When I engage in debate online with Christians, I am frequently asked about the origins of everything.
This comes down to the question of, "Where did life come from?" or "Where did the universe come from?"
I am somewhat familiar with studies in astrophysics and evolutionary biology where the origns of life and the universe are studied. But those are not my fields of expertise, so I don't pretend to use a study for an answer. There is a better answer.
"I don't know"
That's an honest answer isn't it? It is also a scientific answer. It's an answer that invites inquiry, it's an answer that excites scientists.
"I don't know, but let's see if we can find out" is the start of most rational, scientific investigations. It is the beginning of a journey, and no one knows how long, or how far, this journey will take us.
Let's compare "I don't know" to the other common response, "God did it".
First, you must realize that "God did it" is assumed without evidence. There is no proof that "God did it", there is no way to know, for sure. So saying that "God did it" is inherently dishonest, because it is assuming a fact that you cannot know.
"God did it" shuts down inquiry. It stifles investigation and it discourages scientific exploration. It encourages us to be satisfied with the way things are now, it blocks us from attempting to imagine that things could be any better.
By saying that "God did it" the speaker is in fact saying that he or she isn't interested in learning anything further. The speaker is just fine with his or her present level of knowledge, and is comfortable in their ignorance. Saying that "God did it" is a cop-out.
Here is what we do know.
Science has, so far, never needed a supernatural explanation for any piece of acquired knowledge. Radios, Televisions, GPS systems, spaceships, immunizations, and photosynthesis all work just fine without needing the supernatural to function.
Everything that we currently know came about without the requirement of the supernatural. It is reasonable, in fact probable, to assume that everything we will eventually learn will be based upon natural, as opposed to supernatural, processes.
When someone tells you that "God did it", ask them - "How do you know?" When they ask you where everything came from say, "I don't know" - that's the honest truth.
59 comments:
To say (or imply)that all Christians are satisfied with their present level of knowledge and are not interested in a journey of discovery is a cop-out. I hope you don't truly believe that. If so you need to expand your sample of believers. "Honest" dialogue must begin with realism and mutual respect.
To say, or imply that I said that all Christians are satisfied with their present level of knowledge is a fallacy. I did not make such a blanket statement.
I would be curious, though, to know how many astrophysicists are Christians who believe the universe was created by God, and how many are Christians who believe that the universe came about through natural causes.
Perhaps that would be a better way to refute me.
Atasca,
I can't speak for Mark, but I don't think his post says or even implies that "all Christians are satisfied with their present level of knowledge."
The problem is not that anybody uses "God did it" to explain everything—have you ever met anyone who really operates that way? I haven't. The problem is that people ever accept "God did it" as a valid explanation of anything.
Yes, for almost anyone, Christian, theist, or otherwise, it would overlook reality to say that they are "satisfied with their present level of knowledge"; just about everybody wants to know more about something. But the "God did it" explanation is rarely trotted out for everything anyway. That's why many Christians and other theists do quite well in engineering, medical, and other professions that require diagnoses of ordinary causes, explanations, and practical solutions, all without recourse to theology.
Even so, if you spend your entire life as a curious investigator of natural causes, and you reserve "God did it" for only one or two big questions, the problem does not go away. Your honesty about your knowledge is still questionable. Behaving rationally most of the time, but reserving a theistic punt for only a few special cases, does not earn you a free pass. The criticism still stands. Why should the natural explanations be sufficient for some things, but insufficient for others? Or, why is it sufficient to say "I don't know" about some things, but necessary to say "God did it" about others?
If you value realism and respectfulness, then you ought to address the criticism as it stands. Here are a couple approaches that come to mind: Maybe it should be acceptable for people who are otherwise honest and curious investigators of natural causes to reserve "God did it" for a few special cases. Or maybe "God did it" should be understood to mean something qualitatively distinct from a causal explanation—maybe it's just an infusion of anthropocentric narrative meaning into an otherwise indifferent series of events, and maybe that should be okay. Those would be far more interesting (and more challenging) responses to the post.
