Would you know my name
If I saw you in heaven
Will it be the same
If I saw you in heaven
I must be strong, and carry on
Cause I know I don't belong
Here in heaven
Would you hold my hand
If I saw you in heaven
Would you help me stand
If I saw you in heaven
I'll find my way, through night and day
Cause I know I just can't stay
Here in heaven
Time can bring you down
Time can bend your knee
Time can break your heart
Have you begging please
Begging please
Beyond the door
There's peace I'm sure.
And I know there'll be no more...
Tears in heaven
Would you know my name
If I saw you in heaven
Will it be the same
If I saw you in heaven
I must be strong, and carry on
Cause I know I don't belong
Here in heaven
Cause I know I don't belong
Here in heaven
What's sadder is if there's no heaven.
No place to see you again, no place for hope.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
from steppenwolf
Now with our Steppenwolf it was so that in his conscious life he lived now as a wolf, now as a man, as indeed the case is with all mixed feelings.
But, when he was a wolf, the man in him lay in ambush, ever on the watch to intefere and condemn, while at those times that he was a man the wolf did just the same.
For example, if he, as man, had a beautiful thought, felt a fine and noble emotion, or performed a so-called good act, [walking past a beggar feeling compassion and an impulse to help?], then the wolf bared his teeth at him and laughed and showed him with bitter scorn how laughable this whole pantomime was in the eyes of a beast, of a wolf who knew well enough in his heart what suited him, namely, to trot alone over the Steppes and now and then to gorge himself with blood or pursue a female wolf. Then, wolfishly seen, all human activities became horribly absurd and misplaced, stupid and vain.
But it was exactly the same when he felt and behaved as a wolf and showed others his teeth and felt hatred and enmity against all human and their lying and degenerate manners and customs. For then the human part of him lay in ambush and watched the wolf, and spoiled and embittered for him all pleasure in his simple an healthy and wild wolf's being.
Of course, he's not really a wolf. But what is a man? A animal that invents and alters his lifestyle through society and culture, a phenomenon of influence comparable to the evolutionary baggage accumulated over the millions of years if true, but achieved and changing in a relative blinking of eyes. And what is man; is he just an ape? No. Maybe relatives, maybe divine. But even if a relative of monkeys and chimpanzees, measuring ourselves according to them isn't necessary, no more than it is to compare ourselves to cabbage. And so in attempting to understand who we are, we redefine ourselves, and do we get confused? Perhaps it is this confusion, this potential misfitting and nagging consciousness that differentiates man from animal.
Anyhow, I'm confused. Is there really this dual nature in man?
Well, if you feel it, then you have it. And it may not be dual. It may be a singular. Or maybe it is a million things, maybe nothing. Holy cows. Too confusing...
But, when he was a wolf, the man in him lay in ambush, ever on the watch to intefere and condemn, while at those times that he was a man the wolf did just the same.
For example, if he, as man, had a beautiful thought, felt a fine and noble emotion, or performed a so-called good act, [walking past a beggar feeling compassion and an impulse to help?], then the wolf bared his teeth at him and laughed and showed him with bitter scorn how laughable this whole pantomime was in the eyes of a beast, of a wolf who knew well enough in his heart what suited him, namely, to trot alone over the Steppes and now and then to gorge himself with blood or pursue a female wolf. Then, wolfishly seen, all human activities became horribly absurd and misplaced, stupid and vain.
But it was exactly the same when he felt and behaved as a wolf and showed others his teeth and felt hatred and enmity against all human and their lying and degenerate manners and customs. For then the human part of him lay in ambush and watched the wolf, and spoiled and embittered for him all pleasure in his simple an healthy and wild wolf's being.
Of course, he's not really a wolf. But what is a man? A animal that invents and alters his lifestyle through society and culture, a phenomenon of influence comparable to the evolutionary baggage accumulated over the millions of years if true, but achieved and changing in a relative blinking of eyes. And what is man; is he just an ape? No. Maybe relatives, maybe divine. But even if a relative of monkeys and chimpanzees, measuring ourselves according to them isn't necessary, no more than it is to compare ourselves to cabbage. And so in attempting to understand who we are, we redefine ourselves, and do we get confused? Perhaps it is this confusion, this potential misfitting and nagging consciousness that differentiates man from animal.
Anyhow, I'm confused. Is there really this dual nature in man?
Well, if you feel it, then you have it. And it may not be dual. It may be a singular. Or maybe it is a million things, maybe nothing. Holy cows. Too confusing...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
My personal god.
My personal god.
Every week, I felt guilty when I stood in the congregation. I never sang, because I was self-conscious. Some of the songs were so good. But I'd never lift up my hands. I'd never do all that. It wasn't because I thought it was nonsense. I wanted to. I secretly whispered to God, "I'm not stretching forth my hands, and I'm not singing out loud, but God you know my heart." I wanted that gift of tongues. I was just too afraid to go up. I wanted all of that. I wanted to be a part of Christianity. But I always hid it inside of me. And my silent prayers never went anywhere. Because they were silent.
Why wouldn't you answer my prayers? When I had gone up to the front after the sermon to be prayed for, you never came for me. I never felt the way others do. I did not utter in tongues, nor did I feel any inner energy. I don't know. I was just inert. You never bothered with me. I was unworthy. I was not holy enough. I wasn't truly seeking you. You know my heart.
My time in FCBC was when I started actually singing and lifting my hands. I spent time in army reading "the purpose driven life". I thought, maybe there was a reason why I was wherever I was. My problems. My needs. How long did I need to ask?
My personal god was never there for me. It had always been my sheltered life and now me alone. I'd seen friends suddenly turning to you and they seemed to find relief. I know, I felt relief too. That is something you were here for. But the relief was too brief. It was like a painkiller. Perhaps it was my fault. I need to take action.
But forgive me that I no longer believe. Because you have not answered my deepest needs. You have ignored my desires for the gifts of the spirit that I envied, that I thought would bring me one step closer to you. And most of all, you kept me waiting. You led me on, and you wasted my time. You gave me false hope, for you were never planning anything, were you? You were never drawing toward me. You wanted me to draw toward you. I was promised that if I take a step toward you, you'd be running toward me with open arms. But you ran to others, not to me. You selfish, silent, veiled god. My personal savior.
