![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aumentouI was looking down my friends list and realised I missed world blasphemy day. Not that I actually mind. Still, various things have been poking about religion recently, so I thought I'd write about it. Obviously this has the potential to annoy people, so feel free to ignore it completely. I think my position is milder than grok_mctanys's, though it's longer.
I am not religious. I have no faith in any kind of deity. I also have no faith in any lack of a deity. I am not a fiery believer in their absence, I am simply willing to acknowledge that I don't know and will not find out this side of the grave.
An acquaintance once said she would take anything that might be evidence of a deity instead as evidence that she were going crazy. I think that position insane in and of itself. It is one of faith - faith in an absence.
I also don't believe in souls. As a teenager I faced the mismatch between the concept of a soul which is eternal and an important part of a person, and the sad medical fact that major brain injuries can completely alter a persons personality. Did brain injury remove their soul, or alter it? Or is the soul merely a copy of the personality at the moment of death? But how can that be, if it is eternal? Unanswerable questions, to my teenaged self, and not satisfactorily answerable to every religious person I tried them on. The result, I have no faith in the concept of a soul. Upon death then I expect to cease entirely. If I do not, that will be interesting.
Science is not generally applicable to the question of whether there is a god. It's applicable to some specific questions such as "how old is the planet?" or "where did humans come from?", or "how big is the universe?" which have implications for some specific dogmas. But it doesn't tell you there isn't a deity or plurality of such - it just tells you something about the shape of the universe, and hence (if deity(ies) exist) what they have made/done/passively allowed. For example, a dogma that the world is only six thousand years old could be true, but relies on a deity faking the evidence. Applying logic then it doesn't mesh with a non-trickster conception of god.
On that "how big is the universe" thing: I've yet to see a remotely plausible explanation as to how or why a deity that created the entire universe cares particularly about one tiny dot of a world in one tiny dot of a solar system in one tiny dot of a sector in one tiny dot of a galaxy in one tiny dot of a cluster in one universe so big that at every jump in scale our language falls apart and we have to resort to numbers instead. A bus is big. A mountain is huge. A single star is... nope, no words. I suppose it would be a lot more plausible if deities were smaller - creators of solar systems instead of universes. Then it would make sense that they would pay attention to life within said systems.
My primary problem with most religions is a lack of logic. If I can pick holes in your dogma, I'm not going to believe your dogma, even if I believed in the prerequisites - gods, souls, etc. My secondary problem is of course the interference of said religions in my life. I am currently legally discriminated against in this country, albeit in ways that are relatively unimportant to me, and one of the main causes is religion (specifically christian campaigners trying to make us all live christian lives no matter what we believe).
I don't care what other people do with their personal lives. If other people believe that homosexual marriage is wrong then I have absolutely zero interest into forcing them into a homosexual marriage, or for that matter into performing a homosexual marriage. If other people believe that transitioning is wrong (because god doesn't make mistakes!) then I have no interest in forcing them to transition. If other people believe that wearing mixed fibres is wrong (deuteronomy IIRC, you can look it up) then I will vaguely wish them success in finding pure fibre clothing (it's not that hard) and even avoid buying them something that contradicts their code (assuming I know about it and am for some reason buying them something). I don't care what other people do with their personal lives, but I do wish they'd stop interfering in mine.
The hypocrisy of some religious people annoys me immensely. For example, homosexual sex is considered wrong by some followers of abrahamic religions due to a single verse in deuteronomy. But apparently other verses in the same book can be ignored (when was the last time you saw someone turn down shellfish, or avoid mixed fibres?). This is illogical. This is hypocritical. It irritates me. But not enough to do a lot about it. Why bother? If someone wants to believe something illogical, then as long as they're doing that in private, that's not my problem.
The recent rise of religious schools bothers me. We don't need any more of that. Indoctrinating the young is immoral. If your religion makes sense then you will be able to convert adults to it. You don't need to get them while they're young and programme them to obey without thought.
On a more meta level, I hypothesise that a singular religious faith can be considered a composite entity (just as nation states and corporate entities can), and that being the case that evolution applies to them. I am more than averagely familiar with christian history, and the hypothesis seems to fit well enough. Branches of christianity that aggressively promoted their own survival by conversion and elimination of the competition have done relatively well. Branches that actually followed the pacifism the holy book seems to indicate have for the most part been wiped out, often bloodily.