Good.Thanks for clarifying. I think you already know that many famous scientists believe or believed in God as creator. I don't have the stats. I would be shocked if there were many who call themselves Christians who do not believe God created the universe. If more don't than do then I must ask if truth is determined by popular vote? Many famous scientists were in the minority in their most famous discoveries. I guess it comes down to what (or who) started the whole thing. How can there be a natural explanation for the supernatural occurrence of the creation of the universe? In the final analysis God did do it - although that is not what most people mean when they make that statement. Please enlighten me (no sarcasm intended).
Atasca,
You ask, "How can there be a natural explanation for the supernatural occurrence of the creation of the universe?"
You have already answered your own question. If you have already decided that the creation of the universe was a supernatural occurrence, then by definition there could not be a natural explanation for it. You might as well ask how a triangle could have four sides.
What makes you think "the creation of the universe" was supernatural? And if the universe were created by some sentient being who transcends the universe, why would you call that "supernatural"? Why not take it to mean that "natural" includes more than you thought it did? Moreover, how do you know that there even was an "occurrence" that might be called "the creation of the universe"?
Atasca,
"...many famous scientists believe or believed in God as creator."
And
"I must ask if truth is determined by popular vote?"
I'm confused, if the majority of scientists believed in God as a creator, this is evidence that the universe is created? But if a majority believe that there is no supernatural, this isn't evidence?
FYI, the scientists at the NAS are overwhelmingly non-religious.
"Many famous scientists were in the minority in their most famous discoveries."
From Michael Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things", "How Thinking Goes Wrong Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things"
"Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness - They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right."
"I guess it comes down to what (or who) started the whole thing. How can there be a natural explanation for the supernatural occurrence of the creation of the universe? In the final analysis God did do it - "
Atasca, let me tell you an alternative supernatural explanation for the universe.
The universe, this world, you, me, and everything we know was created last week Thursday. It was created by an orange Tabby cat named "Queen Maeve".
Everything you know, that you believe you remember taking place before last week Thursday are just memories put in place by Queen Maeve, who - being all powerful - can certainly do anything she wishes.
This is a perfectly good supernatural explanation for the universe that we see now. Every question you ask about it can be countered without ever leaving Queen Maeve's realm. No objection you make is insurmountable -
Except for one.
There is one objection that would cast a skeptical eye onto the theory of Queen Maeve - what evidence is there?
Of course, this is the same problem that any supernatural explanation runs into - including that of a Christian God.
I will address Calladus and Peter together. I have to do this quickly and just realized that a more extensive post I did two days ago did not get posted - due to my mishandling i'm sure.(Stupid theist!)
I haven't decided anything except the definition of supernatural: 'of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.' Merriam Webster decided this, not me. The evidence (most scientists believe this I understand) suggests that there was a beginning to the universe. You may believe there wasn't a beginning and that is fine but you are going against the evidence. At the beginning everything we know was created (or came into being) - either by design or by chance/accident/ whatever. Nature was created at this time. Nature or anything else cannot create itself so there must have been something not natural - supernatural - that explains it.
Excuse me for second guessing your original comment about Christian astrophysicists.What was the point you were going to make? I'm confused. I was just trying to make the point, not very well obviously,that the crowd is very often not right.
These points are probably not very challenging but please humor me.
"Nature or anything else cannot create itself so there must have been something not natural - supernatural - that explains it."
How do you know that?
You may believe there wasn't a beginning
Nope. I accept the evidence that our universe has a beginning.
Nature or anything else cannot create itself
Sorry, this is an assertion not backed up by evidence. Science has already proven that there are classes of events that happen without a cause, and it has already proven that at the quantum level time travel to the near past is possible.
Quantum physics makes for difficult reading and gives me headaches, but I try to keep up with it. Brian Green is a modern physicist that is good at explaining these sorts of phenomena. And of course Richard Feynman. You'll be well rewarded if you read anything they have to say about physics.
so there must have been something not natural - supernatural - that explains it.
One, this goes against what I've already mentioned about physics.
Two, this is still an assertion without evidence.
