- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
The Nation's Pulse
What Would Santa Do?
Here comes Santa Claus…with another attack on Christmas.
On November 12, the Associated Press revealed that ads demanding "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake?" will begin appearing on Washington, D.C. area Metro buses starting next week and running through December (naturally). The ads feature a strange Santa-garbed person with Rastafarian braids. They also include the admonition from the familiar Christmas song "Here Comes Santa Claus" to be "good for goodness' sake," rather than because any sort of Divine being provides the impetus and the power to be good.
The American Humanist Association, AHA for the sake of expediency, is responsible for the ad campaign. AHA purports to have two reasons for the seasonal siege.
First, "there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists, and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion," according to AHA spokesman Fred Edwards.
The "holidays," that vague, innocuous, politically correct and cojones-less term, has no association with traditional religion, Fred. The "holidays" are the perfect purview of that "awful lot" of agnostics, atheists, and other associated non-theists. In fact, they should be quite exhilarated in their celebration of the holidays, since it represents a stage in the victory over religious expression in the public square.
It is Christmas, the holiday that dares not speak its name (since it includes the name of the Christian Lord that seems to be so inexplicably offensive to some), that may alienate AHA and those for whom it is an advocate. But somehow, thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens who are not Christians, and may or may not have their own exclusive holidays to celebrate, manage to slog through the Christmas season with their feelings unscathed.
AHA's second reason to deck the Metro buses with posters of apostasy is to declare that "humanists have always understood that you don't need a god to be good."
According to Roy Speckhardt, executive director of AHA, "Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience."
Have to agree with you there, Roy. Morality definitely does not come from religion. In fact, sometimes immorality comes from religion. It all depends upon the object of worship. The Swiss philosopher/poet Henri Frederic Amiel confirmed this when he said, "The test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man which it forms. If a system injures the intelligence it is bad. If it injures the character it is vicious. If it injures the conscience it is criminal."
Oh yes, conscience! Mr. Speckhardt says that morality is a set of values based on empathy, fairness, and experience. But he doesn't explain from where the empathy and fairness originate. What is the source of that sense of fairness, the sense of right and wrong? Does it spring from nowhere like Athena from the head of Zeus? Perhaps some theist associated with traditional religion will provide Mr. Speckhardt with a copy of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. It begins with a brilliant exposition on "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe."
So what would Santa think of AHA's attempt to identify him with their Advent attack? Even the Santa portrayed in the lyrics of Gene Autry, who is not exactly remembered for his theological prowess, is said to "know that we are all God's children."
But would the real Santa Claus have a stronger reaction to AHA? (Yes, Fred and Roy, there is a Santa Claus.) St. Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra, in 4th century Asia Minor, now Turkey. In addition to being remembered for his generosity and compassion to the poor and to children, Bishop Nicholas was the kind of "muscular Christian" that makes the folks at the National Council of Churches shudder. He was a staunch defender of Christian orthodoxy and would not be too pleased with the "Why believe in a god?" mentality.
During his tenure at bishop, he attended the first ecumenical council of the Church, which had been called to deal with the growing heresy of Arianism. Arianism, named after Arius, a North African priest who was its key proponent, denied the full deity of Jesus Christ and said that he was a created being. Nicholas struck a blow for orthodoxy, slapping Arius in the face after he spoke.
Nicholas might well deal with the American Humanist Association in the same manner in which he dispatched poor Arius, but probably, being older and wiser, and "good, for goodness sake," he would refrain from physical violence and just urge those who believe in God to assert their right to believe, and to flaunt their belief as publicly as AHA flaunts its unbelief.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Barb| 11.14.08 @ 10:23AM
The word "christmas" is derived from the words Christ Mass.
The word "holiday" is derived from the words
Holy day.
The word "good" is derived from the word
GOD.
Doctor Right| 11.14.08 @ 10:37AM
Atheism is an absolutely stupid philosophy, and wholly without basis in science. Anyone who looks out at the vast, ordered complexity of the universe and sees no designer is not being intellectually honest.