As a person who does not for the most part enjoy or approve of the interference of composite entities in my own individual life I am therefore somewhat morally opposed to organised religion in any of its current incarnations - though not in general principle. However, this opposition does not extend to taking any hostile action in the general case - that would be a breach of my own principles of personal freedom and also laziness. Specific engagements centered around specific issues will see me involved, but dealing with the issue at hand, not religion in general.
Following historical example, this does of course mean that my own system of thought is likely to be wiped out by the more aggressive creeds that surround it. However, I don't really care. It doesn't really matter, because either I am right and it is all meaningless activity, or they are half right and a just god will punish them for not being very nice, or they are wholly right and there is an unjust god in which case there is no position that is both moral and likely to result in joy. I will do what I perceive to be good for the sake of itself, and hope (but not believe) in justice beyond death.
I am not religious. I have no faith in any kind of deity. I also have no faith in any lack of a deity. I am not a fiery believer in their absence, I am simply willing to acknowledge that I don't know and will not find out this side of the grave.
An acquaintance once said she would take anything that might be evidence of a deity instead as evidence that she were going crazy. I think that position insane in and of itself. It is one of faith - faith in an absence.
I also don't believe in souls. As a teenager I faced the mismatch between the concept of a soul which is eternal and an important part of a person, and the sad medical fact that major brain injuries can completely alter a persons personality. Did brain injury remove their soul, or alter it? Or is the soul merely a copy of the personality at the moment of death? But how can that be, if it is eternal? Unanswerable questions, to my teenaged self, and not satisfactorily answerable to every religious person I tried them on. The result, I have no faith in the concept of a soul. Upon death then I expect to cease entirely. If I do not, that will be interesting.
Science is not generally applicable to the question of whether there is a god. It's applicable to some specific questions such as "how old is the planet?" or "where did humans come from?", or "how big is the universe?" which have implications for some specific dogmas. But it doesn't tell you there isn't a deity or plurality of such - it just tells you something about the shape of the universe, and hence (if deity(ies) exist) what they have made/done/passively allowed. For example, a dogma that the world is only six thousand years old could be true, but relies on a deity faking the evidence. Applying logic then it doesn't mesh with a non-trickster conception of god.
On that "how big is the universe" thing: I've yet to see a remotely plausible explanation as to how or why a deity that created the entire universe cares particularly about one tiny dot of a world in one tiny dot of a solar system in one tiny dot of a sector in one tiny dot of a galaxy in one tiny dot of a cluster in one universe so big that at every jump in scale our language falls apart and we have to resort to numbers instead. A bus is big. A mountain is huge. A single star is... nope, no words. I suppose it would be a lot more plausible if deities were smaller - creators of solar systems instead of universes. Then it would make sense that they would pay attention to life within said systems.
My primary problem with most religions is a lack of logic. If I can pick holes in your dogma, I'm not going to believe your dogma, even if I believed in the prerequisites - gods, souls, etc. My secondary problem is of course the interference of said religions in my life. I am currently legally discriminated against in this country, albeit in ways that are relatively unimportant to me, and one of the main causes is religion (specifically christian campaigners trying to make us all live christian lives no matter what we believe).
I don't care what other people do with their personal lives. If other people believe that homosexual marriage is wrong then I have absolutely zero interest into forcing them into a homosexual marriage, or for that matter into performing a homosexual marriage. If other people believe that transitioning is wrong (because god doesn't make mistakes!) then I have no interest in forcing them to transition. If other people believe that wearing mixed fibres is wrong (deuteronomy IIRC, you can look it up) then I will vaguely wish them success in finding pure fibre clothing (it's not that hard) and even avoid buying them something that contradicts their code (assuming I know about it and am for some reason buying them something). I don't care what other people do with their personal lives, but I do wish they'd stop interfering in mine.
