created as a "Christian nation". With some choice anti-religion quotes from Franklin, Adams and Jefferson he establishes that these guys were free-thinkers; to claim otherwise is revisionism. Second, in a nice little segment he backs his skepticism regarding the story of Jesus by alluding to commonalities between the Gospels and the myths made of many other historical figures of the Middle East. I.e. born of a virgin, born on the solstice, etc. One prior myth, that of Horus, is basically identical to that of Christ.

He spends most of the time on the big three monotheisms: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. But there are a couple of diversions to look at Mormonism and Scientology (the funniest scene is where he preaches OT-III stuff like Xenu and Thetans to Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, ranting like a lunatic).

I really like his monologue at the end, an extended diatribe against the damage that fundamentalists in power could do and a plea to recognize that doubt is good. I've transcribed it in the paragraph below.

Continue reading "Honest Review of Religulous"

Gods and Coin

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:20:25 -0400

MSNBC is currently having a poll on whether 'In God We Trust' should be removed from our money. I'll bet that most people don't know that it was added relatively recently.

I actually had a dream the other day wherein I thought of a slogan to replace 'In God We Trust'; I remember thinking it was brilliant, and I'd have to write it down as soon as a I woke up. That's all I remember.

What slogan would you replace it with?

Atheists Are Funny Too

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:03:03 -0500

"All Your Religions Are False" is a very funny rapid-fire presentation by Joel Grus from the recent BIL conference.

If you like that, check out comedian Dmitri Martin's "Creed-o-cide" and a humorous speech about atheism by Editor-in-Chief of The Onion Scott Dikkers at the Freedom From Religion Foundation conference.

How I Became An Atheist, Part I

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:35:07 -0400

I grew up in a very religious (fundamentalist Christian) household; a faith-based approach to everything was encouraged on a daily, if not hourly, basis. But to their credit, while my parents presented their beliefs with absolute certainty, they did occasionally suggest coming to independent conclusions. Genesis 1 was probably one of the first things I learned to read and it introduced a lot of perplexing questions, such as: what did God do for eternity before deciding to create a universe? And (later), why did He create the Earth before the rest of the universe, it would seem more natural to work from the top down.

But most importantly, at the same time I learned that there were many different religions, with completely different Truths. It just did not seem possible that one specific group (ours) could happen to be the right one (with all the others damned to Hell)! This thought spurred a growing skepticism in me. This grew very strong as all the questions I asked led to circular answers, and everything that could possibly be claimed as evidence (anecdotes of answered prayer or other miracles) could be claimed with equal fervor by other faiths.

But at this point, I was still very young, and decided to give it all a try, to be diligent and do everything those around me were doing (in 3rd grade I started at a Christian school started by our Church). I memorized the ten commandments and prayed daily. I was told that eventually I would feel something, occasionally described as "a still, small voice." And yet, as the months turned into years, the only words ever forming in my mind were my own. My skepticism deepened.

But I hit upon the "argument from design" (though I had no idea that it was called that). The natural world was too intricately wonderful to not have a super-intelligent designer. So there was at least one basic principle I could agree on: the existence of God.

Continue reading "How I Became An Atheist, Part I"

Priest-Cosmologist Wins Prize

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:34:36 -0400

I was completely and utterly mystified, baffled, and dumbfounded by the article in the New York Times entitled Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize. In the very first paragraph, the author states that said Priest/Cosmologist (Michael Heller) has answered the question: Does the universe need to have a cause? Now, I can think of no more fundamental question, and no more extraordinary of an answer, than the ultimate causality of the universe. Yet, despite this epic lead-in, nowhere in the article did I find out what the dude's conclusion is! I read, and re-read, and re-read the article, thinking surely that I had missed something. I have just re-read it yet again. Now that's a tease.

In any case, whatever his theory on the subject is, it is surely worthy of the prize. But something else in the article caught my attention, this quote from Professer Heller: "Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence." I would like to think that meaning derives from knowledge, but I guess not everyone is built that way. And I certainly feel that a decent existence can be had without religion, that spirituality can be sought without reference to pre-historical myths and mystics.

Anyway, what physicists have determined (and perhaps Dr. Heller contributed to this, the NYTimes didn't see it fit to print!) is that a universe would be created out of nothing but the laws of physics. It doesn't entirely get rid of ultimate causality, the best we can do it seems is to accept that the universe just is.

Continue reading "Priest-Cosmologist Wins Prize"

God and Thomas Jefferson

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:28:43 -0500

On a recent episode of Point of Inquiry, Alan Dershowitz talks about secularism and the Founding Fathers. He talks about how, while people like Thomas Jefferson were certainly Deists, there is a sort of revisionist history at work to say that his use of the word "God" (in the Declaration of Independence) implies an endorsement of the Christian personal deity.

In fact, in the Declaration of Independence TJ says "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". I would think the order of those two as worded, was important to him. All other references to a supreme being in the Declaration of Independence are indirect and generic. It implies to me that he was thinking of the term "God" in the same way that Spinoza did, or Einstein later would, as an impersonal agent, either the Prime Mover or embodied in everything ("God as the laws of Nature" some have called it).

So, while Christians and others might try to retroactively adopt Thomas Jefferson and others into their cause, it is really quite a stretch. Obviously, science had not yet advanced to the point where we might plausibly explain everything there is (aside from existence itself) in purely natural terms, so atheism or agnosticism were extremely radical ideas.

Point of Inquiry

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:20:01 -0500

I've been trying a few new podcasts (and vidcasts) lately, but the one that has really caught my attention is the Center for Inquiry's Point of Inquiry which concerns skepticism and secularism.

Two interviews in particular make for a nice match: Ann Druyan and Richard Dawkins.