Those who fail to believe in God also fail to understand that without God, there's no reason to be "good".
Liberals love to talk of the "living, breathing" Constitution that is malleable to the whims of conventional wisdom. True Liberals fully understand the ultimate extrapolation of this philosophy:
If the Constitution was designed to be adaptable to the current zeitgeist (whatever that zeitgeist might be), then it is ultimately meaningless, and can be manipulated by whosoever is in power to suit their political needs (provided, of course, that those in power are liberals).
It's is ironic then that those who don't believe in God (who are often the self-same Liberals) fail to see the ultimate extrapolation of this philosophy:
If there in no God, then there is NO such thing as right and wrong. Laws become completely arbitrary inventions designed solely to control the populace. From a moralistic standpoint, they are utterly without meaning. In fact, so is the very term "moralistic". In such a scenario, why should any individual feel compelled to adapt someone else's standard of "good"???
This philosophy would ultimately lead to the "Hubbard Doctrine". As L. Ron Hubbard used to tell his followers in Scientology, "What's true is what's true for you!"
Robbing and stealing?: "Hey, I needed that money! Who are you to tell that's wrong?"
Murder: "Who cares? 'Life' is nothing more the interaction of a few billion random molecules and cells combined with an electrical charge...There's no such thing as a soul! Besides...He dissed me!!
You see where this is going...In a Godless society, convincing arguments against ANY crime or deviant behavior are absolutely empty. Pedophilia? Incest? Racial hatred?? Genocide? EVERYTHING GOES!!!
Now, a good Lib (or a good atheist) will try and counter that as humans living in an ordered and democratic society, we are duty-bound to behave, and to obey the laws. Hmmmmm...Sounds a tad moralistic to me...Even a bit "preachy"...
What these same Libs and atheists can't explain is "Why???" Again, if there is no God, then ALL laws made by man are arbitrary and capricious. If we are reviled by racism, that's only because we don't understand the "feelings" of the racist. He has his own, internal moral code, and who are you to tell him it's wrong?? On what, exactly, are you basing that erroneous claim?
As an example, Hitler came to power legally. He was duly elected Chancellor in a nation-wide election in 1933. Under the Laws that his Party passed (as was their right as the ruling party), Germany eventually enacted the "final solution" that saw the extermination of 6 million European Jews...All of it done quite legally, according to German Law.
So I ask our atheist friends...If there's truly NO God...Why was the Holocaust wrong???
As a believer in God, I know the answer.
Trurl| 11.14.08 @ 11:30AM
As a agnostic (that is, atheist who keeps his options open) and conservative leaning Libertarian who shares the morality of most of the readers here, at least to a large degree, I wish I had time to properly discuss the argument that the usually aptly named Dr. Right is putting forth in this case. But I only have about 5 minutes before work. Nonetheless, I'll ask this: if you are right, how does God construct His moral sense without a greater God above Him to impose it, since morality can only be imposed from without as an absolute?? I submit that an absolute morality (which I do objectively hold as the right way for Man to live is discoverable by anyone, man or god. To automatically attribute any form of absolute in the universe by default to a god is, in my mind, semantic sophistry, and such is the basis of most of these forms of arguments. If you want to call such a condition "God" be my guest, by its a long stretch linking such a thing to Christianity and its system.
BTW, let Christmas be Christmas.
trurl| 11.14.08 @ 11:32AM
Sorry, a couple typos in there. I'm in a hurry...
Dr. Right| 11.14.08 @ 12:32PM
To: Trurl
Re: God and morality
The being we refer to as "God" IS the absolute. There are NO higher beings above Him - He is the ALL, the Beginning, and the End. He existed before the construct we know as "Time" began, and He will transcend the end of time (as we mortals perceive it). So to assert, even as a hypothetical, a greater "being" above Him is an exercise in futility.
