Whenever I question something in the Bible as being morally reprehensible the response I get is that because it is the word of God, and since God sets objective morality, everything condoned by God in the Bible is objectively good. Every person slaughtered and every woman raped is A-OK just as long as God says it is.
What can we assume is implied by this claim?
Well, it means any intuitive sense of morality I may have is egregiously flawed. I can look at the acts of Yahweh and hold reservations about the supposed goodness of his deeds and commandments, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.
But wait just one minute. Why doesn’t this pendulum swing both ways?
If my sense of morality is so faulty that I am unable to judge the God of the Bible as being evil, than how can we trust the moral sense of a Christian to be any better? How can they truly claim that the God of the Bible is good?
Can a Christian reconcile with this issue? I don’t see any means in which this is possible. They certainly couldn’t say that our innate sense of morality is objective. This would mean my claim about God is just as true as theirs. Additionally, they couldn’t use the Bible. The only thing that validates the Bible is the Bible. In order to reach the objective truths in the Bible, a Christian must first know independently of the Bible that what is stated inside is true. This is, of course, a gap in knowledge.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What it Means to be an Atheist
John has this habit of identifying me as an atheist. I'm not offended, of course, and I can understand why he would categorize me as such, but I prefer to use terms like "agnostic" or even just "secularist" when describing myself.
In modern usage an agnostic is someone who sits on the fence when it comes to God's existence/non-existence. As such, agnostics are often criticized by both atheists and theists for being intellectually cowardly. Personally, I am not fond of this newfound definition. I prefer a more classical sense of the term – the claim that humanity has “no knowledge” of the existence of God.
Anyway, this blog is about atheism. Specifically, what does it mean to be an atheist? This is a question I tend to take into consideration whenever I hear the so-called “New Atheists” discuss their views on atheism. Furthermore, John’s constant need to label me as one has spurred me to write about my own opinions on the subject at hand.
From what I’ve seen, whenever an atheist is challenged to prove God does not exist they quite correctly emphasize the fact that this cannot be done. No atheist, at least not one who is a complete moron, is truly foolish enough to assert the claim that seems intuitive of their title. Doing so would be a statement of faith (God does NOT exist) and shifts the burden of proof onto them. Of course, any shrewd atheist is aware it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. What they can do is criticize the need for God and religion, and offer more rational alternatives.
If I may be frank, I think most atheists are better described as classical agnostics. They do not claim to have either positive or negative knowledge of the existence of God, nor do they accept the bullshit claim that other people do.
In modern usage an agnostic is someone who sits on the fence when it comes to God's existence/non-existence. As such, agnostics are often criticized by both atheists and theists for being intellectually cowardly. Personally, I am not fond of this newfound definition. I prefer a more classical sense of the term – the claim that humanity has “no knowledge” of the existence of God.
Anyway, this blog is about atheism. Specifically, what does it mean to be an atheist? This is a question I tend to take into consideration whenever I hear the so-called “New Atheists” discuss their views on atheism. Furthermore, John’s constant need to label me as one has spurred me to write about my own opinions on the subject at hand.
From what I’ve seen, whenever an atheist is challenged to prove God does not exist they quite correctly emphasize the fact that this cannot be done. No atheist, at least not one who is a complete moron, is truly foolish enough to assert the claim that seems intuitive of their title. Doing so would be a statement of faith (God does NOT exist) and shifts the burden of proof onto them. Of course, any shrewd atheist is aware it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. What they can do is criticize the need for God and religion, and offer more rational alternatives.
If I may be frank, I think most atheists are better described as classical agnostics. They do not claim to have either positive or negative knowledge of the existence of God, nor do they accept the bullshit claim that other people do.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
3rd Blog Event
Ok guys, just for the record, the correct and moral response is to tell God to establish World Peace. I don't know what you two chose yet, but I figured you guys would like to know you might be douchebags (SHAME ON YOU!).
Anyway, the fun and engaging response, as far as I'm concerned, is ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. This scenario is both terrifying and earth-shattering, but unlike other apocalyptic situations, which might involve WMDs or supernatural entities, a world-wide assault by zombies would at least allow humanity to remain more proactive about its survival.
A human can fight back against a zombie.