The tears I cried for myself. The tears I cried in your presence. Genuine tears, no priest in the confession box. To think I had thanked you for the food. Did you really bless them? Do you really take care of the birds and pay attention to us? You're a fake. You are the wedge in my soul. How can I face my family? What do I do now? A leech, that's what you are. In our house, stealing my family, stealing authority, love, and attention. Now you're the beloved, and I have to stay quiet. I have to play along. Because of you.
I would punch you. But you make me angrier. You don't even let me vent it out on you. Because you disappear. Behind smokes and mirrors. Behind the rocks, darting like shadows. You terrorist. You formless nothingness. What can I be mad with? But only to deflect it back to myself. You wretched thing. Guilt is your weapon of choice, and you use it so well.
Where are you? O' my personal god? I beseech you to come back to me. To tell me this is all a lie, to bring me to my senses. Cover me within your mighty hand. Hide me now under your wing. I will be still and know you are god. Would you? Fill the hole in my heart.
Cruel world that knocks Don Quixote back to reality. What crime is it to play-act, and to believe? That my once dear savior would save me?
Who would have known
that my closest friend
would in a twist so typically epic
become my greatest foe
No! Worse than that
like a tragic reality
the curse of forgetting
does not leave us exempt
unbearable, the lightness of being
the triviality of our past
you have become nothing
a memory i'd like to stamp and glorify
but cannot, instead
you are another once favorite song
that lost appeal and flavor in an unnoticed moment
a pity i can only have mixed emotions about
What crucifixion was that
that brought us redemption
has sneaked in the payment demand
of sorrows and suffering
how many have died
because of your legendary sacrifice
who has not been condescendingly or violently judged
because of your moment of glory
Which perverse dream of man was it
for now by the thousands
they fantasize of death and suffering
of an end of the times
and ho! they call it
theology of hope
hope! they say,
redemption is near!
And when you come down from the heavens
angels praising your holy name
worlds shattering and lightning flashing
there will be trembling and there will be conceited vindication
but we will say
unbelievable!
he dares to be real,
what cursed buffoonery is this
after all the trouble you've left
as the grand inquisitor so knows
we are not attempting to be a cult of the inquisitor
but you angel of death
you brewed this madness
and tossed us in like green onions
our hearts will be hardened
they will say, "as it is written"
but there is no redemption
absurdity it would have to be
to shed all that we'd got
at your slightest convenience
death will be our punishment
what protest can we possibly have
but throw our hands up in exasperation and say
madness madness it is all madness
why give me two ears
if you will not speak
and give me two eyes
when you don't let me see
why give me a prophet
then make him a fool
or give me a choice
if you're so merciful
no, you troublemaker
reveal yourself! make it clear!
don't play games with me
when i've got an impossible handicap
save me if you can
leave me if you will
but more so, save me save me!
until then, I will not wait
enough of the silent treatment
the playing of hard to get
if you will not feed me, then
at least don't hinder me from doing it myself
except you haven't
again the guilt the blame i know it fully now
what crime is it to play-act, to believe
that my dear savior would save me?
Every week, I felt guilty when I stood in the congregation. I never sang, because I was self-conscious. Some of the songs were so good. But I'd never lift up my hands. I'd never do all that. It wasn't because I thought it was nonsense. I wanted to. I secretly whispered to God, "I'm not stretching forth my hands, and I'm not singing out loud, but God you know my heart." I wanted that gift of tongues. I was just too afraid to go up. I wanted all of that. I wanted to be a part of Christianity. But I always hid it inside of me. And my silent prayers never went anywhere. Because they were silent.
Why wouldn't you answer my prayers? When I had gone up to the front after the sermon to be prayed for, you never came for me. I never felt the way others do. I did not utter in tongues, nor did I feel any inner energy. I don't know. I was just inert. You never bothered with me. I was unworthy. I was not holy enough. I wasn't truly seeking you. You know my heart.
My time in FCBC was when I started actually singing and lifting my hands. I spent time in army reading "the purpose driven life". I thought, maybe there was a reason why I was wherever I was. My problems. My needs. How long did I need to ask?
My personal god was never there for me. It had always been my sheltered life and now me alone. I'd seen friends suddenly turning to you and they seemed to find relief. I know, I felt relief too. That is something you were here for. But the relief was too brief. It was like a painkiller. Perhaps it was my fault. I need to take action.
But forgive me that I no longer believe. Because you have not answered my deepest needs. You have ignored my desires for the gifts of the spirit that I envied, that I thought would bring me one step closer to you. And most of all, you kept me waiting. You led me on, and you wasted my time. You gave me false hope, for you were never planning anything, were you? You were never drawing toward me. You wanted me to draw toward you. I was promised that if I take a step toward you, you'd be running toward me with open arms. But you ran to others, not to me. You selfish, silent, veiled god. My personal savior.
The tears I cried for myself. The tears I cried in your presence. Genuine tears, no priest in the confession box. To think I had thanked you for the food. Did you really bless them? Do you really take care of the birds and pay attention to us? You're a fake. You are the wedge in my soul. How can I face my family? What do I do now? A leech, that's what you are. In our house, stealing my family, stealing authority, love, and attention. Now you're the beloved, and I have to stay quiet. I have to play along. Because of you.
I would punch you. But you make me angrier. You don't even let me vent it out on you. Because you disappear. Behind smokes and mirrors. Behind the rocks, darting like shadows. You terrorist. You formless nothingness. What can I be mad with? But only to deflect it back to myself. You wretched thing. Guilt is your weapon of choice, and you use it so well.
Where are you? O' my personal god? I beseech you to come back to me. To tell me this is all a lie, to bring me to my senses. Cover me within your mighty hand. Hide me now under your wing. I will be still and know you are god. Would you? Fill the hole in my heart.
Cruel world that knocks Don Quixote back to reality. What crime is it to play-act, and to believe? That my once dear savior would save me?
Who would have known
that my closest friend
would in a twist so typically epic
become my greatest foe
No! Worse than that
like a tragic reality
the curse of forgetting
does not leave us exempt
unbearable, the lightness of being
the triviality of our past
you have become nothing
a memory i'd like to stamp and glorify
but cannot, instead
you are another once favorite song
that lost appeal and flavor in an unnoticed moment
a pity i can only have mixed emotions about
What crucifixion was that
that brought us redemption
has sneaked in the payment demand
of sorrows and suffering
how many have died
because of your legendary sacrifice
who has not been condescendingly or violently judged
because of your moment of glory
Which perverse dream of man was it
for now by the thousands
they fantasize of death and suffering
of an end of the times
and ho! they call it
theology of hope
hope! they say,
redemption is near!