However, in the interest of an intellectual exercise, let's assume that the One we call "God" does, in fact, have a Boss. In the first place, we (as Christians, speaking for myself) have NO clue as to the nature of this other being. He/She/It has not revealed itself to us in the manner that the subordinate One (our "known" God) has through his inspired word, and through the miracle that is Creation (look outside your window - if all you see is a "cosmic accident", then you're trying too hard). So, in essence, if our "known" God has a Boss, it's irrelevant, because we answer to Him, not his "Boss". Think of him as an autonomous agent. We know what the "known" God expects, and what his view of morality is, so we know what we have to do.
Hopefully, that makes sense.
If not, then as an agnostic, consider the following:
The mere existence of the Universe defies the very Laws of Physics that govern it's machinations. In short, since the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is a constant, and since matter and energy can neither be ceated or destroyed, only INTERCHANGED, then ask yourself a question:
From whence did all this matter and energy originally come?
Don't say "The Big Bang", because that doesn't complete the story. What caused the Big Bang? Why would "nothingness" cause itself to explode? What would motivate "nothingness" to explode? How would "nothingness" cause itself to become "something".
Physics refers to the unexplainable as a "singularity". That's merely a fancy way of saying "miracle".
Dr. Right| 11.14.08 @ 12:39PM
To: Trurl
Re: One other thing...
Dear Trurl,
I think you missed an important point in my first post.
Per your statement:
" I submit that an absolute morality (which I do objectively hold as the right way for Man to live) is discoverable by anyone, man or god."
Again, if there is NO God, then there is NO absolute morality for anyone to discover. How can there be??? It's logically incoherent to assert that an "absolute morality" could exist without an a priori justification. What makes it "absolute"? In fact, what makes it right, or even preferable? Who has the right to impose this "absolute morality"?
If there is NO God, then the only Law is the Law of the beast. It is a world governed solely by the phrase "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT". Logically, there's no position in support of an "absolute morality" that would argue against a despot's position that what he says is right simply because he says it.
It really is that simple. Without God, anything goes...Society will descend quickly into brutality.
It's no surprise that the most brutal, genocidal regimes in human history have all shared one trait in common - an embrace of atheism.
Josh F| 11.14.08 @ 3:11PM
Does one really need to go to religious school to learn that dishonesty, robbery, murder, adultery, etc. are wrong? The atheists I know (though I'm not one myself) are perfectly rational and thoughtful people. Perhaps they've grown cynical from being browbeaten by wing-nut religious nuts in their family or community. I can agree to disagree with an atheist without fear of them steering our society towards a dystopian nightmare of death and destruction.
the-gunslinger| 11.14.08 @ 4:10PM
It's funny how so many, whose morality was formed within the womb of a Judeo/Christian culture, pretend otherwise.
They merely rename their inherited & internalized Judeo/Christian moral code "Humanist" (because they no longer believe in God) and then argue that "Humanist" morals are the equal of Judeo/Christian morals!
Well. Duh.
George| 11.14.08 @ 5:38PM
"And when they knew him as God they worshiped him not but professing themselves to be wise....... they became fools and worshiped the creature instead of the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen" Romans: Chapt 1
Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 6:58PM
OH.....JOY!
I've been waiting for the War on Christmas to begin for weeks.
For the last 10 years, there are always a few conservatives who announce that liberals are on the brink of finally banning Christmas -- their ultimate goal.
Am Spect. peddles a lot of paranoia and silliness.
But the War on Christmas! Wonderful! I can hardly wait to hear what people say!
As it plays out, I'm planning my attack: Cindy Lou Hoo can't be allowed to get those mittens this year, and I certainly plan to make off with the roast beast.
Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 7:02PM
Dr Right --
You write: "Atheism is an absolutely stupid philosophy, and wholly without basis in science."
It's difficult to know where to begin.
Exactly how is "atheism" of "philosophy." And how has "science" disproved that it has no basis.
Atheism is simply the claim that since no positive evidence of God exists, it is illogical to posit his existence.
Ockham's Razor, my boy. The simplest explanation of evidence is likely to be the truest: if you posit a supernatural being to explain the mystery of the universe, you just heap mystery on top of mystery.
Stan in Sugar Land| 11.14.08 @ 8:26PM
I enjoyed the exchange between Dr Right and trurl, very good, would like to see or listen to more.
