The Contributors
From Synapse to Byte has three contributors, each with a unique personality.
 Philip…is overly academic and quite boring. He posts dry and technical commentary on philosophy and is often accused of being grumpy in his posts against religion. |
 Felipe…is not too bright, but is worth a good laugh or two. He has contributed dozens of humorous posts ranging from anecdotal autobiographical asininity to wacky videos. |
 Phil…thinks he’s an artist, and attempts to back it up from time to time. You can visit his website at seductivemist.com, or take a look at his several other artistic posts. |
*You’ll find many other categories as you scroll down the column on the right. Feel free to explore.
Warranted Belief And Psychological Demands
If we were simply minds designed to assess truth, life would be easy. We could simply test and adopt the evidential heuristics and algorithms that provide the most predictive successes, apply these tools to the evidence for and against a given proposition, then simply assign a probability to the truthfulness of that proposition. There would be no default position of belief or disbelief. There would be no bivalent conclusion of belief or disbelief. Everything would be comfortably a matter of epistemological probabilities that had no bearing on our survival.
However, we find ourselves active agents in a world in which we are driven to survive and secure happiness for ourselves and those we love. We find ourselves emotional beings that are very much disturbed by uncertainty. We are driven to “know”.
This drive to “know” is what pulls us away from proper probabilistic positions on the truthfulness of claims, and compels us to claim “knowledge” that a proposition is either true or untrue. While this bivalent approach to truth destroys our credibility as effective assessors of epistemological probabilities, it is nonetheless fully human.
Read the rest of this entry »
Skepticism And The Web
I would like to argue that, as the world becomes more global, it will also become more skeptical. Let me first give a bit of background before I argue the reasons for this prediction.
Skepticism is an epistemological disposition. It is a commitment to disbelief until a certain threshold of evidence has been provided. It disparages faith and credulity.
What would humanity look like were skepticism not the default disposition towards new propositions? 
It would look exactly as it does now with -isms of every imaginable sort, all competing with specious but majestic assertions and other emotional weapons to trespass the barriers of evidential warrant and created bloated ontologies of mythical entities and proportions. Waiting for the proper evidence to arrive that would substantiate a wonderful concept is not very agreeable to the impatient human psyche that is constantly seeking more existential validation than is ever available. But this longing for existential validation is no warrant for violating the barriers of evidential warrant, and any mind that trespasses in this manner must constantly self-delude. This is the rate of exchange; self-delusion for a bit of existential comfort.
Read the rest of this entry »
Meta-Post
It was a great year of blogging! I’ve learned a lot about myself through the process of writing, and highly recommend it to all of you who enjoy self-discovery. Below you’ll find total views for each post for from synapse to byte from the beginning of the blog in December of 2008 through December of 2009. I still find spelling and grammar mistakes in my posts long after they’ve been posted, so if you’d me so kind as to point those out to me, I’ll laud your virtues in a post sometime.
Salvaging Santa
This year has been a bit disappointing for Santa believers. Fewer and fewer souls seem to be taking the Santa story seriously. Anti-santaists have been enticing young minds away from the Christmas magic that has been essential in the maintenance of a healthy society. They ridicule Santa as a myth, along with all the accompanying concepts that have given us warmth and comfort for all these years. They actually suggest that the notion of a Santa rewarding only “good” children is not necessary to rearing well-behaved children. They are constantly asking for evidence of our Santa, not understanding that there would be no magic if Santa was subject to scientific scrutiny.
If we are to save our Santa culture from this insidious secularism that makes mockery of our faith, we need to acknowledge our weaknesses, and adapt to the changing cultural climate. Here are a few suggestions.
- Place Santa out of the reach of science.
Some point to what they consider the absurdity of a voluminous man descending a narrow chimney and other mysterious aspects of Santa. Here are a few ways to deal with this form of persecution.- Announce that Santa’s magic is far above human understanding. Santa, in his infinite magic, can fatten flukes at will, create chimneys where there are none, and leave everything intact as if he had never descended from the roof at all. Ask the secularists how they even dare with their puny minds to question the magic of our Santa.