Three, the supernatural is by definition not observable or testable. If it creates something, like matter or the universe, then it is natural and will be able to be measured through natural means.
Christian astrophysicists
Something that atheists get very frequently from religious people is that there are Christian scientists and thinkers who believe in God. Your "expand your sample of believers" comment seemed to be leaning in that direction. My comment was a commentary about how few scientists in the field of astrophysics are Christian. In fact, the National Academy of Scientists are mostly NOT religious.
I could "expand my sample of believers", but I want to do so within the secondary group who actually understand science and the way the world works. Unfortunately, this secondary group is not that large.
the crowd is very often not right.
Yes! My point exactly!
But there is a difference between random, untrained, unknowledgable people who all believe the same thing, and a disciplined group with knowledge and training acquired over time with hard work who believe the same thing because of the sheer amount of evidence behind that belief.
To answer my questions about how long the universe has been here, how it got here, what to think about the natural verses the supernatural, I listen to those people who have evidence to back up their assertions.
People who make baseless assertions are not presenting knowledge, and so I do not care about their beliefs. This could easily change though - all it takes is evidence.
Peter - I am having trouble with your question about how do I know that something cannot create itself. Please explain how "something" that did not exist, was nothing, non-information, what rocks dream about, is able to create anything, much less itself?? This is as much a philosophical question as scientific.
Calladus- science has proven that there are classes of events that occure without cause? I will take your word for it but if true then the whole basis of scientific discovery for millenia has been overturned.
"The supernatural is by definition not observable or testable, if it creates something like matter or the universe, than it is natural and will be able to be measured through natural means."
Having trouble with that one too.
How do you know that? If it is not observable or testable how can you know it is natural? How can it be measured by natural means when it is not observable or testable? How can you know something is natural because it created nature?
I appreciate your evangelical-like fervor (how do you like that word?) but I think your description of untrained, unknowledgable people who all believe the same thing is a little hyperbolic.
Robert Jastrow made the following statement, "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." Arthur Eddington said "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural." BTW- he found that conclusion "repugnant".
Jastrow again, "When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am agnostic in religious matters."
The crowd is not always right.
whole basis of scientific discovery for millenia has been overturned.
Well, yes. We overturned Alchemy, Astrology, the theory that disease was spontaneously generated or that fevers are caused by miasma.
Let's face it, the modern scientific method has only been in continuous use for the last 200 years. Before that it was often not held to rigorous objective standards, and in the past centuries where it did make progress it often disappeared again due to religious forces.
But in 200 years of (mostly)rigid discipline, it's discovered amazing things. Virtual particles that appear from nothing, do real work and then annihilate each other and disappear back to the nothingness where they came.
Cause and effect on the Quantum level are not straightforward, and are sometimes reversed.
Atasca, I think you would be fascinated with physics on this level because some of the problems are stated as philosophy before being mathematically expressed.
As for the supernatural, if it happens outside of the laws of nature then it cannot be tested through natural means - in other words, it cannot be tested by any means that we have. If it has an effect on the natural, then we can view and test that effect.
The problem is asking what is "natural"? In the past, if waving one rock over another rock made the second rock move, that was considered "supernatural". Lightning was "supernatural" - the sun rising was "supernatural".
As our science has advanced, we've come to understand these phenomenon and label them as "natural".
In fact, every thing we've learned shows no supernatural properties - and science actively investigates those things that others call "supernatural" - things like ghosts, ESP, psychics - and in every single case of rigorous investigation, mundane explanations are found.
evangelical-like fervor
You came to my blog Atasca. I didn't dress up in a white shirt and knock on your door. It is you who are evangelizing me.
As for the quotes from your past luminaries, recall that Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe" when talking about the quantum world. But Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle explains very nicely that there is true randomness in the world - as Stephen Hawking once said, "God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion."
As I said, I would love to know how many astrophysicists are Christians. You found two past astrophysicists who suggest a supernatural origin - neither of who are Christian. I find that very interesting.