I thought the spelling was Occam, but to each his own.
Re Santa Claus - obviously American is a strong believer, witness the recent election - only Santa can deliver on all those promises!
aw| 11.14.08 @ 8:28PM
someone wrote: "It's difficult to know where to begin. "....which shows that some people stare at their toes..instead of looking at the sky!
Doctor Right| 11.14.08 @ 9:05PM
To: Eugene Debbs (Labor-Thug)
Re: Ockham's Razor, etc
Dear Eugene,
You say a lot, but actually say absolutely nothing. You address no specific claim or assertion I've made (using faultless logic).
If atheism is not a philosophy, then what is it? It certainly can't be a system of "belief" because the atheist believes in nothing other than humanist gibberish. Atheism is not a benign system of unbelief - that is agnosticism. The atheist is not content with simply not believing - he/she actively seeks to suppress the "belief" of others, since the mere existence of their worldview threatens his/hers. History bears this out - Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong Il, Castro, etc - Atheism breeds nothing but death and misery.
Again, if you think that no positive evidence of God exists, then you're obviously not looking.
The mere existence of an ordered universe defies the Laws of Physics, which say that the universe itself tends towards disorder - thus, the explanation for the incredible order and complexity is...What?? An accident? Sorry, but believing that the universe is an accident requires far more blind faith than any religion known to man - and a denial of common sense.
If you posit the universe to be the result of nothing more than random chance, to the unenlightened mind, it will be exactly that...
Doctor Right| 11.14.08 @ 9:09PM
To: Josh
Re: Right and Wrong
Dear Josh,
If there is no God, and the universe is a random occurrence, then please explain EXACTLY why murder, robbery, rape is wrong.
I'm fascinated to hear the response.
A refusal to reply will be a concession.
Trurl| 11.14.08 @ 9:35PM
My, where to start.
If Atheism is a stupid philosophy (and actually, I agree that in it's oure form it is) then surely Christianity must be as well as they are both based on the same blind faith in that which cannot (as of now anyway) be proven, either that God does exists, or He doesn't. I *strongly suspect* he does not and act accordingly.
Second, if you wish to take God as an absolute end with nothing higher, feel free- it's an arbitrary assumption which you're welcome to. As to the whole "what was the universe before it was the universe" infinite argument, well, I agree that these questions exist and are far beyond our ability to comprehend. But, clearly whatever properties you want to ascribe to God and His ability to have always been may apply to the universe as a physical state. In the end it doesn't matter to me. If you want to call this infinite property "God" feel free. If you want to acribe sentience to this condition, feel free. If you want to believe this being cares about each of us on a personal level, feel free. I am not swayed. I love my life just as it is, I don't need to have it "explained" in a cosmic sense, or be reassured there's more of it after death, only better.
As to the assertion that there can be no absolutes of morality without a god you're absolutely, utterly wrong. Truth exists without God. 2+2=4 without God. A=A without God. Right is right, even without God. It simply is what it is in this physical universe that we live in. I do not murder because to do so would be a violation of the rights of other men, and to do so would give them a right to do so to me. I want my rights a a human respected, I give the same respect. I do this because I have reasoned it is right, not because I was told. Not everyone who doesn't believe in a higher power is a Nietzsche-following asshole. Children in a Kindergarten cannot conduct themselves in a proper fashion without guidance. Men can. (Ladies, I'm being rhetorical. You can too. *g*)
Is that clear enough??
BTW Dr., I am happy to concede that every single thing you believe may be true. You may be 100% right. If I go to the afterlife and find out so I'll be the first to revise my hypothesis. We can't know until then. I don't suppose you're willing to concede that you might be wrong and I might be right? You can't; that would be a betrayal of the unshakable faith you have claimed for yourself- the same faith that Atheists take in the contrary position. You and they are no different, so I'd be careful about the name calling...
BTW hope this post still comes across as good-natured. I'm just a guy tying to state his position. We likely have much more in common than it would seem based on this one issue...
trurl| 11.14.08 @ 9:36PM
Make that "its pure" in the first sentence. I'm a terrible typist.
trurl| 11.14.08 @ 9:39PM
...many typos actually. I should proofread before I hit the "send" button...
Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 9:59PM
Stan in Sugar --
Ockham is the more traditional spelling. Occam is acceptable.
Dr Right --
Philosophy is the search for general truth through reason. No search by means of reason could prove God's existence, and the rules of reason do not require someone to prove a negative.
The "order" of the universe you refer to is a little odd. That "order" is hardly orderly: galaxies crash into one another, suns collapse and explode, entire solar systems are gobbled up by black holes.
All according to the laws of science, but betraying no evident plan.
And no matter what you do, the Grinch is still going to steal Christmas....
And there's nothing you or Bill O'Reilley can do about it. He's steal Christmas and all of little Cindy Lou Hoo's toys.
trurl| 11.14.08 @ 10:06PM
Sorry, about the multiple posts... one more thing. I recognize that eventually you will say "but how can you know what a man's rights are?" At some point in the defense of any such argument I will be reduced to admitting that at eventually we get to an irreducible point that must be taken as an assumption. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" so to speak. I know you will say again that such self-evident truths must be from without; that this is the proof of God. I say again that this is semantics, and that if you want to call these basic assumptions "God" then feel free to do so and I'll concede that under such a definition there is "God". At best that only gets you to Deism (as far as I can tell at least), a philosophy which I do not find wholly unappealing. You will still have to explain how that gets you to Heaven, the Bible, Jesus and the rest. OK, done know. I'm genuinely interested in responses (and I have read Lewis, btw) but at this point I'm only going to be a spectator (no pun intended) from here on out...
(btw my church band knows all about me and they pray for my salvation every day. Wish I think is really nice, it might even work, who knows *lol*)
Philosopher| 11.15.08 @ 12:37AM
While Dr. Right and trurl's exchanges have been rather wordy, Dr. Right's point does hold: without an eternal someone to create and enforce absolute laws, the laws of morality cannot meaningfully be said to exist. While this argument by itself does not prove God's existence or tell us anything about him, it does undermine every atheist's claim that we ought--or ought not--to do anything. We are therefore free to reject out of hand any demand they make on us as utterly devoid of morality.
A number of famous philosophers, however, have taken the atheists' skepticism to far more disconcerting conclusions than that. Contrary to what trurl asserted, 2+2=4 is not an absolute truth; Rene Descarte came up with one proof of that truth's uncertainty in his explanation of how an omnipotent deceiver could befuddle us even about the laws of mathematics. David Hume came up with an even stronger proof in pointing out that we can't derive certainties about cause and effect from watching repeating events (such as repeatedly getting four objects from putting two objects together with two other objects). In other words, the very laws of physics and mathematics on which scientists and mathematicians base their occupations are not absolute certainties, and must be taken on faith.
David Hume also concluded that "'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of all the world to the scratching of my finger." From there, he proceeded to contend that all morality comes from emotion, not reason, and that we should do what we *feel* is right and not do what we *feel* is wrong. Of course, this ultimately begs the question: if we cannot derive "ought" from "is" (a sloganeer's summary of Hume's beliefs, not something he actually said), how are we to take his assertion that we *ought* to follow our feelings because we *are* following our feelings as anything but a self-contradictory fallacy?
The place where God comes into this whole debate is this: what is inherent is absolute, and what is absolute is eternal. If any action at all is inherently moral or immoral, it cannot be derived from anything temporal, such as the location or activity of matter, because deriving the eternal from the temporal is self-contradictory. We have so far not been able to derive morality from the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, or any other allegedly eternal abstraction in which scientists put their faith.
Therefore, if any absolute morality exists, it must derive from some other eternal source. Since morality always involves sentience, the eternal source in question must also be sentient. This sentient, eternal source of morality we refer to as God. Again, this argument for God's existence alone does not tell us much about God, only of his existence. (Even the gender of the pronoun in the previous sentence is speculative.)