- Call problematic parts of the Santa story figurative. Suggest that the notion of “descending the chimney” is a metaphor of Santa’s intent. He actually may come through a window. What matters is that the presents are there in the morning. In doing this, never submit a standard for discerning between literal and figurative elements of the Santa story. That will make it convenient for you to choose which is which as aplogetics needs arise.
- Remind non-believers that, if the Santa story could be tested and confirmed, we couldn’t employ the faith that feeds the magic. Accuse them of not listening to the clear voice of Santa that each of us carries deep in our hearts if we only listen with open minds.
- Affirm the magic. Point out all the cases in which reindeer dung was found on roof tops. Suggest that any father who would simply throw dung on his roof in an attempt to create the illusion of a rangiferine landing would have to be either a lunatic or liar. The only sensible inference is that Santa’s sleigh had indeed visited your house.
- Belittle science and its tools. Point out that science is often wrong and is therefore not an appropriate method to assess the magic of Santa. Claim that statistics are a silly invention, and strongly affirm the idea that anything can be “proven” through statistics. The stronger you affirm this, the more true it will become. In this way, reports that suggest poorer (not misbehaving) children receive fewer presents can be dismissed. If secularists suggest this is not logical, claim that Santa logic is not the same as secular logic, but don’t bother explaining how.
- Suggest that science and magic fall into two non-overlapping domains. Declare that scientific methodology cannot assess the wonderment of magic. When asked about specific claims of Santaism that seem to fall within the reach of science, offer evasive permutations of the particular doctrine to make it impotent and thus unassailable. Fudging a bit on exegesis is forgivable if the net result is an increase in believers.
- Disparage the notion of belief based on “evidence”. This is becoming one of the most troubling issues that has already led to the apostasy of thousands. You’ll hear secularists claim that the degree of confidence in an idea should match the degree of the evidence. Where is the magic in that? Evidence only goes so far and is largely linear. How can belief be linear? Choose a side! Unless we go beyond the evidence with faith, we would be left saying “I don’t yet know” on many questions, a wholly unacceptable option.
- Exercise the right to arbitrarily define true Santaism.
You’ll often hear accusations that Santanists do not behave any better than non-believers. Here you’ll want to point out the fallacy in this accusation by simply explaining that those who don’t act like Santanists are not real Santaists. This will prevent your opponent from citing anecdotes, and require him to lean on statistics that require a substantial sample that you can then simply dismiss as not representative of Santaism. If your opponent then demands positive evidence for superior behavior among Santaist, simply offer a few anecdotes as proof. - Appeal to what people already know in their hearts.
There are times when you may simply ignore the anti-santa arguments. Every person knows deep in his heart that Santa is real. Presuppositional affirmations are the way to go. This is economical in that it minimizes potential cognitive dissonance that may creep in through cracks in your counter-arguments, and eliminates the expenditure of contemplation that distracts from faith in Santa, and may even lead to doubting. - Emphasize emotions.
Fortunately, Christmas is replete with salient sensations that easily form a sense of identity, of belonging, and also address dozens of other emotional needs. We know through a feeling of certainty that emotions are a legitimate validator of what is true, so regardless of the apparent power of the secularist’s arguments, this emotional validation is what will vanquish the doubts that have destroyed the magic in so many young lives. And perhaps the greatest argument you can make is to ask weak believers if they would want to live in a world that had no magic. Ask them if they want to grow up to become merely scientists restricted by the parameters of materialism. Emphasize the rigor and critical thought required by those who have abandoned magic and have endeared themselves to rational thought. Above all, emphasize the personal relationship believers have with Santa. Have them make psychological investments by writing Santa letters for years, then remind them of this and of all other psychological investments at any point in which their faith is weak. Remind them that Santa’s apparent silence is simply a test of their faith or an indication that their requests are selfish. And always return to the assurance that emotions are a legitimate way to confirm the truth of their faith.
If we can only employ these noble tactics, Santa will not dissipate into a distant cultural memory as has the Easter Bunny. May Santa bless us all.
God’s Equal
An interesting story concerning the claims and powers of alleged gods.
Logic’s Inductive Foundation
Christianity has long been guilty of claiming invention and ownership of everything considered virtuous in society. Here are just a few examples.