Yes, the "crowd" is not always right. The crowd are Christians, who work diligently at trying to prove a vastly smaller number of scientists wrong, merely because they suggest the examination of the universe as it is, not as we wish it to be.
"Please explain how 'something' that did not exist, was nothing, non-information, what rocks dream about, is able to create anything, much less itself?? This is as much a philosophical question as scientific."
I don't know, but I'll go out on a limb here and say there's a 100 percent chance that you have never seen anything created ex nihilo. So you don't even know if that's possible, do you?
Hello Calladus. I've been out of town a while. In response - You're right, I do find physics/astrophysics interesting. I may be wrong but I think the latest conclusion in physics indicates that causality is back in.Hawking made a serious challenge but had to acknowledge his mistake. I trust you will correct me if I have misunderstood.
As far as the supernatural - of course science has advanced and proved things natural that people thought supernatural ie- ghosts, ESP, psychics. Most of those things are silly of course. But logically that doesn't mean that in every instance they have been proved "natural" or are natural. It looks like you are assuming that with enough rigourous scientific investigation every supernatural occurence will be proved natural. Your faith is impressive.
BTW- there is nothing wrong with fervour, evangelical or not, if it is properly directed. I seem to have hit a sensitive area. I came to your website because I was courious and it was unlike most "atheist" blogs I have visited. I am simply fascinated with the search for truth. It brings freedom. You and and Peter seem to be interested in generally the same thing. I am always open to learning new things. Believe me, I am a poor evangelizer. I would be very foolish to try. I rarely wear white shirts.
As to how many astrophysicists are Christians I have never researched this. For the purposes of our discussion those cited did not have to be Christian to have opinions/ eivdence that Christians/ Jews/ Muslims/ any theist would agree with. I find it interesting that you focus on Christians.
Wishing that the universe happened without divine intent can also very easliy effect any scientific analysis.
Hello Peter.
That is very thick, strong limb you have crawled out on. I will go out on a limb and say there is a 100 percent chance you have never seen anything create itself.
Are you 100% sure there is no god?
You may be right about causality, it's been a while since I last read deeply about it. I'll catch up on whats going on with it over the winter holidays.
of course science has advanced and proved things natural that people thought supernatural ie- ghosts, ESP, psychics.
Excuse me if I misunderstand... it seems you are saying that Science has verified ghosts, ESP, and psychics? I hope that is not your position because it is not correct.
assuming that with enough rigourous scientific investigation every supernatural occurence will be proved natural. Your faith is impressive.
No, I'm saying that there is no evidence of the supernatural. None at all. If you have such evidence, please provide it. This is not a "faith" position.
To paraphrase you, "Wishing that the universe happened with divine intent can also very easliy effect any analysis."
I will go out on a limb and say there is a 100 percent chance you have never seen anything create itself.
Are you 100% sure there is no god?
The burden of proof always lays on the claimant. If you have proof of God, then provide it. Otherwise there is no reason to believe in any one random proposition over any other. For example, you cannot prove that the world was NOT created last week Thursday. Since you cannot disprove this claim, then by your logic, you should accept it as true.
As for the 100% surety of God, this seems very close to the logical fallacy based upon the problem with "Pascal's Wager".
Please tell me, Atasca, why do you deny Zeus?
Calladus,
My point about the supernatural is that science has not disproved every instance of a supernatural claim. There are a small number that have and will always be inexplicable by natural means. Believing that all such instances are false or can eventually be proved false if only exposed to enough scientific scrutiny is simply a statement of faith. BTW- life is a "faith" position. When you go to sleep at night you assume you, you have "faith", that you will wake in the morning. You assume (have faith) that you will be able to study the latest in quantum theory over the winter holidays.
The burden of proof always lays on the claimant?
Are you not claiming an opinion or position on a subject?
You are a claimant also. You have no proof there is no God.
Obviously there is no proof there is or is not a God. You cannot prove the world was created last Thursday.
But I will ask again a very simple question: Are you 100% sure there is no God?
Please don't confuse this with Pascal's wager. The question is what it is and nothing more.
The burden of proof always lays on the claimant? Are you not claiming an opinion or position on a subject?