To learn more about these matters where logic and reasoning can reach no further, we Christians (and a number of Jews) then turn to the truths God has chosen to reveal to us in the Bible. The Bible tells us that the universe itself is created, not eternal. (Cosmologists and astronomers are--however reluctantly--coming to the same conclusion from their studies: the universe had a beginning, and will have an end.)
Further study seems to suggest also that the very laws of physics and mathematics (possibly what the Bible means when it refers to "the world's foundations") are not eternal either, that God could--if he so desired--conceivably create a universe with a completely different kind of math and physics governing its matter. Hume's skeptical arguments confirm this point: why does matter continue to behave according to immaterial laws that cannot be proved absolute? Presumably, the laws continue to operate because that which is truly eternal, God, chooses to sustain them. If no God existed, or if God decided not to sustain them, matter very well might start behaving differently at some point. That's why an atheist cannot prove anything is moral or immoral: ultimately, he can't even prove that 2+2 has always been equal to 4, or that it always will be!
Red Neck| 11.15.08 @ 1:08AM
The "goodness sake" phrase quoted in the Santa song is a long recognized way of saying "God's sake." The AHA gets coal in its stocking for this one.
trurl| 11.15.08 @ 1:38AM
Sophistry. You are simply reaching a conclusion, assigning it the arbitrary name "God" and then trying to package-deal in all the other associations that go with that term which do not remotely follow (as you essentially admit, Philosopher) in the minds of people that can't follow the logic. As I said before, Deism at best.
But you know what- I'm swayed. I cave. From here on out as a non-believer I will exempt myself from all laws of morality and pursue anarchy in whatever fashion and on whatever whim I see fit. Thanks you for freeing me from my shackles. *g* Like the computer said, "This conversation can serve no useful purpose any longer. Goodbye, Dave..."
(I know, I said that before *lol*)
Hey, one more question for Star Trek fans: Will Mr. Spock go to heaven??
Actually one more: If you go to heaven and a dear loved one- a child, say- wasn't there, will you feel grief? I've never seen that one addressed...
George| 11.15.08 @ 2:48AM
Creation itself is manifest evidence enough for us to be without excuse in the sight of God for not acknowledging him. We cannot see him. But we know he exists because we can see his handiwork.
All of the meaningless babble to the contrary looking around you and up at the night sky is instruction enough to impart the wisdom of a belief in God.
Beelze-Bob | 11.15.08 @ 3:37AM
Well, the druids, Wiccans and other assorted pagan types wouldn't disagree with you there. This whole discussion reminds me of something I heard once, don't know who to attribute it to:
You give a dog a roof over its head, feed it every day, wash it, pet it and love it and it knows that you are god. You do the same for a cat and it knows that it is god.
Eugene Debbs| 11.15.08 @ 5:50PM
George --
The ancient Egyptians believed that the universe originated by Ra masturbating it into existence.
Why is your creation story any better?
A subjective experience of the marvelous (e.g. looking into the night sky) doesn't prove anything.
It reaffirms how little we know for sure, which is humbling. (And that humility can be a ground of our moral sentiments, along with a desire to see our own species flourish.)
However, it does not prove the universe was created by a deity. Nothing can prove that. The whole concept of "creation" takes us out of the realm of the knowable.
Speculate all you like. It's good for you. But don't claim any philosophical 0r scientific ground for God.
And don't worry. Not having a certainty of God's existence does not endanger our concepts of morality. We know that killing a man is wrong not because God told us, but because we know it's just so.
Eugene Debbs| 11.15.08 @ 5:50PM
George --
The ancient Egyptians believed that the universe originated by Ra masturbating it into existence.
Why is your creation story any better?
A subjective experience of the marvelous (e.g. looking into the night sky) doesn't prove anything.
It reaffirms how little we know for sure, which is humbling. (And that humility can be a ground of our moral sentiments, along with a desire to see our own species flourish.)
However, it does not prove the universe was created by a deity. Nothing can prove that. The whole concept of "creation" takes us out of the realm of the knowable.
Speculate all you like. It's good for you. But don't claim any philosophical 0r scientific ground for God.