- Morality: After centuries of divinely-sanctioned genocide, rape and slavery, Christians tell us that these things are now immoral while thumping the very Bible containing conflicting examples. I actually had one Christian tell me that the Golden Rule had no moral force until Jesus uttered it.
- The Institution of Marriage: Most of the best known “godly” characters of the Holy Bible were polygamous without any complaints from Jehovah, yet Christians have now emphatically stated that God had always intended monogamy to be the only proper sexual union.
- Science: While both Catholics and Protestants for centuries asserted on conclusive hermeneutic “evidence” the Earth to be the center of the universe, Christians now claim that the Bible has always served as a foundation for science. Imagine trying to get research funded during the age when the Pope, Luther or Calvin reigned.
- Medicine: During the time the Bible was the core of European society, those who dared to suggest that plagues were anything other than the direct hand of God were considered heretical. Now Christians are claiming that modern medicine was a Christian innovation. If only faith-healers were banned from hospitals…
Could Christians get any more arrogant? Yes they could.
They could suggest that logic belongs to Christianity. Here is a quote from one Christian.
Remember, you said that you are a materialist. Logic is immaterial. You can’t account for it, nor is it logical for you to assume that it works. Nor is it logical for you to try and use logic in order to demonstrate the validity of logic.
…
The difference between us is that you don’t have any basis upon which to first assume the value of logic and science (which require an orderly universe to work). I do because my world view starts with an absolute God creating an orderly universe. You must borrow the presupposition of order in order to put any trust in logic and the scientific method. If you didn’t assume order you would have no way of knowing whether logic and science were reliable.
It is as if he believes that logic had to have a divine stamp-of-approval before it could be of any service to us. And because so much of this Christian’s ideology is based on unsubstantiated assumptions, he over-projects and decides that my confidence in logic is also a product of blind assumption. It is not.
We acquire logic because it works. What works need not be logical or require the assumption of cosmic order; it just needs to work. As infants we, through induction, discover heuristics of inquiry that produce results. These results include explanatory and predictive power that children then use to avoid danger, plan, accomplish goals, and expand their web of knowledge. Children do not need a divinity to walk up and tell then to use logic and that they need to assume order. Logic works. Our expectations of further order and successes of logic are warranted through inductive assessment. Our confidence in logic is not prior to its testing. It is subsequent to inductively assessing its efficacy. And logic quickly becomes an integral tool in the life the every healthy human child. It needs no divine sponsor. It works. That is what it is used for, and that is enough. Should logic ever begin to fail, so would also my confidence in logic. My confidence is based on the inductive assessment of the efficacy of logic to produce explanatory and predictive power. My degree of confidence in logic is only warranted to the degree that logic works. Logic works impressively well. Therefore, my confidence in logic, while not absolute, is quite high.
Now, is logic immaterial? Read the rest of this entry »
Strength In Numbers?
Homeopathy is a popular but worthless “alternative medicine” that involves diluting disease compounds in water to a degree that there is little chance that any of the compound molecules remain in the resulting container of water that is then marketed as cures for everything from asthma to cancer. Proponents claim that the water’s “memory” inoculates the patient from the disease.
In a recent debate over the efficacy of homeopathy “drugs”, a spokesperson for homeopathy seriously made the statement…
If [the homeopathic drugs] didn’t work beyond the placebo effect, why do people keep buying them?
Let’s have some audience participation. Here are your possible responses to this rhetorical question.
- Because claims of the drug’s efficacy are true.
- Because of the placebo effect.
In the absence of any other evidence, the only warranted answer is #2, and is amazingly even part of the question. If you chose the 1st option, you may well be among those who employ the same basic argument in other domains of inquiry. One of the most common defenses of religion I have heard is in a rhetorical question of the same form.
If there were no truth in my religion beyond a placebo effect, why do so many people believe it?
I’ll give you the same 2 basic options.
- Because claims of the religion’s efficacy are true.
- Because of the placebo effect.
If there is efficacy in either homeopathy or religion, it will not be demonstrated by someone pointing out the number of believers. In fact, if a believer employs this argument to their own particular religion which promises to provide superior wisdom to its faithful, then it has failed since the argument that the reliability of a claim increases as the number of believers increases is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. To persist in this argument will require holding that the god of your religion has his own rules of logic, not a direction I’d suggest you take.