Anyway, the fun and engaging response, as far as I'm concerned, is ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. This scenario is both terrifying and earth-shattering, but unlike other apocalyptic situations, which might involve WMDs or supernatural entities, a world-wide assault by zombies would at least allow humanity to remain more proactive about its survival.
A human can fight back against a zombie.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Next Blog Event Topic
I've been juggling around several topics for a blog event, and I think we need to take a brake from these serious blogs and go with something a bit more fun.
Here is the scenario: God (we'll just go on the assumption there is one) approaches you and says "INSERT NAME, I've been far too quiet these last couple thousand years and feel like shaking things up on earth. The reason I'm telling you this is because I want you to decide what I'm going to do. It can be anything you want, hell, you can even start the Apocalypse if you wish. The only requirement is it must be BIG. So big that virtually no human being wont be affected by it in some way."
So, what would you pick?
Does this sound like an interesting blog topic?
I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week and pretty much all of next week, so how about we set the due date for Saturday the 17th around 1PM? Yeah, I know it's an awfully long time to wait, but too bad.
Here is the scenario: God (we'll just go on the assumption there is one) approaches you and says "INSERT NAME, I've been far too quiet these last couple thousand years and feel like shaking things up on earth. The reason I'm telling you this is because I want you to decide what I'm going to do. It can be anything you want, hell, you can even start the Apocalypse if you wish. The only requirement is it must be BIG. So big that virtually no human being wont be affected by it in some way."
So, what would you pick?
Does this sound like an interesting blog topic?
I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week and pretty much all of next week, so how about we set the due date for Saturday the 17th around 1PM? Yeah, I know it's an awfully long time to wait, but too bad.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Blogging Event for the Ethics of Voting
I'll just get right down to the point. In this particular case, I feel as though a utilitarian approach is appropriate. In other words, do the ends justify the means? Does your disingenuous vote have greater potential to bring about a greater good than your honest vote?
Personally, I would say the answer is yes. The GOP has become intoxicated by a fringe ideology. A pulverizing defeat might be just what is needed in order to disillusion the GOP from the influence of the Tea Party.
Now, what if the Tea Party candidate you vote for goes on to win the general election? This is always a possibility, and if it happens, you will be to some degree responsible for it. As such, you need to weigh the options carefully. If you are fairly certain the Tea Party candidate is not going to win, and if you feel the end justifies the means, then vote for the Tea Party candidate in the primary. Otherwise, you should vote for the person you honestly like.
Is that all I've got? Yeah, looks like it. Actually, one last thought. Perhaps you should stay on the safe side and vote for the candidate you like? Yes, the Tea Party and its slew of moronic politicians are annoying, but lets not forget that Americans are lazy and forgetful. Four years from the election the Tea Party could be nothing more than a whisper. A noisy mosquito to be swatted out of the way. Why risk making a poor decision when you can simply wait them out?
Personally, I would say the answer is yes. The GOP has become intoxicated by a fringe ideology. A pulverizing defeat might be just what is needed in order to disillusion the GOP from the influence of the Tea Party.
Now, what if the Tea Party candidate you vote for goes on to win the general election? This is always a possibility, and if it happens, you will be to some degree responsible for it. As such, you need to weigh the options carefully. If you are fairly certain the Tea Party candidate is not going to win, and if you feel the end justifies the means, then vote for the Tea Party candidate in the primary. Otherwise, you should vote for the person you honestly like.
Is that all I've got? Yeah, looks like it. Actually, one last thought. Perhaps you should stay on the safe side and vote for the candidate you like? Yes, the Tea Party and its slew of moronic politicians are annoying, but lets not forget that Americans are lazy and forgetful. Four years from the election the Tea Party could be nothing more than a whisper. A noisy mosquito to be swatted out of the way. Why risk making a poor decision when you can simply wait them out?
Monday, October 31, 2011
Insert Title
"By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why."
The problem with this question is that it seems to approach the issue by assuming marriage is rightfully the business of religious institutions. Unfortunately, marriage is as old as dirt, which makes its original function difficult to ascertain. It is entirely possible marriage was either hijacked by religious institutions or the right to officiate them was essentially outsourced to the religious institutions by whatever primitive government was in effect. Therefore, I think it is a legitimate question to ask by what right does religion have authority to regulate unions?