You are a claimant also.
No, I am not. And neither are most atheists. This is your basic failure to understand rational atheism.
Please, I'll ask you a simple question. Are you 100% sure that the world was NOT created last Thursday by the calico cat Queen Maeve?
If you cannot answer that with 100% assurance, then by your own logic you are a believer in Queen Maeve.
science has not disproved every instance of a supernatural claim. There are a small number that have and will always be inexplicable by natural means. Believing that all such instances are false or can eventually be proved false if only exposed to enough scientific scrutiny is simply a statement of faith.
And so if one supernatural event cannot be proven as "Not Supernatural" by science, it must therefore be supernatural? This is faulty logic, as demonstrated by last Thursdayism.
No, if it cannot be proven to NOT be supernatural, then the HONEST answer is "I don't know". The dishonest answer would be to claim that it IS supernatural. It would therefore be even MORE dishonest to claim it as evidence of God.
This is a basic concept that you seem incapable of grasping Atasca.
I know I am incapable of grasping your basic concepts :) :) but please humor me. I assume you are being honest and saying you don't know. If so you are admitting the possibility of the supernatural.
You are saying the same thing I am. Thank you.
Calladus - I just asked a simple question that you have not answered. You are evidently imagining all sorts of sinister intentions and presuppositions. If one cannot answer with 100% assurance a question it is actually possible that it means simply "I don't know". Or "I am not 100% sure". That would be an honest answer.
I will answer your question though.
No, I am not 100% sure that last Thursday the calico cat queen ...whatever.. didn't create the world. But I can disbelieve it with reasonable doubt. Now the question is - what constitutes reasonable doubt?
Please explain what "rational atheism" says about being a "claimant".
you are admitting the possibility of the supernatural.
You are getting belief confused with knowledge Atasca.
Do I admit that the supernatural is possible? Yes, of course I do.
Do I admit that it is possible that you are actually a space alien? Yes, of course I do.
Do I admit that it is possible that the world was created last week Thursday? Yes, of course I do.
I admit these things are possible because I lack the knowledge that they are impossible.
Do I believe these things are possible? No, of course not. Why? Because there is no evidence for these possibilities. And so I live my life without considering them because it would be incredibly stupid of me to live my life as if everything that is possible is real.
There ARE people who do that. They often wear tinfoil hats.
But I will ask again a very simple question: Are you 100% sure there is no God?
I don't know.
I'm not even sure how to answer that. First, what do you mean when you say "God"? Do you mean a specific god, or one or many of the pantheon of gods that humans have worshiped since the beginning of history?
What is this god? Can you explain him?
Now the question is - what constitutes reasonable doubt?
Please explain what "rational atheism" says about being a "claimant".
"Reasonable Doubt" is doubt in proportion to the claim being made.
As an example, if you claim to own a cute Cocker Spaniel, I'm not going to jump up on a soapbox and demand you to prove it to me. I don't do this because the claim you've made is very ordinary. I have seen (and owned!) Cocker Spaniels before, and know they exist. There is nothing inherently weird or amazing about them. And I don't have a reason to believe that you would lie about such a thing.
However, if you claimed to own a pet dragon, who was 100 feet long and ate tulips, I'm afraid my first thought would be that you are probably a bit batty.
In this case you have made an extraordinary claim and such claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm afraid a photo of said dragon, in all his purple glory, just won't cut it. I'll need to see it myself. Failing that, I'll need eyewitness accounts from people that I trust, along side of confirmation from scientists who have given reasonable explanations for how the dragon got there, and the tests they've performed upon it.
If you tell me that such tests cannot be performed for some reason (maybe the dragon is invisible and immaterial, and only YOU can see it) then the claim has become even more extraordinary, and the evidence required for my belief will increase.
I will also start to think that perhaps you are merely deluded, stuck in a form of wish-fulfillment. Maybe you believe your life is richer and more fulfilling because of your belief in a dragon?
