A few ponderings of a religious nature
Some
Christians like to use probability arguments such as a tornado hitting
a junkyard and building a 747 as proof for the truthfulness of their
religion. But this game can be played both ways, considering that
extremely improbably artifacts exist in abundance around us. Thousands
of worldviews exist in the world and infinitely many more are
theoretically possible, but only one worldview can create such an
extremely improbable artifact as a computer monitor, and no matter how
hard the others chant and pray and divine, nothing happens. The
worldviews that can create artifacts that the others just can't are
obviously better.
If the Western science was not essentially correct in its claims about how the universe works, there would be no chance whatsoever that this posting could have travelled from where I was writing this to where you are right now, and the pixels on your monitor would arrange their colours to show this posting. If science really was a religion, it would be a pretty great religion with its daily miracles, as Carl Sagan once remarked. And doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that you can recognize those who speak for God by the miracles they make and the correct prophesies that they tell?
A Christian might now counter by pointing out the civilizing nature of Christianity that makes science and other good things possible. Even though I admit the immense usefulness of Christianity in controlling "the rest of us", I have to wonder that even if this were true, so what? By their fruits you shall know them, yes, but even though dirt is absolutely necessary for the delicious fruit to grow, I eat only the fruit, not the dirt that it grew from. And I know I sound like a teenage atheist in saying the next thing, but Christianity can't really take much pride in being so civilized and moderate today, since other ideologies and worldviews had to force it to be that way by making it face the objective reality. In its heyday, Christianity was just as hostile towards everything good that we take for granted today as Al Qaeda is today.
A major reason why I am not a Christian is that I can't bring myself to believe that the ancient Israelites were the history's foremost experts of cosmology and ontology, considering the many other goofy beliefs that they had, just like all other nations of the ancient world. This just doesn't sound very plausible to me. Too bad that God didn't arrange all his miracles and revelations in the modern era, where we have computers, video cameras and other useful tools for maintaining accuracy and separating fact from fiction. After all, if God could choose any small nation and era to reveal himself, why did this lot fall to ancient Israelites? Why not, say, the 21st century Belgians?
(This leads me to a side note about something that I have often wondered. Many ancient Jews and later also Christians of other nations wrote all kinds of texts. Initially they were separate texts, but some of these texts were later selected to become a single collection called The Bible. But why stop there? There is the Old Testament for writings of an early era and the New Testament for writings of a later era, so how come there is no a "Third Testament" collecting the writings from an even later era, say, years 200-1000? Surely God didn't go anywhere after the Bible was collected, but even today He continues to speak to His followers who then go do mighty things and ponder deep thoughts, which need to be written down and collected for the future Christians. For example, since today the United States of America is obviously the new Chosen Nation of God, the American Christians really must compile a Testament of their own. This Book might include "The Book of Rush", "The Chronicles of Ronald" and so on, chronicling the events in the lives of these holies and the ideas that they received from God and then communicated to their people.)
I have occasionally wondered why Christians and most other religions are so eager to gain more manpower by converting others to their ideology. Where is the benefit for them in someone else becoming a Christian? (Rhetorical.) One possible answer, somewhat Straussian in spirit, can be found from the common Christian idea that atheists actually do know that there is a God, but pretend not to know this and deny His existence out of spite or vanity or lack of humility in front of a power far greater than them. This idea also forms the basis of the often-repeated statement "There are no atheists in foxholes", which tries to triumphantly point out that a suitably large dose of reality makes any atheist drop his denial act and admit the truth that he really knew all along. This bumper sticker probably makes Christians happy, but it wouldn't really convince atheists, who already believe that all religions emerge from the fears of dying and unknown. (And who can, besides, always counter with "There are no faith healers in a burn ward.")
In fact, the original claim that atheists know there is a God but pretend to deny him is false for me. I don't know there is a God, no matter how deeply I look inside of me. If I thought God really existed, instead of denying him I would immediately buy the whole package. Plugging an omniscient benevolent superbrain to tell my little brain what to do next in each situation is far too good an offer to refuse for any secular reasons. The problem therefore isn't in my refusal to submit to God. Quite the opposite, since I believe that if God really existed, a theocracy where the priestly class relays God's orders for the other people to obey would be the best type of government. I'm pretty sure that the omniscient God would do a better job in setting the proper tax rates and foreign policy and everything else than human politicians.
But the problem is that since I don't believe in God's existence, submission to God in reality means submission to the people who claim to speak for Him. And I have no intention of becoming their dog. Yes, I know, "all Christians are equal in the eyes of God", but I doubt that this zero-information feelgood pap actually in real world confuses anybody to believe that power hierarchies don't exist and where each one of us is positioned in them. I therefore suspect that the real underlying motive of conversion work is simply to get one more person to control with "God wants you to do X." Perhaps most Christians and missionaries are good people with motives to help others, but a cynical mind can see this motive in the larger scheme of things.
If the Western science was not essentially correct in its claims about how the universe works, there would be no chance whatsoever that this posting could have travelled from where I was writing this to where you are right now, and the pixels on your monitor would arrange their colours to show this posting. If science really was a religion, it would be a pretty great religion with its daily miracles, as Carl Sagan once remarked. And doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that you can recognize those who speak for God by the miracles they make and the correct prophesies that they tell?
A Christian might now counter by pointing out the civilizing nature of Christianity that makes science and other good things possible. Even though I admit the immense usefulness of Christianity in controlling "the rest of us", I have to wonder that even if this were true, so what? By their fruits you shall know them, yes, but even though dirt is absolutely necessary for the delicious fruit to grow, I eat only the fruit, not the dirt that it grew from. And I know I sound like a teenage atheist in saying the next thing, but Christianity can't really take much pride in being so civilized and moderate today, since other ideologies and worldviews had to force it to be that way by making it face the objective reality. In its heyday, Christianity was just as hostile towards everything good that we take for granted today as Al Qaeda is today.