Originally, I was going to make an appeal towards the Social Contract in order to answer the question of why government should have a role in marriage, but the more I think about it, the more apathetic I become to the role of both church and state in this debate. Neither of them have any legitimate authority to lay claim upon the institution of marriage. Sure, Jews and Christians, and I suppose most major world religions, are obligated to believe marriage is rightfully theirs, but they can only appeal to tradition for so long until things start to become sketchy.
What is a traditional marriage, anyway? Is it the ultimate means for a loving couple to show their devotion to eachother? Is it an arrangement made between two households for their children to get married because we certainly cannot allow them to make their own ill-conceived decisions on the matter? Is it a means of acquiring greater wealth and power for a family? Is it a contract meant to garnish exclusive breeding rights? Is it between a man and a woman, or a man and a woman...and a woman...and a woman...and so on and so forth depending on the culture and time period?
You see, if anything has a claim over the institution of marriage it would be culture, and right now we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in regard to the Western attitude towards the aforementioned institution. Those "Definition Purists," unless they can figure out a clever way to reverse the trend, are wasting their time and money fighting a battle they are inevitably going to lose. Our culture is beginning to accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and sympathize with their desire to demonstrate their love and devotion to eachother.
This change in public opinion will eventually alter the stance of the government, and religion will figure out a way to cope - either by figuring out some sort of "divine loophole," or by claiming their marriages are more legit.
The problem with this question is that it seems to approach the issue by assuming marriage is rightfully the business of religious institutions. Unfortunately, marriage is as old as dirt, which makes its original function difficult to ascertain. It is entirely possible marriage was either hijacked by religious institutions or the right to officiate them was essentially outsourced to the religious institutions by whatever primitive government was in effect. Therefore, I think it is a legitimate question to ask by what right does religion have authority to regulate unions?
Originally, I was going to make an appeal towards the Social Contract in order to answer the question of why government should have a role in marriage, but the more I think about it, the more apathetic I become to the role of both church and state in this debate. Neither of them have any legitimate authority to lay claim upon the institution of marriage. Sure, Jews and Christians, and I suppose most major world religions, are obligated to believe marriage is rightfully theirs, but they can only appeal to tradition for so long until things start to become sketchy.
What is a traditional marriage, anyway? Is it the ultimate means for a loving couple to show their devotion to eachother? Is it an arrangement made between two households for their children to get married because we certainly cannot allow them to make their own ill-conceived decisions on the matter? Is it a means of acquiring greater wealth and power for a family? Is it a contract meant to garnish exclusive breeding rights? Is it between a man and a woman, or a man and a woman...and a woman...and a woman...and so on and so forth depending on the culture and time period?
You see, if anything has a claim over the institution of marriage it would be culture, and right now we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in regard to the Western attitude towards the aforementioned institution. Those "Definition Purists," unless they can figure out a clever way to reverse the trend, are wasting their time and money fighting a battle they are inevitably going to lose. Our culture is beginning to accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and sympathize with their desire to demonstrate their love and devotion to eachother.
This change in public opinion will eventually alter the stance of the government, and religion will figure out a way to cope - either by figuring out some sort of "divine loophole," or by claiming their marriages are more legit.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Ethics of Vaccination
There's a slowly growing trend in the United States for parents to forgo immunizing their kids. This is due to an unfounded concern that something in the vaccines can cause autism.
What I want to know is if these parents should be held responsible for child endangerment and/or neglect?
Historically, vaccinations have followed a certain trend in countries all over the world:
1) A vaccine is created and administered.
2) The disease ceases to be a threat to the general population.
3) A generation of people grow up unaware of just how horrible the disease they were immunized against really is.
4) This generation starts to focus more on the supposed negative effects of vaccinations instead of the benefits.
5)A large percentage of parents opt to not vaccinate their children, which leads to an epidemic of the preventable disease.
6) People start to immunize their kids again.
7)The supposed negative effects of vaccines are proven to be false.
And here we go again! Same bullshit, different day. Naturally, people are unaware that this debate has been going on since the conception of the first vaccine. And its always ended the same way: Two stupid parents watching their child die from a preventable disease!