"Rational atheism" is just a way of coming to atheism. There are two ways of being an atheist. There is Kirk Cameron's way - where you deny all morality (even Christian ethics) simply because you are a spoiled idiot who wants to practice nihilism.
Then there is rational atheism, who upon examining the claims for a deity finds them lacking, and then ceases to believe in deities. Ethics, however, are not only followed, but often become stronger when based upon rationality, instead of a black and white morality.
Someone who is rational (we call them 'skeptical') judges a claimant on the evidence given for a claim. If that evidence is not physical, we judge the argument involved. If that argument is fallacious, or contradictory, then the claim fails.
If the claim can be asserted without evidence, then it can be dismissed without evidence.
In the same way you dismiss a universe created last Thursday, I dismiss a universe created by an intelligence. There is plenty of evidence that everything I see is created by natural means - so even though I don't know that the universe wasn't created by a deity, or by space aliens, it would be stupid of me to start believing this without convincing evidence.
Of course I am not 100 percent certain that there is no God. But I am as near to 100 percent certain as a reasonable person can get that there is no Christian God. (And the same goes for every other deity.)
But you're skirting around the original issue. Or maybe my rhetorical question (about the possibility of creation ex nihilo) was too oblique. Your position appears to have a structure like this:
(1) The universe had a beginning.
(2) Nothing creates itself.
Therefore,
(3) The universe was created.
In my last rhetorical question, I was challenging both premises of your implied syllogism. Since you have never seen anything created ex nihilo—that is, where there was nothing and then there was something—it seems strange that you would begin by assuming that everything must have come into being that way. Moreover, whether something creates itself ex nihilo or is created ex nihilo at the behest of an external agent, you have never seen either. Nobody has. So even if you had a good reason to believe that the universe had a beginning, why would you assume that one kind of beginning is more probable than the other?
Speaking of the "beginning" of the universe, all you have here is philosophy. In earlier comments you have suggested there is scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. Yes, the expansion of the universe suggests that if you go back about 14 billion years, you would probably find what people have come to call a "singularity." But nobody really knows where that singularity came from, whether there was something "before" it, whether time has always gone in the same direction, and so on. Moreover, when you are thinking about that singularity, you are, quite literally, trying to imagine the impossible, since the nature of the universe, as we understand it, would leave everything inside the singularity, so that the only possible place of observation would also be inside the singularity. But if you were there, what would it look and feel like? Would you think, "Hey, how did this thing get here?"
And even if, during your sojourn in the singularity, you encountered some being who claimed to have created it ex nihilo, only moments before you arrived, why would you be inclined to believe that being? And wouldn't your next question be, "From where did you create it?" And if the being said, "From somewhere outside this universe," which for you would just be a singularity, then wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps your universe includes more than just a singularity? That maybe the singularity is only a feature in a much larger universe, the way a pimple is a feature on much larger face? And where did that "where" come from?
So your premise that "the universe had a beginning" implies that you can know what you're talking about when you say "the universe." But nobody, not even Steves like Hawking and Weinberg can really be sure. All we can say is that our observations have gone thus far, no further. And they are limited by the speed of light. So we can talk about "the observed universe" or "the known universe," or the universe that can be extrapolated or implied from observations by mathematics and theoretical physics. But nobody really knows whether there was something on the other side of the singularity, or what we might see if we could approach the edge of the universe. And the fundamental speed limit of the universe essentially says that we can never go make the observations it would take to answer those questions.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
I dig all this philosophical stuff. On most days, I would rather think about this stuff than just about anything else. But I have no expectation that any philosophizing or speculating or ruminating will ever result in a moment of understanding, in which the entire universe will become clear, and I will know the answers to the deepest questions. And that's partly because I don't think we are able to even ask the deepest questions, much less answer them. Saying things like "the universe had a beginning" is just a trick of language. Words like "universe" and "reality" and "being" and "God" have no clear referents. We made them up to stand in for things that we cannot possibly imagine. We have a decent idea of what a “beginning” is, but the only reason we can apply that concept to one like “universe” is because our language lets us, not because our minds can understand what it means.