And don't worry. Not having a certainty of God's existence does not endanger our concepts of morality. We know that killing a man is wrong not because God told us, but because we know it's just so.
George| 11.15.08 @ 7:49PM
First of all I didn't postulate a creation "story." You're confusing Genesis with process.
I stated the obvious that creation presupposes a creator and that we should acknowledge him .
The alternative is that all matter and existence "just always was." Which is the equivilent of covering your ears and shouting La la la.... With all due respect only a disingenuous person or a simpleton would avow that even though there is a car in his driveway and a microwave in his kitchen he can't "know" that someone made them.
Also looking up and seeing the night sky is not a subjective experience.
Beelze-Bob| 11.15.08 @ 8:05PM
"The alternative is that all matter and existence "just always was." Which is the equivilent of covering your ears and shouting La la la...."
Which is what you say about God, so I'm not sure I get the point. The universe very possibly can have always been, oscillating from big bang to big crunch, over and over endlessly.
And actually only the word "creation" presupposes a creator. Using the word creation to apply the physical universe is, afaik, a religious concept so you're talking in circles. If the universe was not created it's an improper word to use.
And with (seriously) all due respect, only a disingenuous person or a simpleton would would confuse a car in his driveway and a microwave in his kitchen with the universe or think they were equivalent in some way.
Alan Brooks| 11.15.08 @ 8:46PM
As a former liberal (and former "futurist", i.e. tending towards atheism) from a radic-lib family, i can tell you that morality DOES in fact come at least partly from religion. Take away the crutch of religion and the cripple cannot walk-- and with few exception men are moral cripples. Perhaps many women are not, but since morality is diachronic who can say for sure?
We don't know what the purpose of Christmas is but it is all-important. It re-glues families together during the holidays; this year the economy will get a well-needed boost from Christmas. Long live religion and religious holidays.
And long live Santa. We need to keep all the friends we have as we don't have many real friends.
George| 11.15.08 @ 9:23PM
Big Bang, (seriously) with all due respect only a disingenuous person or a simpleton would confuse creation with a self repeating, infinite firecracker. Who made the firecracker? Who lit the fuse? You have the circular argument. A fools argument really. Which all observation and experience contradict.
You may not want any part of God but saying there is no God is foolish.
Beelze-Bob| 11.15.08 @ 11:37PM
I don't think I ever said that there is no god. I don't believe there is though. I have no more basis to believe in one than not to. Look: there are plenty of hypothesis as to how the universe might be eternal, part of an eternal cycle, not actually eternal, or part of something bigger. We live in an age of Google, look it up. A deity is certainly one of them. Why you would be convinced it's the only possible answer is beyond me, and we can leave it at that. But again: If you're willing to accept that a "God" is somehow eternal you have no basis whatsoever to argue that there is not some other explanation to the cosmos being eternal that completely rules out a conscious design behind it all.
Beelze-Bob| 11.15.08 @ 11:45PM
"Take away the crutch of religion and the cripple cannot walk-- and with few exception men are moral cripples."
Wow, that's refreshingly frank. I totally agree with that. Btw I also agree that Christmas should be allowed to be what it has been traditionally. It's a great time of year and you don't have to subscribe to the underlying beliefs to enjoy it any more than you have to be Irish (or Catholic) to enjoy St. Patrick's Day. People who get worked up about things like public nativity scenes need to get a life and enjoy a steaming hot cup of shut-the-f**k-up. In my humble opinion.
George| 11.16.08 @ 10:54AM
All of the explanations on Google and all the hypothesis ever conceived in the mind of man fail to answer the question "In the beginning ..what?" In the beginning God.
Doctor Right| 11.16.08 @ 12:09PM
To: Trurl
Re: "Right is right", and other humanist nonsense...
Dear Trurl:
The following statement "Right is right, even without God. It simply is what it is in this physical universe that we live in. I do not murder because to do so would be a violation of the rights of other men"
...I absolutely ILLOGICAL.
If there is no higher power, then by what "right" do you deny someone else's joy in killing and mayhem???