The Emotional Substrate Beneath Bloated Ontologies
We are most fundamentally emotional creatures, and the most fundamental realm of meaning is that of emotion. 
From the time we are infants, our emotional brains are busy sorting through these needy emotions and attempting to carve out a social identity, a set of things we can call “true”, and a code of behavior. But there is nothing as subjectively real as our emotions.
So we are compelled by these emotions to construct an edifice that can comfortably house our emotions by providing psychological, epistemological and moral frameworks over which we can then drape image, and respectably present ourselves to society.
Because the goal is to cloak our raw and muddled emotions under more presentable walls of definition, this enterprise is inherently illusory, and is most commonly self-delusional. Yet by the time we reach adulthood, we have constructed an elaborate edifice that, if matching the expectations of society, can assure our social well-being.
I’d like to deconstruct the various walls of meaning to expose the raw emotions that we often do not want to admit lie at the foundation of being.
- Identity. This is the most transparent. Many realize that identity is static only where it is thought static. Personhood can change significantly over a lifetime. We say “this is who I am” at our peril. Constructing rigid walls of identity lock us into a self that forfeits a more colorful and fuller life. But, to avoid the swirling and persistent uncertainty and fear, our adolescent minds forge an identity that we often find hard to later modify. We begin to see the image that we have constructed upon our emotions as a rigid entity, and prior to our emotions. This self-delusion serves to maximize predictability and minimize risks, but it often leads to marginal lives. If we can recognize that it is emotions that are the substrate to our identities, and take measures to directly address those emotions rather than merely repainting the peeling facade the same color from time to time, life can become much more dynamic and enriching.
- Read the rest of this entry »
Which Side Of Reality?
I recently received a note from a very nice Christian that contained the following.
No matter who has wronged you as a Christian or how God has disappointed you that you work so hard to explain Him away, He still loves you and wants to live with you forever. So do I!
Please forgive me for offending you.
I responded as follows.
No problem, ——.
I once said the very same things to others.
As you know, many gods have been explained into existence, and the christian god takes many forms in the imaginations of its emotionally needy constituents.
Pause to think about your motivations. Would you want to live in a world where there was no god? Do you want to live in an immoral world that has no moral accountability?
Your reactions to these questions are also based on the lies that you have been taught, coupled with your imagination and a lack of interest in empirical data.
Your entire concept of self and of others is informed by the bible and your emotionally based imagination.
Daniel Dennett On The Soul
Daniel Dennett defends the emotionally unpalatable position that there is no soul lurking somewhere beneath the dynamic electrochemical substrate of our minds.
1
Read the rest of this entry »
Reason is a Whore
Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation said,
Reason is a whore of the devil.1
Luther then demonstrates his commitment to this claim by employing a Christian version of reason and arguing,
Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.2
The “broad hips” of women were reasoned evidence to Luther that women should “sit still” at home. Perhaps if Luther had learned what reason was and how to properly engage her, she would not have seemed like a cheap whore. Instead, Luther’s commitment to the deceitful whore called “Faith” led him to abuse reason.
A few hundred years and the internet later, we have a Christian named Ray Comfort similarly arguing from bananas to Jehovah’s purpose in the following video.
Just think of all the things that are hand-shaped and mouth-shaped that we could, with Christian logic, argue were made to go into hands and mouths. If you treat reason like a whore, don’t complain when you discover you’ve been arguing with a diseased mind. However, treating reason with respect, and making a commitment to her alone while refusing the whore in the shadows called “Faith” will yield far more rational conclusions to inform our lives.
Coloring Inside The Lines
What is skepticism? And what value does it have? Isn’t it just something that grumpy old men do to make the world cloudy for the rest of us?
Remember that first coloring book you had? The boring black and white outlines on the pages would stare at you expressionlessly, so you would take the crayons you hadn’t yet eaten and scribble in wild abandon inside and outside the lines in an uninhibited expression of creativity…or at least I did.
The Digital Brain
This TED talk outlines the ambitions of a few cognitive scientists who have been testing a digital version of the human brain. Fascinating stuff.