Moreover, even if we could figure out whether the universe created itself, or was created by something else, and even if we could understand what that meant, it would not follow to travel forward 14 billion years in time to a backwater of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, on a little rocky planet on the outskirts of an otherwise unremarkable galaxy, and claim that these philosophical and mathematical conclusions required us to believe that the creator of the universe had somehow (and for some reason) become a particular human, within a particular religious tradition. In other words, there is nothing in a philosophical or scientific theory about the origins of the universe that lends any credence whatsoever to the myths of Christianity or any other religion.
Thinking about these things is fun. But that's all it is. When we have to get up from these keyboards and go out into the world, it matters not one lick of difference whether the universe was created by God or by itself or not at all because out there our problems are moral and ethical and we cannot avoid them by pretending that the universe does not exist. How should we behave? How should we treat each other? Maybe some religious figures have had some good ideas on those subjects, but none of the ones I've read are especially sophisticated, or well-suited to our modern world. And what have any of them said that is clearly and uniquely traceable to some extraordinary understanding of "God" or the nature of "reality" or "being" or anything like that? What religious moralizer has ever said anything that cannot be explained by his or her cultural history and situation?
You are welcome to play at the cultural game of religion. And you are welcome to speculate about the nature of reality. (I do.) There is undoubtedly something fascinating about the paradox of "being," in which we somehow have the sensation that there is "something," but without having any ability to conceive of "nothing." But none of that really matters when the rubber meets the road. And the religions really only deal in the conservation of particular social orders, and the perpetuation of resistance against too much change, which makes sense—people like to have a safe place where everything seems to be stable, where they can plug themselves into a world-historical narrative that situates them clearly within their otherwise messy and confusing lives.
I do think the winds of change are blowing for humanity, however, and people are looking for different ways to maintain individual stability in a constantly changing world. We haven't found it yet, and I don't think the atheist-skeptic-agnostic-freethinker-whatever movement has provided much useful on that front. But as more and more people start looking outside the confines of the traditional religions, the more likely we are to find a different way. And I think we need that different way, whatever it may be.
Calladus-
1.You think a non-cause linked creation is reasonable. I don't - based on the evidence.
2.We will have to disagree on the claimant thing. You are making a claim supporting your position on an issue. I think that makes you a claimant.
3. My description of God or a creator would be the uncaused first cause.
4. Where do the ethics of an atheist come from?
Peter -
Thanks for your meaty/ involved response. There is much to comment on- which i don't really have time to do right now. but -
Your position seems to be:
(1) We don't know (and are incapable of knowing) anything for sure.
Therefore-
(2) Anything is possible.
Therefore-
(3) The universe must be uncreated.
??
You have very clearly and eloquently expressed what philosophers have run up against for millenia. -The limits of human understanding of the world around us.
Hence the transcendent. The recognition that humanity is not the final measure of all things. Humility.
Your comment about finding a "different" way is very interesting. You may be right. "Different" ways have led to amazing insights in the past. Keep (truly) looking for the truth. You may be surprised or even shocked where your search will lead you. I will try my best to do this also.
Please don't discount the subjective in your search for truth.
Please accept my sincere good wishes toward you and your family in this holiday season.
(you too Calladus :))
non-cause linked creation is reasonable. I don't - based on the evidence.
What evidence? There is repeatable evidence that things happen without a cause.
You can "disagree" that I'm a claimant all you wish. People disagree with facts all the time.
Your description of God is self-contradictory, and therefore false. In other words, what caused God? Saying that God is uncaused is merely a claim. If I were to claim that the universe is uncaused, it is exactly as valid as your claim.
Ethics, for an atheist, come from empathy and sympathy for others - this is an evolved trait that we humans, and most mammals have. It can also be found in other species. There are plenty of scientific papers that back this up.
However, religion actually NEGATES empathy and sympathy for others, and can result in poor ethical responses toward others, especially when people act against what they know to be right in order to please their image of a God.
For example, both Andrea Yates and the Reverend Paul Jennings Hill believe they acted ethically, to perform the will of God.