So there's this idea of "non-overlapping magisteria", the idea that science and spirituality explore completely distinct domains. Both Dawkins and Druyan discredit this idea, making the case that there is only one magisterium, only one search for truth. And naturally, that science is the most effective means for arriving at truth (or, more accurately, for discarding falsehoods).

I liked Druyan's suggestion that wonder provided by science is a better spiritual base than religion.

On the Supernatural

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:01:49 -0400

My mom called the other day, we hadn't talked in quite a while and she brought up the topic of the recent hurricanes, specifically how (she felt) they were evidence of God's wrath. Too much listening to Pat Robertson and his ilk. Nonetheless in their world, I know, it makes total logical sense. They believe in an Old Testament style God who kicks ass and takes names. Not some button pusher, or one who retired two thousand years ago. So if there's a deity behind every event, then of course it makes rational sense (to them) that there's a reason why events unfold when and where they do. Why a hurricane goes a little east or a little west, why a tsunami breaks on one day versus the day before and so on. And, you have to admit, this time it almost looks like they have "evidence" to point to. I don't take this seriously, but think about it. The Mississipi Gulf Coast area had allowed development of massive casino operations in recent years. The public was mostly against it, but legislators snuck in a special provision allowing these "riverboat" casino buildings to be on giant barges moored just offshore. And then of course there was the Southern Decadence or whatever festival planned to be in NOLA the day after Katrina struck. So here you have two things that fundamentalists love to hate, gambling and gays, all concentrated in the two areas that were hardest hit. Coincidence? You be the judge.... Personally, I don't believe in the supernatural, at least not in any of the popular scenarious (ghosts, UFO's, omnipotent deities, what have you). I believe that (as I like to say) nature is supernatural, technically that's an oxymoron, but I like it for a number of reasons. First, it captures something fundamental about the situation, namely nature's ability to transcend itself, which I wrote about in a previous entry. Secondly, it alludes that there may well be aspects of the universe, that seem, or are, genuinely contradictory. Zen seems to fully embrace that, but hat's a topic for another time. It's always healty to interject a little discord; our minds are too puny to fully comprehend the universe, and some people need to be reminded of that.

On Religion

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:20:03 -0400

I've been meaning to write about this very topic, but my friend Dan took the words right outta my mouth. I'd put it this way: religion, faith and spirituality are truly distinct and separate things. I grew up in a ultra-religious evangelical Christian family so I know that many if not most people confuse at least two or all three of these as parts of one thing. I just have never been able to see it that way. First, I see spirituality as being a trait that every person possesses. Just about everyone is born with it to some degree, it's all in how you develop it. My friend Andrew has called spirituality a "meta emotion" or emotion about your emotions. I think he's really on to something there. I'd say emotion is too narrow a term, but certainly in the "meta" aspect, or a way of "jumping out of the system" to awareness about awareness, or consciousness reflecting on itself, some attempt to sense higher meaning and purpose... I think that's on the right track. Transcendence is the word. What I don't believe is that it can be objectively tied to any one belief system. Your faith may be something that helps you develop a spiritial sense, but really that is only a subjective validation of a single faith. In other words, there are many independent paths to spirituality, just because you happen to find one does not mean that it is the only true one. Richard Dawkins describes faith as an example of a meme, or a set of ideas that replicate more or less consistently. Like their biological equivilant the gene, a meme can mutate as it is transmitted from one person to another. But some memes are bundled in a form to ensure they continue unchanged. There are even "viral" memes that contain instructions that they must be passed on. Christian faiths have spread like this for centuries. They typically come with the ideas that a) this faith is the one true faith and b) it is your duty to spread the faith. Thus the faith meme has a mechanism to defeat your mental immume system: your skepticism and your analytical skills, in addition to a mechanism to ensure its continued spread. Religion seems to me as a system of control, a hierarchical power structure, a self-maintaining sytem of authority. It can be local or it can be global but basically it's all about maintaining itself. Anyone in the structure has a vested interest in ensuring the structure survives. By nature, such structures are very very conservative: the only acceptable change is that which will help preserve the religion. Any other potential change will be strenuously suppressed. Faith is the most important tool for control, but it's just one weapon in the arsenal. Traditional rites, majestic temples and indoctrination are other powerful mechanisms. Another it to instill a need for repentence as a prerequisite to experience spirituality. I'd say that is mental slavery.
Continue reading "On Religion"

Goin' Deep

nospam@example.com (Guy McArthur) — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:06:33 -0400

The universe is fantastically good at creating structure. Things are extremely heirarchical from the top-level on down: superclusters, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. And at some point these sub-structures become aware: that is, are able to store a representation of what they are experiencing. So we can say that the universe becomes self-aware, e.g. you are one chunk of stardust looking back at other chunks of stardust. This is maybe the deepest fact that has been discovered about the universe; namely, that it seems built to become self-aware. Not "built" in the sense of "designed" (I'm not going there!) but rather in the sense of it being produced by a set of natural processes. A very high-level overview of those processes is: nature tries to be maximally efficient; often efficiency means creating sub-structure; hence it is recursive. Now we get to our own self-awareness (awareness of awareness, perhaps what is meant by "consciousness"). That's pretty transcendental, not just because it is some mystical shit, but it literally transcends the system--now we are able to reason about what might be beyond the scope of the system. We could call that "meta-awareness." This meta-awareness is not unique to our species (IMHO). Probably it is a by-product of any sufficiently advanced minds. Or rather, minds build virtual structure (representations or models), the process here is also recursive, meta-awareness pops out with enough virtual sub-structure. So here we are, building up our bodies of knowledge, this increasingly elaborate model of what the universe is... perhaps it is the ultimate narcissism. A universe, bent on a journey of self-discovery, by which we are the willing participants.
Continue reading "Goin' Deep"