Angles Of Perception
Why is the following anti-marijuana slogan doomed to fail?
Smoking marijuana will soon have you giggling hysterically about nothing with your pothead friends.
The obvious answer is that, for some perhaps inexperienced lives, no greater mode of existence can be envisioned beyond guffawing inexplicably in a smoky room with guffawing friends. For those of us who have experienced so many other wonderful modes of life that far outperform delusional giggling, this seems an obvious no-brainer; it is a waste of life. However, for those with a much smaller notion of the world due to a lack of education or experience, the warmth of a community of delusional gigglers is deeply appealing. This world soon becomes normal to them, and their reach of other modes of existence fades away the more they drag and giggle.
(Don’t bother trying to convey to me the virtues of pot smoking. I have far too many skitzotypical friends who were quite normal prior to taking up “recreational” usage.)
Now consider a second slogan.
Belief in God will soon have you making confident assertions apart from any evidence.
For those of us committed to science and reason, this is repulsive. However, to those with limited education and interaction with a larger world this concept seems quite pleasant. It is a concept in which there is not the angst of not knowing and having to admit to ignorance. It is a concept in which the immediacy of feelings reigns over the often strenuous exercise of reason. It is a concept in which you can warmly imagine that you have knowledge that was given to you directly by a divine being. These people wear the badge “faith” as proudly as a junkie wears the badge “hallucinogenics”.
So how might we adjust our message to the theists? Read the rest of this entry »
The Japanese Irreligious
I have a theory. Those with rich fantasy lives tend to be less religious.
Here in Japan, comic books (manga) and cartoons (anime) are a staple of a very literate public with almost 2 billion manga books and magazines sold in Japan in 1995. At the same time, the percentage of Japanese atheists and agnostics is at a very high 65%.
I’d like to suggest that the mundane reality of the average Japanese life is alleviated by an escape into fantasy. At the same time, Japaneses are in no way confused about which world is real and which is fiction. The escapism is a conscious choice that is activated in a discrete part of their minds, and is not at any time entangled and confused with their material realities. This notion was substantiated by several of my Japanese friends who marveled that Americans so easily fall prey to claims of miracles and notions of god. A lonely missionary I meet regularly in Tokyo’s Yoyogi park as he attempts to evangelize Japanese “sinners” admits the fact that Japanese very quickly dismiss the miraculous claims of the bible.
Americans, however, are much more inclined to combine the elements of myth and reality. Read the rest of this entry »
Assessing The Tool Of Assessment
This post is an elaboration of #2 from a list of things I’ve learned late in life.
Assessing the tool of assessment is the first step of assessment.
Prior to the understanding of the microscopic dynamics of neurons, the brains of cadavers were prodded and poked at with nothing uncovered that would suggest anything other than the widespread assumption that the folds of gray matter merely housed an immaterial agent of beliefs and the will. And this was intuitive. After all, we feel like we are more than neurons; that we are an immaterial soul that transcends the prison of our physical existence. In conjunction with our intuitive feelings of soulfulness, the nature of this soul was usually defined by a top-down ideology, most commonly a religion.
However, as scientific tools and method allowed us to more deeply examine the physical tissue of the brain, Read the rest of this entry »
Cherry-Picking The Apologists
Until recently I had hoped that the focus on logical argumentation by many of the leading apologists out there might have trickled down to the herd, giving me at least an interesting debate. Let me point out the fallacies on one single Youtube thread on which I was basically the only non-believer posting while 3 or 4 christians had a go at me.
My argument was that the bible is internally incoherent based on the following incompatible premises.
- God claims to love all sinners.
- 1 Corinthians 13 defines love.
- God becomes so angry over a single sin that he decrees the sinner deserving of eternal torment.
- This decree of damnation (as opposed to rehabilitation) imposed on a son he loved is in violation of the standard of love found in 1 Corinthians 13.
The entire thread in all its glory is found here.
Here are just some of the responses I encountered.
The Failures Of Fig Trees
Jesus and I both like figs. But I have never in my life cursed a fig tree.
“And when [Jesus] saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.”