And when you come down from the heavens
angels praising your holy name
worlds shattering and lightning flashing
there will be trembling and there will be conceited vindication
but we will say
unbelievable!
he dares to be real,
what cursed buffoonery is this
after all the trouble you've left
as the grand inquisitor so knows
we are not attempting to be a cult of the inquisitor
but you angel of death
you brewed this madness
and tossed us in like green onions
our hearts will be hardened
they will say, "as it is written"
but there is no redemption
absurdity it would have to be
to shed all that we'd got
at your slightest convenience
death will be our punishment
what protest can we possibly have
but throw our hands up in exasperation and say
madness madness it is all madness
why give me two ears
if you will not speak
and give me two eyes
when you don't let me see
why give me a prophet
then make him a fool
or give me a choice
if you're so merciful
no, you troublemaker
reveal yourself! make it clear!
don't play games with me
when i've got an impossible handicap
save me if you can
leave me if you will
but more so, save me save me!
until then, I will not wait
enough of the silent treatment
the playing of hard to get
if you will not feed me, then
at least don't hinder me from doing it myself
except you haven't
again the guilt the blame i know it fully now
what crime is it to play-act, to believe
that my dear savior would save me?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
So it occurred to me tonight...
Say an atheist dies and while at a pub in heaven waiting for his ship to hell, he bumps into god.
Atheist: Dude, i'm so high now. You know, I thought you didn't really exist!
God: WTF? You read the bible didn't you? And I got all those apologists arguing for me? Where you been bro?
Atheist: Yeah. No enough evidence man. And I heard this one...the cosmological argument...it just wasn't fair making you the only unmoved mover. I know I know...by definition you are this and that...but it was just too cheap man.
God: Oh, heh , i'm not really an unmoved mover ya know? See, I was created from this little tree which I now keep in my backyard. That cosmological argument, screw that. You just gotta have faith yo? You know what i'm talking about, yeah?
Atheist: Wh-wait...what? Holy, you are telling me that one major philosophical argument for your existence is wrong? Now that's just bad taste...
God: Well, it's a pretty decent argument. But c'mon bro, I never said I was the first cause, don't go putting words in my mouth. And don't ya go quote-mining from the bible, ha!
[God to Bartender: "One more round please!"]
Atheist: Son of a...! Hmm, so then, are you some kind of, you know, omnipotent and omnipresent being?
God: That I am, yes sir! ha ha...i'm also blue in color as you see. Wonder why no apologetic of mine figured that out. But unmoved mover...me? Gawd...
Atheist: So wait a sec. The arguments for your existence can be wrong and yet you still exist?
[Hot little angel waitress comes with 2 beers]
God: You can't really prove I don't exist, can you? You couldn't even conclusively prove that tooth fairies don't exist! Cheers!
*Beer glasses clink*
Atheist: We never really bothered with that actually. But you're right. You're such an ass. You're freakin' unfalsifiable!
God: Ha! I know it's not really fair to make you use reason to figure me out. The arguments really...they have to assume things. Something they get it right like me being a Trinity, sometimes they don't, as you just saw for yourself. I mean, that pope, he had the crazies. He counted some old genealogy and figured the world was 6000 years old! Oh my lord...
Atheist: Oh yeah dude, those were radical times baby...
God: I mean, come on! You think I spent all that time guiding evolution, only to see some fellas say the fossils came from a massive flood? Why'd I even give you brains! You think I set the world starting with light from imaginary stars already headed to you, and you think I set the atoms already halfway through their half-lives? I'd got better things to do....
Atheist: Well, it's a good thing not all your followers believed that, just those old young earth creationists.
God: Thank Jesus! Well, as for you my friend, you should have just had some faith in me man.
[God lights a pipe]
Atheist: Oh don't get me started. Your bible was incoherent. Your fellas were trying to prevent evolution from being taught. Don't forget you even killed some dude for masturbating! And now you're telling me some of your best apologists got it all wrong?
God: Not all, just some. No big deal. You can't judge a book from its cover you know?
Atheist: So, just faith then? Even then, Christians don't fully agree on your nature. Speaking in tongues or not...whether Mary is divine...you know how those protestants broke off from the real church...who was I suppose to follow and have faith in?
God: Oh, so now it's my fault huh? You know what, all night you're just pinning the blame on me. You shoulda prayed or something. How'd you know I wouldn't give you some kind of vision? I do that you know? Sometimes I tell them to swim to Myanmar and talk to a political prisoner under house arrest. Sometimes I show them seven-headed dragons. But noooo, you just did your criticism from your little science-y mind of yours didn't ya?
Atheist: Still, you know...come on!
[Silence]
Atheist: Say, you think if the guys still on earth found out the cosmological argument wasn't really an argument for your existence, they'd lose a little bit of faith in you?
God: Hmm, possibly. But, they shouldn't.
Atheist: Right, because it isn't even-
God: That's right, it ain't even true.
Atheist: And until then, they'd use it to argue for your existence.
God: Means to an end, my friend. Means to an end.
Atheist: Anyway, where's that ship to hell? It's taking awfully long. I'm gonna whoop that devil's ass for all his bullshit. Bottoms up?
*Clink of glasses followed by noisy gulping of the remaining beer*
God: Ahh...what were you saying? Oh...hell? what hell? Hell no! Ha ha...you're not going to hell. It doesn't even exist! What you talking about? You high bro!
*Atheist spits beer over the table*
Atheist: Fuc-...no hell? Then what's that sign outside? Says "Ship to hell for unbelievers, bon voyage!"
God: Oh no no no. That's just a little joke between me and the Holy Spirit. Ha! I see it got you! I mean, seriously, I never said hell was real. If I ever did mention anything close to it, it was just metaphorical. Plus those damn scribes must have been messing up my words.
Atheist: Your preachers...they said...
God: Yeah what do they know? Come on, I'm god!
Atheist: Woa...sweet! So where am I going now? Am I gonna live in heaven forever and sing praise to your holy name?