So it makes you feel good not to murder? Well good for you!!! Here's a cookie!!!
Again, without God, NO ONE can justifiably claim to define "right" vs. "wrong". I've proved that, using logic.
You've proved nothing.
trurl| 11.16.08 @ 1:00PM
Sigh. Yes, I'm still reading. Dr, Right, you surely have proven something but it's not what you think.
George| 11.16.08 @ 1:12PM
Individually, we choose to love a lie or God.
Groucho| 11.16.08 @ 4:27PM
What would Santa do?
That's easy. Santa would exercise his second amendment rights and mow down every Muslim child with his automatic rifle so we don't have to deal with these terrorists anymore.
You won't see any war against Christmas after that!
Beelze-Bob| 11.16.08 @ 8:16PM
I was going to keep arguing but honestly, after the last post... I'll think I'll just say Merry Christmas and drop it...
Anyway, Jesus and Santa Claus... they're both harmless. Merry Christmas!
Russell | 11.17.08 @ 7:41PM
Let us pray that Doctor Right awakes on Christmas morn to realize that he isn't even wrong .
Metaphysical certainty too often leads to the absurdly tautological -- as in endlessly repeating things like :
"The mere existence of the Universe defies the very Laws of Physics that govern it's machinations....In short, since the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is a constant, and since matter and energy can neither be ceated or destroyed, only INTERCHANGED, [sic] then ask yourself a question:...The mere existence of an ordered universe defies the Laws of Physics, which say that the universe itself tends towards disorder - thus, the explanation for the incredible order and complexity is...What?"
Actually, three come to mind :
What nincompoop taught the thermodynamics course this Doctor Mirabilis failed ? The iron laws of that discipline apply only to closed and dissipative systems, not the particles and quanta that comprise them.
Get used to it: Atoms don't wear out , photons don't cool off as they propagate , the echoing Big Bang radiation flooding the universe amply energizes the entropic drain of emergent complexity, and , sure as superconductivity, the macroscopic expansion of space and time shows no sign whatever of exhaustion .
How is it that Dr. Right's metaphysics came to be utterly disconnected from what we can see of this universe ? And where has he been for most of intellectual history ? The arguments he adduces , or rather repeats, were applied with equal certainty to the Seven Crystalline Spheres of the heliocentric universe the theocracy so long cherished. They got it dead wrong , but never mind--not an iota of his writing suggests he gives a damn about getting it right.
Might it be better to know from observation rather than impute to first principles what it is that he's trying to deny , even if that entailed studying what it is that physicists know, how they know it , and how far that process of discovery has progressed ?
Physics is still busy counting dimensions and working out the wonders of quantum computation . As soon as they finish, and not before , physicists can lucidly proceed to the question of whether or not there is an answer to 'What ?
Whether one should or not one should attempt metaphysics before getting mere physics straight is a philosophical question few faiths care to engage, lest it set people thinking to excess, and drive them to , well, taking up philosophy . Lord knows where that might lead , and in due humility , physicists confess they do not know, their enterprise having only having begun in earnest two generations ago. Being bound to the wheel of reality , their labors seem likely to proceed at a pace slower than unburdened theology, albeit their vehicle appears to be constantly accelerating, while Dr. Right's seems to have blown a gasket and sputtered to a halt in the thirteenth century, just when Islamic divines decided to give physical inquiry the bum's rush too. Look where it got them .
In the charitable spirit of the season, being mighty obliged for the magnificent gift of the Large Hadron Collider from my fellow taxpayers , I hope that, gurrying around in his coal sack , Santa can find find a copy of the works of St. Augustine to deposit in Dr. Right's stocking , for that father of the church reminds us that;
"Even a heathen knows something about the Earth, the heavens and the elements of this world ,.. certain from reason and experience ... it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian talking nonsense on such topics."
And Islamic fundamentalists too- there is nothing harmless about the terrible Turks that have embraced the Discovery Institute's anti-Darwinian jihad is that their anti-materialism , and their anti-materialism is no more likely to retard Iran's nuclear ambitions than North Korea's.