It makes me angry to know there are people out there who would rather listen to Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy (two figureheads of the "vaccinations cause autism" movement) instead of their doctors. Though Carrey and McCarthy may not be totally against the practice of immunization, their fear-mongering has and will continue to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children at all.
The American habit of believing in things for faulty reasons is going to far this time. Not only are parents putting the health of their own children at risk, but their putting the health of other children at risk as well.
Infants who are too young to receive all of their vaccinations benefit greatly from public immunity. Needless to say, if an epidemic of a preventable disease breaks out, the infant population is at a high level of risk for catching this disease.
Now, if an infant suffers or dies from a preventable disease, and if the disease could be traced back to another child who was not immunized by his parents, then is it not fair to hold the parents responsible?
Note: Since such a large percentage of children are immunized, we really can't know for certain if vaccinations can cause autism or not. Undertaking a study on the issue would require researchers to deny vaccinations to the children they are studying, which would be unethical. As such, we would have to wait until a large percentage of parents start to forgo vaccinations in order to see what happens to the rate of autism. As such, neither side of the debate has the data necessary to fully back up their claim (though from a historical perspective, the pro-vaccination side has always been right. Furthermore, even if 1 out of 100 kids develop autism due to vaccinations, the benefits to the general public still outweigh the risks).
What I want to know is if these parents should be held responsible for child endangerment and/or neglect?
Historically, vaccinations have followed a certain trend in countries all over the world:
1) A vaccine is created and administered.
2) The disease ceases to be a threat to the general population.
3) A generation of people grow up unaware of just how horrible the disease they were immunized against really is.
4) This generation starts to focus more on the supposed negative effects of vaccinations instead of the benefits.
5)A large percentage of parents opt to not vaccinate their children, which leads to an epidemic of the preventable disease.
6) People start to immunize their kids again.
7)The supposed negative effects of vaccines are proven to be false.
And here we go again! Same bullshit, different day. Naturally, people are unaware that this debate has been going on since the conception of the first vaccine. And its always ended the same way: Two stupid parents watching their child die from a preventable disease!
It makes me angry to know there are people out there who would rather listen to Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy (two figureheads of the "vaccinations cause autism" movement) instead of their doctors. Though Carrey and McCarthy may not be totally against the practice of immunization, their fear-mongering has and will continue to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children at all.
The American habit of believing in things for faulty reasons is going to far this time. Not only are parents putting the health of their own children at risk, but their putting the health of other children at risk as well.
Infants who are too young to receive all of their vaccinations benefit greatly from public immunity. Needless to say, if an epidemic of a preventable disease breaks out, the infant population is at a high level of risk for catching this disease.
Now, if an infant suffers or dies from a preventable disease, and if the disease could be traced back to another child who was not immunized by his parents, then is it not fair to hold the parents responsible?
Note: Since such a large percentage of children are immunized, we really can't know for certain if vaccinations can cause autism or not. Undertaking a study on the issue would require researchers to deny vaccinations to the children they are studying, which would be unethical. As such, we would have to wait until a large percentage of parents start to forgo vaccinations in order to see what happens to the rate of autism. As such, neither side of the debate has the data necessary to fully back up their claim (though from a historical perspective, the pro-vaccination side has always been right. Furthermore, even if 1 out of 100 kids develop autism due to vaccinations, the benefits to the general public still outweigh the risks).
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Bullying
Lyndsey sometimes likes to watch the Anderson Cooper Show. Yeah, most of the crap on that show is exactly that - crap, but the topic of discussion on Monday was bullying.
There seems to be an epidemic of young people killing themselves due to negative attention from peers. Or rather, more realistically, the media and legal system have decided to concentrate on this issue with greater interest. Why, just a few weeks ago there was a story in the news about a young, carrot-top boy who took his life thanks to bullying. It's now becoming quite common for alleged bullies to face criminal charges for their actions.
Personally, I feel split on this issue. The number of bullied children who commit suicide is hardly representative of the total number of children who are the victims of bullying. This seems to demonstrate (and this is merely my own assumption) that there were deeper psychological issues with these children. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to lay all of the blame on the bullies.