God:HA! You're funny. But, yes. More or less. Yours is at 5:45pm Tuesday Thursdays and Saturdays. Don't go working on Sunday remember! And...try to be punctual. Hate it when we get interrupted.
Atheist: Hey, well, thanks for mercy man!
God: Hey hey, mercy's my middle name, ya know what i mean? Well, drinks on you, I'll get next time. Gonna hit the dance floor, *OWW* ! Later bro!
Atheist: Alright dude, later!
Say an atheist dies and while at a pub in heaven waiting for his ship to hell, he bumps into god.
Atheist: Dude, i'm so high now. You know, I thought you didn't really exist!
God: WTF? You read the bible didn't you? And I got all those apologists arguing for me? Where you been bro?
Atheist: Yeah. No enough evidence man. And I heard this one...the cosmological argument...it just wasn't fair making you the only unmoved mover. I know I know...by definition you are this and that...but it was just too cheap man.
God: Oh, heh , i'm not really an unmoved mover ya know? See, I was created from this little tree which I now keep in my backyard. That cosmological argument, screw that. You just gotta have faith yo? You know what i'm talking about, yeah?
Atheist: Wh-wait...what? Holy, you are telling me that one major philosophical argument for your existence is wrong? Now that's just bad taste...
God: Well, it's a pretty decent argument. But c'mon bro, I never said I was the first cause, don't go putting words in my mouth. And don't ya go quote-mining from the bible, ha!
[God to Bartender: "One more round please!"]
Atheist: Son of a...! Hmm, so then, are you some kind of, you know, omnipotent and omnipresent being?
God: That I am, yes sir! ha ha...i'm also blue in color as you see. Wonder why no apologetic of mine figured that out. But unmoved mover...me? Gawd...
Atheist: So wait a sec. The arguments for your existence can be wrong and yet you still exist?
[Hot little angel waitress comes with 2 beers]
God: You can't really prove I don't exist, can you? You couldn't even conclusively prove that tooth fairies don't exist! Cheers!
*Beer glasses clink*
Atheist: We never really bothered with that actually. But you're right. You're such an ass. You're freakin' unfalsifiable!
God: Ha! I know it's not really fair to make you use reason to figure me out. The arguments really...they have to assume things. Something they get it right like me being a Trinity, sometimes they don't, as you just saw for yourself. I mean, that pope, he had the crazies. He counted some old genealogy and figured the world was 6000 years old! Oh my lord...
Atheist: Oh yeah dude, those were radical times baby...
God: I mean, come on! You think I spent all that time guiding evolution, only to see some fellas say the fossils came from a massive flood? Why'd I even give you brains! You think I set the world starting with light from imaginary stars already headed to you, and you think I set the atoms already halfway through their half-lives? I'd got better things to do....
Atheist: Well, it's a good thing not all your followers believed that, just those old young earth creationists.
God: Thank Jesus! Well, as for you my friend, you should have just had some faith in me man.
[God lights a pipe]
Atheist: Oh don't get me started. Your bible was incoherent. Your fellas were trying to prevent evolution from being taught. Don't forget you even killed some dude for masturbating! And now you're telling me some of your best apologists got it all wrong?
God: Not all, just some. No big deal. You can't judge a book from its cover you know?
Atheist: So, just faith then? Even then, Christians don't fully agree on your nature. Speaking in tongues or not...whether Mary is divine...you know how those protestants broke off from the real church...who was I suppose to follow and have faith in?
God: Oh, so now it's my fault huh? You know what, all night you're just pinning the blame on me. You shoulda prayed or something. How'd you know I wouldn't give you some kind of vision? I do that you know? Sometimes I tell them to swim to Myanmar and talk to a political prisoner under house arrest. Sometimes I show them seven-headed dragons. But noooo, you just did your criticism from your little science-y mind of yours didn't ya?
Atheist: Still, you know...come on!
[Silence]
Atheist: Say, you think if the guys still on earth found out the cosmological argument wasn't really an argument for your existence, they'd lose a little bit of faith in you?
God: Hmm, possibly. But, they shouldn't.
Atheist: Right, because it isn't even-
God: That's right, it ain't even true.
Atheist: And until then, they'd use it to argue for your existence.
God: Means to an end, my friend. Means to an end.
Atheist: Anyway, where's that ship to hell? It's taking awfully long. I'm gonna whoop that devil's ass for all his bullshit. Bottoms up?
*Clink of glasses followed by noisy gulping of the remaining beer*
God: Ahh...what were you saying? Oh...hell? what hell? Hell no! Ha ha...you're not going to hell. It doesn't even exist! What you talking about? You high bro!
*Atheist spits beer over the table*
Atheist: Fuc-...no hell? Then what's that sign outside? Says "Ship to hell for unbelievers, bon voyage!"
God: Oh no no no. That's just a little joke between me and the Holy Spirit. Ha! I see it got you! I mean, seriously, I never said hell was real. If I ever did mention anything close to it, it was just metaphorical. Plus those damn scribes must have been messing up my words.
Atheist: Your preachers...they said...
God: Yeah what do they know? Come on, I'm god!
Atheist: Woa...sweet! So where am I going now? Am I gonna live in heaven forever and sing praise to your holy name?
God:
Atheist: Hey, well, thanks for mercy man!
God: Hey hey, mercy's my middle name, ya know what i mean? Well, drinks on you, I'll get next time. Gonna hit the dance floor, *OWW* ! Later bro!
Atheist: Alright dude, later!
Monday, November 2, 2009
why do i analyze religion?
because religion was the lenses through which i saw the world before, and i think it has been a waste of time. and though no one can be blamed but myself, or in fact everything can be blamed, it now interests me both as an interesting and powerful phenomenon, as something that is hyped up these days, and perhaps because it still holds a menacing place in me.
but why?
Tom might be a "believer" though in his heart he doesn't really reconcile the facts, because he doesn't want to. And why should he be obliged to? So he believes the world is millions of years old with dinosaurs in the past, while also believing that the world is 6000 years old. He believes God created Adam and Eve, though it's fine if it's literal or metaphorical, and also believes in the gist of evolution that man came from common ancestors of monkeys. He knows the bible has inconsistencies and wouldn't really bet much that the bible, metaphorically, dropped from the skyl. But he doesn't want to pursue this. Why, and why not? Maybe he doesn't want to complicate things? That's not a bad thing, not a good thing either. It is good or bad only when you consider it so.