The hypocrisy of some religious people annoys me immensely. For example, homosexual sex is considered wrong by some followers of abrahamic religions due to a single verse in deuteronomy. But apparently other verses in the same book can be ignored (when was the last time you saw someone turn down shellfish, or avoid mixed fibres?). This is illogical. This is hypocritical. It irritates me. But not enough to do a lot about it. Why bother? If someone wants to believe something illogical, then as long as they're doing that in private, that's not my problem.
The recent rise of religious schools bothers me. We don't need any more of that. Indoctrinating the young is immoral. If your religion makes sense then you will be able to convert adults to it. You don't need to get them while they're young and programme them to obey without thought.
On a more meta level, I hypothesise that a singular religious faith can be considered a composite entity (just as nation states and corporate entities can), and that being the case that evolution applies to them. I am more than averagely familiar with christian history, and the hypothesis seems to fit well enough. Branches of christianity that aggressively promoted their own survival by conversion and elimination of the competition have done relatively well. Branches that actually followed the pacifism the holy book seems to indicate have for the most part been wiped out, often bloodily.
As a person who does not for the most part enjoy or approve of the interference of composite entities in my own individual life I am therefore somewhat morally opposed to organised religion in any of its current incarnations - though not in general principle. However, this opposition does not extend to taking any hostile action in the general case - that would be a breach of my own principles of personal freedom and also laziness. Specific engagements centered around specific issues will see me involved, but dealing with the issue at hand, not religion in general.
Following historical example, this does of course mean that my own system of thought is likely to be wiped out by the more aggressive creeds that surround it. However, I don't really care. It doesn't really matter, because either I am right and it is all meaningless activity, or they are half right and a just god will punish them for not being very nice, or they are wholly right and there is an unjust god in which case there is no position that is both moral and likely to result in joy. I will do what I perceive to be good for the sake of itself, and hope (but not believe) in justice beyond death.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-03 11:22 pm (UTC)Given how long and how hard so many people have been looking, after this amount of searching it does seem reasonable to suppose that no evidence has been found simply because there is no evidence to find.
As for evidence of a deity that would change my mind, well, what sort of evidence are we talking about?
If I saw visions of gods, or heard voices in my head, is that good evidence that gods exist? How can you tell apart that kind of evidence for gods, from hallucinations, from signs of mental instability?
If I saw a one-off event I couldn't explain or reproduce, but somehow made some kind of evidential recording of it that I could convince other people wasn't faked, and none of them could explain it, would that be good evidence gods exist? Or is the fact that the other night, 5000 people watched one person saw another person in half, parade the separate halves around a stage, and put them back together again, all before their very eyes, and be unable to explain the event in any way other than how it appeared to happen, evidence that magic is actually real? Just because people can't explain an event, that does not mean a reasonable explanation does not exist. See also, thunder.
Then again, according to many religions, gods do have an observable effect on the universe; to which the scientific method should therefore be applicable, and be able to measure. Such as "does prayer alter disease outcomes?" (Once one takes into account confirmation bias, cherry picking, experimenter's bias, the observer-expectancy effect, and creates proper blinding and control groups.)
On the other hand, if the scientific method is not applicable to a set of gods, what does that mean? That those gods are not observable, create no observable effects, do not intervene, do not do anything. So what, exactly, is the point of such gods? What is the difference between such gods, and the figments of someone's imagination? And does it matter? (Although from what I've seen, such non-observable gods are only brought out when anyone is watching)
What sort of evidence would convince me that gods exist? That I could distinguish from sufficiently advanced (but natural) aliens? I don't know. I haven't come up with anything, yet. But that doesn't mean I'm completely closed to the idea.
I think.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-09 09:04 pm (UTC)But if you look in the new testament Jesus says something along the lines of "i am not here to re-write the law, but to fulfill it" (which in my head I hear as Judge Dredd saying "I am the law") basically the Pharisees are going apeshit because Jesus isn't following all the petty laws set out in Leviticus to establish the Jews as a nation and he turns to them and says "fuck you, I'm the fucking Son of God! duuuuudes, it's not about all this petty shit! just stop being dicks, look to God for your answers not something that was written thousands of years ago, for different people to you, love God and love each other, that's all you need to worry about"
Er, I may be paraphrasing :)
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 08:07 pm (UTC)I like the last paragraph. I try to be good and tolerant, but the latter of those gets strained by some religious people :/