(Matthew 21:19)
Jesus is hungry. He sees a fig tree. But it has no figs! Now why would a fig tree not have figs? Any decent fig tree ought to know that Jesus would be walking by hungry. It most assuredly deserves to be cursed.
But wait. There is another account that might give us more perspective.
“And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.”
(Mark 11:12-14a)
It was not fig-bearing season! But is this an excuse? Not in the mind of Jesus.
It did not matter that Jesus himself, if claims of his deity are accurate, made the fig tree and scheduled its fig-bearing season.
It did not matter that no fig tree, due to the nature of fig trees, had ever borne fruit out of season. This one should have realized the needs of its Lord and have submitted to his will.
Jehovah also made humans if the bible is to be believed. The nature with which he made us is clear from other verses.
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one”
(Romans 3:10)
Our nature is to sin. We did not have a choice in this nature. Yet, just as with Jesus and the fig tree, our nature is no excuse in the mind of Jehovah. We rightfully deserve eternal damnation. Most christians believe that one sin committed by a creature with the nature to sin is deserving of eternal damnation. This is a bankrupt and incoherent notion from a bankrupt book of absurd fiction.
The bible is bunk.
Tom Clark On Naturalism
The interview of Tom Clark by Ginger Campbell linked to below is unquestionably one of the best commentaries on the essence and implications of naturalism out there. It confronts head-on the issues of free will, morality, and what it is to be human.
[ MP3 ] [ TRANSCRIPT ]
Ginger Campbell is the host of both Books and Ideas and Brain Science Podcast, 2 great podcasts that are cherry pie for inquisitive minds.
EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERVIEW
It says that we are all natural creatures, that nature is what there is, and that nature is enough: That we don’t need anything supernatural to describe ourselves, nor do we need anything supernatural in order to lead meaningful, moral, and effective lives.
Putting Dictionaries In Their Place
Language is a product of convention.
You may be a “bad ass” at argumentation, but your assertion of the same may not get the reception you expect from an Ethiopian donkey breeder.
The community of minds that employs a given word has the final say on the definition of the word. You can invoke a dictionary all you want, but unless your audience understands the word you are using in the same way you understand it, communication will fail. Dictionary editors are not referencing some objective meaning of the word when they write definitions, but are rather attempting to list denotations of the word that are currently active in the population that speaks the language. For this reason, dictionaries must be regularly updated.
Don’t Hide Yourself
This post is an elaboration of #1 from a list of things I’ve learned late in life.
I advise friends who are looking for a decent romantic partner to be wary of those who lead obscure lives. My own litmus test is whether the person is active on Facebook. I’ve discovered the following about persons who are afraid to make their lives moderately public.
Blood On The Yamanote
An obasan (older woman) boarded the Yamanote train car I was sitting in tonight. There were 2 empty seats between me and a salaryman on my left. The obasan began to sit down next to the salaryman, hesitated, then moved to sit next to me. I was elated, thinking that I was finally moving up on the Japanese social ladder after a decade of avoidance.
Then I noticed something odd about the row of Japanese faces sitting across the aisle from me. Read the rest of this entry »
The Statistics Of Disbelief
By their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:16)
TIME — TOPIC
03:08 — % of Atheists in Violent/Peaceful Countries
04:19 — % of Atheists in U.S. Prisons
06:14 — Religiosity and Violence
07:40 — Religiosity and Child Abuse
Aesop’s Fables Proven Infallible
Science has once again proven that Aesop’s stories are all entirely true. Let us first revisit the story of The Crow and the Pitcher.
A Crow, half-dead with thirst, came upon a Pitcher which had once been full of water; but when the Crow put its beak into the mouth of the Pitcher he found that only very little water was left in it, and that he could not reach far enough down to get at it. He tried, and he tried, but at last had to give up in despair. Then a thought came to him, and he took a pebble and dropped it into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped it into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. At last, at last, he saw the water mount up near him, and after casting in a few more pebbles he was able to quench his thirst and save his life.
Religious Reasoning
You’ve heard the saying “If there is no god, then everything is permitted.”
Let’s just go with the dubious assumption that any god that exists must be one that grants or withholds permission.