So why do atheists try to break down what they consider a myth?
I think the good reasons are that religion has become dangerous is many respects. They determine the way you live. They can make you radicals who will willingly blow up the world, or let it happen, to bring about the end. They also tell you how to live and act as an intolerance in society, or a divider. A divider is not necessarily a bad thing. But an intolerance force, maybe. It tells you that you can't be gay, you shouldn't watch this movie, you are guilty, you must never lie, it tells you that lying in a certain context is alright, you should not hang out with certain people, you must not masturbate, they will burn in hell unless you make them believe what you do, and much more. For these reasons, religion should be brought into a light.
There will be collateral damage. There are those who have lived their life by a religion and destroying their religion destroys their way of life. Indeed religion is often the center of a culture and tearing down a society's way of life may not be what is intended. Besides, if there is no absolute truth, why is wrong with living according to a religion even if it is a myth? And tell me, what's wrong with living it without knowing it is a myth? Why are atheists taking the holy crusaders' path? The crusaders believed Christianity was right; do atheists believe rationality, knowledge, and freedom from myths are on some scale a movement towards "rightness"? Is self-awareness that important?
What truth?
Only our truth, as decided by us.
Are truths not allowed to conflict?
because religion was the lenses through which i saw the world before, and i think it has been a waste of time. and though no one can be blamed but myself, or in fact everything can be blamed, it now interests me both as an interesting and powerful phenomenon, as something that is hyped up these days, and perhaps because it still holds a menacing place in me.
but why?
Tom might be a "believer" though in his heart he doesn't really reconcile the facts, because he doesn't want to. And why should he be obliged to? So he believes the world is millions of years old with dinosaurs in the past, while also believing that the world is 6000 years old. He believes God created Adam and Eve, though it's fine if it's literal or metaphorical, and also believes in the gist of evolution that man came from common ancestors of monkeys. He knows the bible has inconsistencies and wouldn't really bet much that the bible, metaphorically, dropped from the skyl. But he doesn't want to pursue this. Why, and why not? Maybe he doesn't want to complicate things? That's not a bad thing, not a good thing either. It is good or bad only when you consider it so.
So why do atheists try to break down what they consider a myth?
I think the good reasons are that religion has become dangerous is many respects. They determine the way you live. They can make you radicals who will willingly blow up the world, or let it happen, to bring about the end. They also tell you how to live and act as an intolerance in society, or a divider. A divider is not necessarily a bad thing. But an intolerance force, maybe. It tells you that you can't be gay, you shouldn't watch this movie, you are guilty, you must never lie, it tells you that lying in a certain context is alright, you should not hang out with certain people, you must not masturbate, they will burn in hell unless you make them believe what you do, and much more. For these reasons, religion should be brought into a light.
There will be collateral damage. There are those who have lived their life by a religion and destroying their religion destroys their way of life. Indeed religion is often the center of a culture and tearing down a society's way of life may not be what is intended. Besides, if there is no absolute truth, why is wrong with living according to a religion even if it is a myth? And tell me, what's wrong with living it without knowing it is a myth? Why are atheists taking the holy crusaders' path? The crusaders believed Christianity was right; do atheists believe rationality, knowledge, and freedom from myths are on some scale a movement towards "rightness"? Is self-awareness that important?
What truth?
Only our truth, as decided by us.
Are truths not allowed to conflict?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Apologetic Arguments Analyzed.
Apologetic Arguments Analyzed.
I have noted that most debates revolved about philosophical apologetic arguments. I think this is a good thing because philosophy and logic is a common ground with premises agreed upon by almost all people. When one pulls logic out of it, if someone argues along the lines of logic and then makes the claim that god (or science) is outside of logic, then the common ground shatters. But imagine that the claim that god (or a field of science) can be logically shown upon agreed premises to be outside of logic. That would be a different story. In the case of god, I think the only way this has been attempted or could ever be is through a definition of god as simply being outside logic. Unfortunately, this is never going to work because no unbeliever will agree to the premise of the existence of a god and moreover one that is outside of logic. That would make the unbeliever a believer [of god] in the first place. In the case of science, logical derivations are not what concludes the validity of science. Science is worked upon from observations and hypotheses that work and the test of that working is the correct and accurate predictions of results. Theories that would most come to mind if one needs to think of a science that is close to illogical would be quantum theory and perhaps theories of the multiverse and such. While I don't know about the multiverse or whether it is even claimed a theory in the sense evolutionary and gravitational theory are held (rather than the school textbook's often definition of the word theory as something still needing to be proved before becoming a law), quantum mechanics are far as I know uses mathematics which is very much logical. The predictions of quantum theory have been tested and proven. I don't know if the theory of 10 dimensions share that status. And god? Can he also be proven without explicitly logic but through observations and predictions? Perhaps we would like to give a new set of rules by which we explain god rather than adopt the scientific method? Yes. We may. And there we have the apologetic arguments outside the realm of philosophy, though like science often still relying inherently on logic. And a new set of rules? Well, only if non-believers accept that new set of rules. It would be too much to ask for by saying, "We don't believe god should be proven through the narrowness of science. We propose a new way. We will pray for rain and if it rains, we have working evidence for god." Unreasonable? I think so, since we know that rain could have still happened even if you didn't pray or if you prayed to a bottle of beer. Miracles? Sure, only if they are indeed miracles beyond a doubt. To be fair, I would say this is a difficult basis for argument for god because, as mentioned in an earlier post "Does God Exist? : Turek vs Hitchens" in small blue font, science is always fallible. So what may seem a miracle will always be doubted by skeptics who believe we have an incomplete understanding of the universe.
Let's take a look at non-philosophical apologetic arguments as listed in...of course, Wikipedia. For now I'll assume what it writes is accurate until I have time to research more on these non-philosophical arguments in apologetic sites. I hope you will agree this is not a biased approach.
4 types are listed:
Historical and Legal Evidentialism
Defense of Miracles
Prophetic Fulfillment
Biblical Apologetics
Historical and Legal Evidentialism
Defense of Miracles
Prophetic Fulfillment
Biblical Apologetics
Now, we can shelf prophetic fulfillment first because it relies on the accuracy of the events in the bible. This means accuracy of the bible because in overwhelming cases, the bible is the only source of the events. Disagree? Then we'll have to first discuss biblical apologetics and historical and legal evidentialism. That is why I shelf prophetic fulfillment temporarily. It must be preceded with the two other apologetic arguments mentioned above.