On the other hand, bullies are wretched people who deserve to be punished. One of my favorite scenes in Chuck Palahniuk's Pigmy (spoiler alert) is when the titular character is being harassed by a larger schoolmate in a store bathroom. Pigmy, being a highly trained terrorist, uses martial arts to incapacitate the bully, and proceeds to rape him in the anus to teach the dumb kid a lesson.
Yeah! Let's see this happen in real life! Perhaps not the raping part, but I do believe just deserts are in order.
On the other hand, what do you do when the entire class (entire school, perhaps) is singling out a select few to ostracize and torment? Bullying can, to some degree, be both a bonding experience and a means of raising self-esteem for the people who are not the victims. As such, even an otherwise decent kid can feel compelled to say and do hurtful things in order to feel accepted into a larger group. The stereotypical bullies, while they do exist, are not an accurate representation of the big picture. So what do we do here? Do we subject the whole class to criminal charges? Is anyone who has made a snide remark towards little Timmy, the weird, four-eyed nose-picker, responsible for his suicide?
On the other hand, is it not our responsibility to try to shape the behavior of our children to be more positive? Is it not possible for us to teach kids to be more tolerant?
On the other hand, meh...I'm done.
There seems to be an epidemic of young people killing themselves due to negative attention from peers. Or rather, more realistically, the media and legal system have decided to concentrate on this issue with greater interest. Why, just a few weeks ago there was a story in the news about a young, carrot-top boy who took his life thanks to bullying. It's now becoming quite common for alleged bullies to face criminal charges for their actions.
Personally, I feel split on this issue. The number of bullied children who commit suicide is hardly representative of the total number of children who are the victims of bullying. This seems to demonstrate (and this is merely my own assumption) that there were deeper psychological issues with these children. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to lay all of the blame on the bullies.
On the other hand, bullies are wretched people who deserve to be punished. One of my favorite scenes in Chuck Palahniuk's Pigmy (spoiler alert) is when the titular character is being harassed by a larger schoolmate in a store bathroom. Pigmy, being a highly trained terrorist, uses martial arts to incapacitate the bully, and proceeds to rape him in the anus to teach the dumb kid a lesson.
Yeah! Let's see this happen in real life! Perhaps not the raping part, but I do believe just deserts are in order.
On the other hand, what do you do when the entire class (entire school, perhaps) is singling out a select few to ostracize and torment? Bullying can, to some degree, be both a bonding experience and a means of raising self-esteem for the people who are not the victims. As such, even an otherwise decent kid can feel compelled to say and do hurtful things in order to feel accepted into a larger group. The stereotypical bullies, while they do exist, are not an accurate representation of the big picture. So what do we do here? Do we subject the whole class to criminal charges? Is anyone who has made a snide remark towards little Timmy, the weird, four-eyed nose-picker, responsible for his suicide?
On the other hand, is it not our responsibility to try to shape the behavior of our children to be more positive? Is it not possible for us to teach kids to be more tolerant?
On the other hand, meh...I'm done.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
A curious aspect of the abortion debate
I would like to discuss an aspect of the abortion debate I find to be kind of strange.
First, I think it's appropriate to state my position on abortion, just for the record. I'm not particularly fond of the practice, but at the same time, I'm not up in arms about overturning Roe v. Wade. I tend to prefer strategies meant to cut off a problem at its source. Specifically, in this case, methods which would help prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Anyway, I find it kind of curious that even the majority of Pro-Lifers are accepting of abortion under certain circumstances. Now, I understand why most people would be ok with it when the life of the mother is at risk, but the logic behind supporting abortion in the case of rape and incest seems a little faulty.
Pro-Lifers are willing to allow abortions of rape babies to slip under the table. After all, it seems unfair to the victim to force her to carry around the child of her rapist. However, I am curious as to how the crime of the father invalidates the life of the baby? This is obviously a form of inherited guilt, in which a child becomes responsible for something it is completely innocent of. I'd really like to know how "circumstantial" Pro-Lifers reconcile with this fact?
The tolerance for aborting incest babies is something I don't understand either. Now, I know there is a near universal taboo against incest, and I assume this repulsion probably influences the "circumstancial" Pro-Lifer's position (perhaps on a more subconscious level than something they're cognatively aware of). I know incest babies are more likely to have birth defects. Nevertheless, why would these issues invalidate the child's right to life?