The statement then is a tautology. It is tantamount to saying “If there is no one granting or withholding permission, everything is permitted.” The utterer has said nothing, and nothing has been learned. At this juncture, there are 2 possible directions to take.
- Try to determine whether or not there is a “permissioner”.
- Start with the assumption that there must be behaviors that are granted or denied permission, then look for the “permissioner”.
Why start with the assumption in #2? The following statement I have heard far too many times, and seems to be the reason that #2 is the default starting point rather than #1.
“What would prevent you from being a mass murderer if you did not believe in god?”
This rhetorical question is disturbing for the following reasons.
Never Feel Guilty For Living Contrary To Others’ Expectations
This post is an elaboration of #7 from a list of things I learned early in life.
The world is full of other people who would benefit from your adoption of their worldview. And there certainly are significant synergistic benefits that arise from maintaining a common culture within a particular community. Conformity often leads to social harmony and a stress-free life.
However, the world is not entirely altruistic. There are unhappy individuals who have chosen to attempt to maximize their domain of power at the expense of the happiness of others. These people will attempt to force you to fall in obeisance to arbitrary rules of conduct that serve only their own interests. Here are some frequently-uttered phrases heard from the lips these sorry souls.
- Stop trying to be someone you’re not!
- You’re [nationality]! You should act [nationality]!
- Why don’t you act your age?
- Read the rest of this entry »
True Altruism
Question. Is it more altruistic to sacrifice your life for others or a belief while believing it is your only life to give, or to sacrifice your life with the understanding that you’re headed to an afterlife in which you’ll live forever with pleasures of all sorts as reward for your earthly sacrifices?
Isn’t it time to revisit history and modify our list of true “martyrs”?
Science And Faith
The following is my own over-simplified comparison of science and faith. I’m posting it for the purpose of generating conversation. Please substantiate your opinions with evidence and argumentation. I’m especially interested in hearing from those who think that faith is based on evidence. I hear this from time to time, but have never been able to tease out exactly the relationship between the two. Where does evidence end and faith begin? What principle warrants stepping beyond the evidence into faith?
Wasted Miracles
The other day a friend told me an amazing story. She had been shopping all afternoon for a new camera, had found one she liked, and had asked the sales clerk to ring her up. At nearly the very moment she was to sign the credit card, a friend called her and asked what she was doing. When she replied that she was just about to purchase a camera, her friend emphatically told her not to sign the credit card. The friend had a quality camera that he had been planning to give her. Amazing, right!
The following Sunday, my friend attended church and testified to the amazing way the Lord had been working miracles in her life. The entire congregation praised God for the clear signs of his power, and marveled that there were unbelievers who could deny such miracles. One unbeliever who was attending confessed that he had finally seen evidence that God was real, and got on his knees and surrendered his life to the Lord.
No, actually the entire last paragraph is a lie. My Japanese friend, in spite of her amazement, attributed it to mere chance. However, had this happened to an American Evangelical, the last paragraph would have been entirely plausible.
This raises an interesting question. If this is truly a “miracle” rather than mere coincidence, why would God be wasting his miracles here in Japan where they are so grossly under-appreciated?
If you take a look at such “miracles” statistically, you’ll notice that they occur suspiciously with the same frequency the world over. Why does God go so far out of his way to map his “miracles” onto probabilities?
Just a thought.
Phil’s Library
I‘ve recently been asked to list the books that have been most influential to me. That’s a tough request. Most of you know that the Bible used to be the book on which I based my life. When I finally rejected the Bible as divine or even remotely inline with truth, I determined to approach every book I read with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Reading critically is essential. I can’t recall any books that I would consider to be pivotal in the progression of my thinking. It was a slow but steady evolution.
While I prune my library regularly, below are 2 lists of significant books still shelved in my library. The first is a list of books I’ve read, and the second is a list of books I hope to read soon. While I’ve been spending about 4 hours a day listening to educational podcasts, there’s nothing like sitting down with a cup of coffee and a good book.
A Few Random Thoughts
December 29, 2009 at 09:31 (Casual Commentary, Miscellany) (random thoughts)
I wonder what the 4 of us would have been doing 200 years ago….
Permalink Leave a Comment