Defense of Miracles argues that miracles are possible. I don't know the arguments yet, but it would likely be a direct clashing against science. Can't say much on this now.
Biblical apologetics and historical and legal evidentialism are arguing the truth of the bible. Ah! This is the heart of the problem. This is the VERY heart of the problem. I once had 2 good friends who recommended reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". That night, I found 5 connecting videos on it. My issue with it was this. Strobel spends the early section proving the validity and truth of the bible. The remaining 80% are arguments based on that validity. But, the proving was really not adequate proof. In other words, the biblical apologetics and historical and legal evidentialism evidence was not convincing and advancing any arguments based on them was impossible. This exposes the very necessity of the truth of the bible in apologetics. If one believes the bible, then really, there is NO argument. The bible says Jesus is our Saviour. Then He is. The bible talks about the end times. Then there will be such end times. Again, as I mention in an earlier post "Does God Exist? : Turek vs Hitchens" under point (1), apologetics should remember that their opponents do not believe in the bible the way believers do. The contents of the bible should not be used as a source of evidence in arguments until their opponents believe in the bible, after which I think there's really no battle anyway.
So why then do people not believe the bible? It doesn't take heresy or the selling of one's soul to find the bible difficult to hold as undisputable truth. Any theology, religion, or bible school student should know the problems with the bible.
The inconsistencies.
Who wrote the bible? Latin version, Greek version, rushed version, apocrypha.
Were there personal agendas? Status of women. Contempt for jews.
Were there accidents or translation issue. Was it a virgin or a young woman?
Why is there no historical evidence that Jews were in Eygpt.
Who wrote about Moses? He himself writing about his death?
What did the women see when they entered Jesus' tomb? What did they do after?
Why is Jesus traced through Joseph who isn't even the biological father?
Many more.
Recently, Bart Ehrman has become a popular source for people to read up on this and having read one of his books, "Misquoting Jesus", I highly recommend his works. They are easy to understand and he merely states facts that agreed upon by all scholars. It is Bible 101. Worried that Ehrman is lying and distorting facts? Well, it's always good to be skeptical and do research rather than trust one source. My input to this is that I took an Introduction to the Bible course in a Christian college in the states that is directly tied to the "Church of God" denomination, although technically they are non-denominational. I was new to all this back then and I struggled to make sense of the bible. I became an apologetic, I might say a very good one, without even reading apologetic material. I created my arguments, I looked at them as achievements, I made countless assumptions, I lost my faith without knowing it while thinking I was striving for the truth, I was mother teresa feeling no presence of god and believing it was a test, then I suddenly was no longer orthodox, to many I was speaking heresy, and then like Kafka's character in The Trial, I could choose to fight but never win, to concede, or to put the trial on infinite hold. Subconsciously, I put it on infinite hold and just as Kafka writes, there will be moments when you are forced again to make the decision. One day, I stopped putting it on hold. What this Intro to the Bible class taught me, the beginning of truth, is very simple and no different from what Ehrman writes about. Don't take my word for it. Find out more about biblical textual criticism.
After all...
Education is not about filling the bucket. It's about lighting the fire.
Fire's burning my bucket and giving me new vision.
So there we go. The non-philosophical apologetic arguments.
The philosophical arguments are more fun, though they are actually arguments for the existence of God, a generic one, rather than a specific one.
Cosmological argument.
First cause...unmoved mover...etc. Once again, I discussed this in some length in "Does God Exist? : Turek vs Hitchens" under point (2MORE).
Teleological argument.
The fine-tuning argument. This is really an appeal to your imagination or lack thereof.
Say I grab 100 stack of cards and I shuffle them. The resulting order of the 5200 cards is very unlikely to occur considering the millions of other possible ordering. But, it WAS random. Now that the cards are in that order, the probability of it being that way is of course 1. I didn't actually order them in any way on purpose.
Say we imagine that there are billions of worlds (within a single universe). Billions of galaxies and freaking a lot of stars and such. Is it hard to imagine that somewhere the conditions are fine tuned for life? Even this can be misleading. It only needed to be fine-tuned for the way we developed, for amino acids to form and for us as humans to survive. But let's not forget that we are also fine-tuned for the world. we may be how we are because the world where the building blocks of our life started adapted for this world. And we don't know if other types of life (non-carbon based...etc) are impossible. Where did life start from? Well, this isn't really the teleological argument, but it might interest you to research the Miller-Urey experiment and similar topics. The very fact that we exist, that the probability of our existence is now set to 1 simply because we DO exist, is why the universe is observed to be fine tuned for our existence. I believe this is the gist of the anthropic principle.
Say we stumble across a watch in the gobi desert. What on earth...this could not have just happened? This must have been designed! Hence the argument for intelligent design. What about our anthropic principle? Since the watch does exist, it...could have come by chance out of unlikely odds right? Ugh...this doesn't sound convincing even though it's not impossible. But, we have a better explanation. It was designed! Fortunately for us, we now understand natural selection and evolution. A watch is now a bad analogy because, well, it WAS designed - we know that. The probability of it having come together by chance is irrelevant because we know it wasn't come together by chance. Let's look at a human being. Surely very complex. Designed? Understanding evolution, we now don't have to think so. Millions of years could have evolved us to be this complex being. It also better explains why sometimes we're born with 6 fingers, no skin, 3 boobs, stuck together, and always with vestiges like tailbones and appendixes. Irreducible complexity? That would pose a problem. I believe biologists, like Darwin, think that irreducible complexity would indeed challenge evolution severely. But there just hasn't been any thing of that nature yet. The eye, immune system, and bacteria flagellum have been shown to not be of irreducible complexity. The bombardier beetle too.
Ontological argument.
The concept of god means that god exist. Very much like [one of] Socrates' argument for the soul.
Imagine that you are walking around Paris. Now, you're seeing yourself from 3rd person point of view right? Hmm...what is this..."consciousness" that is watching "me" move about Paris?
Imagine that you're asleep, and your soul or some inner essence of you gets up and looks at your body. Wait, now what's watching this soul? Hmm...more thoughts.