Are these just examples of people compartmentalizing their beliefs, or is there something I'm simply not aware of?
First, I think it's appropriate to state my position on abortion, just for the record. I'm not particularly fond of the practice, but at the same time, I'm not up in arms about overturning Roe v. Wade. I tend to prefer strategies meant to cut off a problem at its source. Specifically, in this case, methods which would help prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Anyway, I find it kind of curious that even the majority of Pro-Lifers are accepting of abortion under certain circumstances. Now, I understand why most people would be ok with it when the life of the mother is at risk, but the logic behind supporting abortion in the case of rape and incest seems a little faulty.
Pro-Lifers are willing to allow abortions of rape babies to slip under the table. After all, it seems unfair to the victim to force her to carry around the child of her rapist. However, I am curious as to how the crime of the father invalidates the life of the baby? This is obviously a form of inherited guilt, in which a child becomes responsible for something it is completely innocent of. I'd really like to know how "circumstantial" Pro-Lifers reconcile with this fact?
The tolerance for aborting incest babies is something I don't understand either. Now, I know there is a near universal taboo against incest, and I assume this repulsion probably influences the "circumstancial" Pro-Lifer's position (perhaps on a more subconscious level than something they're cognatively aware of). I know incest babies are more likely to have birth defects. Nevertheless, why would these issues invalidate the child's right to life?
Are these just examples of people compartmentalizing their beliefs, or is there something I'm simply not aware of?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Something that really ticks me off about religious people
It is no small observation to note that religious people have done a fantastic job in convincing everyone not to blame the religion when so-called adherents commit antisocial acts.
"What!? That Christian stabbed a man and said Jesus told him to do it? He must have been hallucinating."
"What!? That man stoned his disobedient child to death? He must have misinterpreted that passage."
It's not supposed to matter how many abortion doctors are murdered by Christians. Christianity is still proclaimed as a moral religion. It not supposed to matter how many Muslim children blow themselves up in the name of their religion. Islam is still trumpeted as a religion of peace. It's not supposed to matter....ummm.... how many Amalekites the Jews once killed. Wait, that one was most certainly ordained by God. Sorry Jews.
So, let me skip to the point. Are non-theists afforded the same luxury? No, actually it's worse for them. Some religious people look upon the non-theists with suspicion, as though the non-theists were synonymous with satanists (a term which itself has varies degrees of meaning).
How is this fair?
"What!? That Christian stabbed a man and said Jesus told him to do it? He must have been hallucinating."
"What!? That man stoned his disobedient child to death? He must have misinterpreted that passage."
It's not supposed to matter how many abortion doctors are murdered by Christians. Christianity is still proclaimed as a moral religion. It not supposed to matter how many Muslim children blow themselves up in the name of their religion. Islam is still trumpeted as a religion of peace. It's not supposed to matter....ummm.... how many Amalekites the Jews once killed. Wait, that one was most certainly ordained by God. Sorry Jews.
So, let me skip to the point. Are non-theists afforded the same luxury? No, actually it's worse for them. Some religious people look upon the non-theists with suspicion, as though the non-theists were synonymous with satanists (a term which itself has varies degrees of meaning).
How is this fair?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
For your benefit
John finally found a way to force me into writing a blog. Bravo!
So, what do I believe in, huh? Well, let's start with a little bit of personal history.
My parents took me to church when I was a young child. I didn't particularly enjoy the experience growing up. I found church to be extremely boring and would spend the time during the service drawing pictures on the pamphlets they handed out. I don't think there was ever a time in my life where I gave Christianity much credence. I know I had some respect for the idea of a God when I was a child, but I'm pretty sure I was, at the very least, indifferent to the teachings of the Bible.
Now, it should be stated that my parents are not profoundly religious. My dad is some sort of vague spiritualist. He admires Jesus, but I certainly wouldn't describe him as a Christian. My mom, on the other hand, leans towards the skeptical side of the spectrum. Really, the whole reason I was dragged to church was because my parents were involved in some of the "entertainment" aspects of the service. My dad would play the piano and my mom would sing.
As a side note, I would like to say that I never felt pressured to accept or dismiss faith. My parents allowed me to come to my own conclusions on the matter.