A major reason why I am not a Christian is that I can't bring myself to believe that the ancient Israelites were the history's foremost experts of cosmology and ontology, considering the many other goofy beliefs that they had, just like all other nations of the ancient world. This just doesn't sound very plausible to me. Too bad that God didn't arrange all his miracles and revelations in the modern era, where we have computers, video cameras and other useful tools for maintaining accuracy and separating fact from fiction. After all, if God could choose any small nation and era to reveal himself, why did this lot fall to ancient Israelites? Why not, say, the 21st century Belgians?
(This leads me to a side note about something that I have often wondered. Many ancient Jews and later also Christians of other nations wrote all kinds of texts. Initially they were separate texts, but some of these texts were later selected to become a single collection called The Bible. But why stop there? There is the Old Testament for writings of an early era and the New Testament for writings of a later era, so how come there is no a "Third Testament" collecting the writings from an even later era, say, years 200-1000? Surely God didn't go anywhere after the Bible was collected, but even today He continues to speak to His followers who then go do mighty things and ponder deep thoughts, which need to be written down and collected for the future Christians. For example, since today the United States of America is obviously the new Chosen Nation of God, the American Christians really must compile a Testament of their own. This Book might include "The Book of Rush", "The Chronicles of Ronald" and so on, chronicling the events in the lives of these holies and the ideas that they received from God and then communicated to their people.)
I have occasionally wondered why Christians and most other religions are so eager to gain more manpower by converting others to their ideology. Where is the benefit for them in someone else becoming a Christian? (Rhetorical.) One possible answer, somewhat Straussian in spirit, can be found from the common Christian idea that atheists actually do know that there is a God, but pretend not to know this and deny His existence out of spite or vanity or lack of humility in front of a power far greater than them. This idea also forms the basis of the often-repeated statement "There are no atheists in foxholes", which tries to triumphantly point out that a suitably large dose of reality makes any atheist drop his denial act and admit the truth that he really knew all along. This bumper sticker probably makes Christians happy, but it wouldn't really convince atheists, who already believe that all religions emerge from the fears of dying and unknown. (And who can, besides, always counter with "There are no faith healers in a burn ward.")
In fact, the original claim that atheists know there is a God but pretend to deny him is false for me. I don't know there is a God, no matter how deeply I look inside of me. If I thought God really existed, instead of denying him I would immediately buy the whole package. Plugging an omniscient benevolent superbrain to tell my little brain what to do next in each situation is far too good an offer to refuse for any secular reasons. The problem therefore isn't in my refusal to submit to God. Quite the opposite, since I believe that if God really existed, a theocracy where the priestly class relays God's orders for the other people to obey would be the best type of government. I'm pretty sure that the omniscient God would do a better job in setting the proper tax rates and foreign policy and everything else than human politicians.
But the problem is that since I don't believe in God's existence, submission to God in reality means submission to the people who claim to speak for Him. And I have no intention of becoming their dog. Yes, I know, "all Christians are equal in the eyes of God", but I doubt that this zero-information feelgood pap actually in real world confuses anybody to believe that power hierarchies don't exist and where each one of us is positioned in them. I therefore suspect that the real underlying motive of conversion work is simply to get one more person to control with "God wants you to do X." Perhaps most Christians and missionaries are good people with motives to help others, but a cynical mind can see this motive in the larger scheme of things.
The third testament is the Koran and the American testament is the Book of Mormon. But try to find somebody who accepts all four.
Posted by Anonymous | 3:41 AM
"If I thought God really existed, instead of denying him I would immediately buy the whole package. Plugging an omniscient benevolent superbrain to tell my little brain what to do next in each situation is far too good an offer to refuse for any secular reasons. The problem therefore isn't in my refusal to submit to God. Quite the opposite, since I believe that if God really existed, a theocracy where the priestly class relays God's orders for the other people to obey would be the best type of government. I'm pretty sure that the omniscient God would do a better job in setting the proper tax rates and foreign policy and everything else than human politicians."
What makes you think that if an omnipotent creature existed it would be benevolent? The available evidence points to the contrary.
Posted by Vera | 8:46 AM
Yes. Consideration should be given to possible scenarios.
Posted by Tommi | 9:04 AM
A Third Testament. Yes, why not? Perhaps, atheists should write it!
Posted by UberKuh | 4:33 PM
After all, if God could choose any small nation and era to reveal himself, why did this lot fall to ancient Israelites? Why not, say, the 21st century Belgians?
The obvious answer is that they (the ancient Hebrews, and by extension, and of course, their descendants) were The Chosen. The logic is impeccable (if I say myself, who shouldn't). It's not that they were The Chosen because G-d chose them; rather, G-d chose them because they were The Chosen.
Posted by Anonymous | 12:06 PM
The above was supposed to be a response to:
After all, if God could choose any small nation and era to reveal himself, why did this lot fall to ancient Israelites? Why not, say, the 21st century Belgians?
The quote did not come out as I intended.
Posted by Anonymous | 12:07 PM
I'm from Belgium, and I can assure you: She has shared Her revelations with us last year.
We're putting together the King Albert Bible right now.
It is taking us some time however, because we can't agree if by "chosen people", She meant all Belgians, dutch-speaking Belgians or french-speaking Belgians...
(oh, and there's also that pesky minority of german-speaking Belgians who claim they have the Truth, but we'll weed them out soon
Posted by kim boone | 10:32 AM