Imagine instead, that you get up from your bed. You stand up and look at your bed, and you see yourself, sleeping. You look down and see nothing, you ain't got no hands or legs. You walk/move to the corridors and into the bathroom. You stand in front of your sink and look into the mirror. What do you see? Nothing. But you're looking.
Here, we have the concept for a soul. We also have the concept of consciousness although whether consciousness can be independent of the soul (or the body) is another question. Now, since we have a concept of the soul, souls must exist. Otherwise, we can't imagine it. Aristotle defines nothing as "that which rocks dream of". But we can picture our soul can't we?
Well, I can have a concept of a unicorn. Do unicorns exist? I think not.
Hey, wait a second...you're being tricky here aren't you. The reason why you have a concept of a unicorn is because you saw a picture of a unicorn, so it DOES exist to some extent, as a picture!
Okay...but wait, I've never seen a unicorn animated to drink Guinness stout, but I can imagine it.
Ho ho!! wait there! More treachery! You have a concept of drinking stout and a concept of a unicorn. You're just mixing them. It's like saying you've never heard the sentence "I eat gravity" but you can utter it, meaning the sentence can exist, because you've got the nouns, verbs, and linguistic tools to form the sentence.
Wait, i'm confused. are we running in circles? You see, I said I have a concept of unicorns but that unicorns don't exist. Later, you said it does but what you meant was my previous sighting of unicorn pictures. It still doesn't mean that real unicorns exist!
Exactly.
Likewise, souls don't have to exist. Take the contrapositive: Atlas, the man carrying the world, doesn't exist. Therefore, you can't have a concept of him. Certainly not true (unless we go into metaphysics and say oh that's not REALLY a concept...etc but i'm not skilled in excessive metaphysics).
Applying this from souls to god, we don't have an argument for the existence of god. No, not at all.
Moral argument.
If there are morals, they must be derived from an absolute. Like Plato's perfect forms.
Why must they be derived from an absolute? Even if so, why God? I disagree with the premises of the argument.
When we draw a circle, it's not really a circle. It's kind of imperfect. It's a reflection of a true form. A true circle. Imagine you're watching a screen, and there is a fire behind some rocks. And all you can see are the shadows, the representations of the rocks on the screen. But that is not the screen itself. That's more or less Plato's discussion of perfect abstract forms.
While the abstract idea can exist, the form need not. And applying this to a slippery thing like "moral" makes it much less simple. Yet, this argument is in my opinion a very interesting one because even if you don't believe in a god or an absolute, this question will prick you unceasingly: on what basis is morality? is all permissible? (this is one of the great explorations of Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov) Why should I not just go out and steal and kill? In fact, I notice I still DON'T do it. Why? Is there some absolute morality still in me? Some remaining god?
When people quote Dostoevsky to illustrate how this is a great problem with taking God out of the equation, remember that Dostoevsky was a believer. I won't spoil the novel by talking about it here on this topic, but keep in mind that Dostoevsky was an author (a very good one) but not an absolute divine authority on existentialism, nihilism, morality, meaning...etc. Be cautious.
Some convincing notions against a necessity for God for morality is what everyone now calls the zeitgeist. The "spirit of the age". We are not moral because of religion. Christianity was used to understand the acceptability of slavery. Sexism can be justified in the bible. Martin Luther King Jr. may have be a Christian, but by no means can we say that it was nothing but the book that inspired his struggle. The moral environment of our time is pushing our standards of morality, not the holy books. Search up videos or works of Dawkins discussing this.
Another thing is that morality increased survivability. In fact, religion seems to have been important for us to become what we are today. The principle of cooperation was worked out by showing that when individuals worked together, they tended to succeed as a group over individuals who worked for themselves. Of course cooperation came at prices to the individual. But lest we think that concern purely for the self is the natural state of affairs outside of morality, we should note that in biology many creatures work for the good of the group and it is argued that this the for the survival of not only their phenotype but their extended phenotype.
Morality is not that elusive.
Transcendental argument.
Our ability to think and reason require a god.
Presuppositional argument.
Basic beliefs in theists and non-theist require a god as a pre-condition.
Alvin Plantina's argument that belief in God is properly basic.
Pascal's wager.
If even an argument at all. But this is often used almost as a last line of defense. As an argument for a specific god, it fails because wagering on Jesus is not wagering on Allah (presumably you can't wager on too many especially since we're living in monotheistic times). You're also not wagering on Buddha, the Dalai Lama even, or obsolete gods like Zeus, or mother earth, although one could argue that you don't really suffer a penalty for not believing in Zeus or Baal (well, maybe you won't be fertile or have rain, but you don't go to Hell). And even if we bend it such that the wagering of your soul (if any) on God X has 99% chance of a good post-death result, there is no evidence for God X. We're still talking pony unicorns and space meatballs.
Education is not about filling the bucket. It's about lighting the fire.
Fire's burning my bucket and giving me new vision.
So there we go. The non-philosophical apologetic arguments.
The philosophical arguments are more fun, though they are actually arguments for the existence of God, a generic one, rather than a specific one.
Cosmological argument.
First cause...unmoved mover...etc. Once again, I discussed this in some length in "Does God Exist? : Turek vs Hitchens" under point (2MORE).
Teleological argument.
The fine-tuning argument. This is really an appeal to your imagination or lack thereof.
Say I grab 100 stack of cards and I shuffle them. The resulting order of the 5200 cards is very unlikely to occur considering the millions of other possible ordering. But, it WAS random. Now that the cards are in that order, the probability of it being that way is of course 1. I didn't actually order them in any way on purpose.
Say we imagine that there are billions of worlds (within a single universe). Billions of galaxies and freaking a lot of stars and such. Is it hard to imagine that somewhere the conditions are fine tuned for life? Even this can be misleading. It only needed to be fine-tuned for the way we developed, for amino acids to form and for us as humans to survive. But let's not forget that we are also fine-tuned for the world. we may be how we are because the world where the building blocks of our life started adapted for this world. And we don't know if other types of life (non-carbon based...etc) are impossible. Where did life start from? Well, this isn't really the teleological argument, but it might interest you to research the Miller-Urey experiment and similar topics. The very fact that we exist, that the probability of our existence is now set to 1 simply because we DO exist, is why the universe is observed to be fine tuned for our existence. I believe this is the gist of the anthropic principle.