My parents stopped taking me to church when I was old enough to stay home on my own. Boy, it sure was nice to sleep in on Sunday! I admit there were moments where I felt a twinge of worry about not going to church. What if the Christians are right and God sends me to Hell for not going to church? Note how the only factor of Christianity that ever motivated me was the FEAR factor.
There was a brief period in my early teens where I identified myself as an atheist. However, I was rather cocky at this point in my life, and eventually came to feel as though I had arrived at atheism for all the wrong reasons. I abandoned the idea of God without really understanding the arguments for or against his existence. Furthermore, I found atheism appealing because it offered me a sense of intellectual superiority.
I decided to adopt the humbler position of an agnostic during my later teen years. There isn't much else to be said about this period of my irreligious development.
So, what do I believe now? Well, let's start with what I hold faith in. I have faith that the material world is real and is not just a figment of my imagination. I have faith my mind is in my body and not inside a vat within a scientist's lab. I have faith that other people have minds not unlike my own. These are called properly basic beliefs, and they are essentially taken for granted by everyone but the most hardcore of skeptics (the kind of skeptic who doubts our ability to know anything). I see them as necessary to function on a daily basis.
Now, on to my current beliefs regarding the divine. While studying the philosophy of religion, I found the arguments for the existence of a non-theistic God to be sound reasons assume his necessity. Specifically, I am referring to the cosmological and teleological arguments.
I am not unquestionably allied to this position. If science could provide adequate explanations for the origins of life and the universe, then I would not stubbornly hold on to my deism.
There you have it. An overview of my experience with religion and irreligion, and a testament to where I stand now.
So, what do I believe in, huh? Well, let's start with a little bit of personal history.
My parents took me to church when I was a young child. I didn't particularly enjoy the experience growing up. I found church to be extremely boring and would spend the time during the service drawing pictures on the pamphlets they handed out. I don't think there was ever a time in my life where I gave Christianity much credence. I know I had some respect for the idea of a God when I was a child, but I'm pretty sure I was, at the very least, indifferent to the teachings of the Bible.
Now, it should be stated that my parents are not profoundly religious. My dad is some sort of vague spiritualist. He admires Jesus, but I certainly wouldn't describe him as a Christian. My mom, on the other hand, leans towards the skeptical side of the spectrum. Really, the whole reason I was dragged to church was because my parents were involved in some of the "entertainment" aspects of the service. My dad would play the piano and my mom would sing.
As a side note, I would like to say that I never felt pressured to accept or dismiss faith. My parents allowed me to come to my own conclusions on the matter.
My parents stopped taking me to church when I was old enough to stay home on my own. Boy, it sure was nice to sleep in on Sunday! I admit there were moments where I felt a twinge of worry about not going to church. What if the Christians are right and God sends me to Hell for not going to church? Note how the only factor of Christianity that ever motivated me was the FEAR factor.
There was a brief period in my early teens where I identified myself as an atheist. However, I was rather cocky at this point in my life, and eventually came to feel as though I had arrived at atheism for all the wrong reasons. I abandoned the idea of God without really understanding the arguments for or against his existence. Furthermore, I found atheism appealing because it offered me a sense of intellectual superiority.
I decided to adopt the humbler position of an agnostic during my later teen years. There isn't much else to be said about this period of my irreligious development.
So, what do I believe now? Well, let's start with what I hold faith in. I have faith that the material world is real and is not just a figment of my imagination. I have faith my mind is in my body and not inside a vat within a scientist's lab. I have faith that other people have minds not unlike my own. These are called properly basic beliefs, and they are essentially taken for granted by everyone but the most hardcore of skeptics (the kind of skeptic who doubts our ability to know anything). I see them as necessary to function on a daily basis.
Now, on to my current beliefs regarding the divine. While studying the philosophy of religion, I found the arguments for the existence of a non-theistic God to be sound reasons assume his necessity. Specifically, I am referring to the cosmological and teleological arguments.
I am not unquestionably allied to this position. If science could provide adequate explanations for the origins of life and the universe, then I would not stubbornly hold on to my deism.
There you have it. An overview of my experience with religion and irreligion, and a testament to where I stand now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)