Say we stumble across a watch in the gobi desert. What on earth...this could not have just happened? This must have been designed! Hence the argument for intelligent design. What about our anthropic principle? Since the watch does exist, it...could have come by chance out of unlikely odds right? Ugh...this doesn't sound convincing even though it's not impossible. But, we have a better explanation. It was designed! Fortunately for us, we now understand natural selection and evolution. A watch is now a bad analogy because, well, it WAS designed - we know that. The probability of it having come together by chance is irrelevant because we know it wasn't come together by chance. Let's look at a human being. Surely very complex. Designed? Understanding evolution, we now don't have to think so. Millions of years could have evolved us to be this complex being. It also better explains why sometimes we're born with 6 fingers, no skin, 3 boobs, stuck together, and always with vestiges like tailbones and appendixes. Irreducible complexity? That would pose a problem. I believe biologists, like Darwin, think that irreducible complexity would indeed challenge evolution severely. But there just hasn't been any thing of that nature yet. The eye, immune system, and bacteria flagellum have been shown to not be of irreducible complexity. The bombardier beetle too.
Ontological argument.
The concept of god means that god exist. Very much like [one of] Socrates' argument for the soul.
Imagine that you are walking around Paris. Now, you're seeing yourself from 3rd person point of view right? Hmm...what is this..."consciousness" that is watching "me" move about Paris?
Imagine that you're asleep, and your soul or some inner essence of you gets up and looks at your body. Wait, now what's watching this soul? Hmm...more thoughts.
Imagine instead, that you get up from your bed. You stand up and look at your bed, and you see yourself, sleeping. You look down and see nothing, you ain't got no hands or legs. You walk/move to the corridors and into the bathroom. You stand in front of your sink and look into the mirror. What do you see? Nothing. But you're looking.
Here, we have the concept for a soul. We also have the concept of consciousness although whether consciousness can be independent of the soul (or the body) is another question. Now, since we have a concept of the soul, souls must exist. Otherwise, we can't imagine it. Aristotle defines nothing as "that which rocks dream of". But we can picture our soul can't we?
Well, I can have a concept of a unicorn. Do unicorns exist? I think not.
Hey, wait a second...you're being tricky here aren't you. The reason why you have a concept of a unicorn is because you saw a picture of a unicorn, so it DOES exist to some extent, as a picture!
Okay...but wait, I've never seen a unicorn animated to drink Guinness stout, but I can imagine it.
Ho ho!! wait there! More treachery! You have a concept of drinking stout and a concept of a unicorn. You're just mixing them. It's like saying you've never heard the sentence "I eat gravity" but you can utter it, meaning the sentence can exist, because you've got the nouns, verbs, and linguistic tools to form the sentence.
Wait, i'm confused. are we running in circles? You see, I said I have a concept of unicorns but that unicorns don't exist. Later, you said it does but what you meant was my previous sighting of unicorn pictures. It still doesn't mean that real unicorns exist!
Exactly.
Likewise, souls don't have to exist. Take the contrapositive: Atlas, the man carrying the world, doesn't exist. Therefore, you can't have a concept of him. Certainly not true (unless we go into metaphysics and say oh that's not REALLY a concept...etc but i'm not skilled in excessive metaphysics).
Applying this from souls to god, we don't have an argument for the existence of god. No, not at all.
Moral argument.
If there are morals, they must be derived from an absolute. Like Plato's perfect forms.
Why must they be derived from an absolute? Even if so, why God? I disagree with the premises of the argument.
When we draw a circle, it's not really a circle. It's kind of imperfect. It's a reflection of a true form. A true circle. Imagine you're watching a screen, and there is a fire behind some rocks. And all you can see are the shadows, the representations of the rocks on the screen. But that is not the screen itself. That's more or less Plato's discussion of perfect abstract forms.
While the abstract idea can exist, the form need not. And applying this to a slippery thing like "moral" makes it much less simple. Yet, this argument is in my opinion a very interesting one because even if you don't believe in a god or an absolute, this question will prick you unceasingly: on what basis is morality? is all permissible? (this is one of the great explorations of Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov) Why should I not just go out and steal and kill? In fact, I notice I still DON'T do it. Why? Is there some absolute morality still in me? Some remaining god?
When people quote Dostoevsky to illustrate how this is a great problem with taking God out of the equation, remember that Dostoevsky was a believer. I won't spoil the novel by talking about it here on this topic, but keep in mind that Dostoevsky was an author (a very good one) but not an absolute divine authority on existentialism, nihilism, morality, meaning...etc. Be cautious.
Some convincing notions against a necessity for God for morality is what everyone now calls the zeitgeist. The "spirit of the age". We are not moral because of religion. Christianity was used to understand the acceptability of slavery. Sexism can be justified in the bible. Martin Luther King Jr. may have be a Christian, but by no means can we say that it was nothing but the book that inspired his struggle. The moral environment of our time is pushing our standards of morality, not the holy books. Search up videos or works of Dawkins discussing this.
Another thing is that morality increased survivability. In fact, religion seems to have been important for us to become what we are today. The principle of cooperation was worked out by showing that when individuals worked together, they tended to succeed as a group over individuals who worked for themselves. Of course cooperation came at prices to the individual. But lest we think that concern purely for the self is the natural state of affairs outside of morality, we should note that in biology many creatures work for the good of the group and it is argued that this the for the survival of not only their phenotype but their extended phenotype.
Morality is not that elusive.
Transcendental argument.
Our ability to think and reason require a god.
Presuppositional argument.
Basic beliefs in theists and non-theist require a god as a pre-condition.
Alvin Plantina's argument that belief in God is properly basic.
Pascal's wager.
If even an argument at all. But this is often used almost as a last line of defense. As an argument for a specific god, it fails because wagering on Jesus is not wagering on Allah (presumably you can't wager on too many especially since we're living in monotheistic times). You're also not wagering on Buddha, the Dalai Lama even, or obsolete gods like Zeus, or mother earth, although one could argue that you don't really suffer a penalty for not believing in Zeus or Baal (well, maybe you won't be fertile or have rain, but you don't go to Hell). And even if we bend it such that the wagering of your soul (if any) on God X has 99% chance of a good post-death result, there is no evidence for God X. We're still talking pony unicorns and space meatballs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