Calladus-
Are you really saying there is no evidence for causality????
OMG. Your claim is unreasonable.
My description of God is logical. Everything that comes to be needs a beginning (or a maker). God is eternal, had no beginning, and therefore does not need a maker. You may not agree with the logic but is good logic nevertheless.
Your are right. Religion can result in poor ethical responses.
Your are right. Andrea Yates, Paul Jennings Hill thought they acted ethically.
Joseph Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many other atheists in the elightened 20th century thought they were acting ethically.
Who caused more damage?
Calladus-
This is a question that I truly am curious about (not necessarily trying to make a point).
How, psychological, do you handle the fact that in the near future you will face the fact that you, personally, will face total oblivion? Total Anhilation. Everything you have ever said, wrote, thought, believed will eventually disappear. Everyone you have ever known, loved, hated, admired, helped will eventually cease to exist along with everything they have ever accomplished, good or bad.
As you well know, the overwhelming likelihood, according to the evolutionary theory, is that the human species will eventually die out. 99.9 % of all species that have ever existed have ceased to exist. In a million (or 2 or 3 or 20) years the human species will not be here. That is a short time in the history of the universe. All the great works of humanity will not only be totally forgotten, it will be, for all practical purposes, as though they never even happened.
Totally inconsequential.
How do you handle that?
Are you really saying there is no evidence for causality????
OMG. Your claim is unreasonable.
Are you saying that we live in a deterministic universe? That is not the case. Einstein didn't believe it either, and is famously quoted as saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe". However, Einstein was wrong about this. Today's physicists know through experimental evidence that things at a Quantum level can happen without a cause. Radioactive Decay is a good example of this.
Your description of God is incoherent. "Everything must have a cause except this one thing". It's rubbish. It's self-contradictory. And saying it is logical doesn't make it so. This is a religious "blind spot" that you have.
How, psychological, do you handle the fact that in the near future you will face the fact that you, personally, will face total oblivion?
It didn't bother me to not exist for the 13.7 billion years before I was born, and I won't be bothered by my non-existence for the several trillion years it takes the Universe to wind down to it's heat death - by that time the entire human race won't matter. Nothing that ANYONE has ever written, said or done will mean anything.
So what DOES matter is what we do RIGHT NOW! We need to love, and live. We need to enjoy our lives, and assist others in enjoying their lives because that also brings us joy.
And there is a problem with the whole concept of Heaven that most Christians don't see. You go to Heaven, and someone you love ends up in Hell. Personally, this is the very definition of Hell for me - knowing that I'll be living an eternal "good life" while someone that I love is spending eternity being tortured by God.
How do you handle that? Because if it were me, I'd spend my eternity in Heaven puking my guts out.
Atasca said,
Your position seems to be:
(1) We don't know (and are incapable of knowing) anything for sure.
Therefore-
(2) Anything is possible.
Therefore-
(3) The universe must be uncreated.
No. What you have presented there is radical skepticism coupled with the idea that knowledge is wholly subjective—that is, if you want an answer to a question (e.g., "Was the universe created?"), all you have to do is think of one that suits your needs. There is not a shred of intellectual respectability in that outlook.
Here is a summary of my position relative to this discussion:
All gods, including the Christian one, have specific characteristics delineated in the religious cultures that worship or fear them (e.g., omniscient, has a human-like personality, intervenes in human affairs, etc.).
But none of the characteristics of any gods, including the Christian one, are entailed by knowledge of whether the universe was created. (E.g., if scientists can establish a theory that the universe had a beginning, they have not also established that the YHWH worshiped by the Hebrew people exists, created the world, is omniscient, has a human-like personality, intervenes in human affairs, etc.)
Moreover, even knowing that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily mean you know how the universe began.
So arguing on behalf of gods, including the Christian one, or on behalf of Christianity or any other theistic religion, by asserting that the universe was created does not follow. On top of that, it's probably impossible to know whether the universe was created anyway.
Thanks Calladus for your fascinating responses. I will comment later.
I would like to comment on the passing of Christopher Hitchens. I am not sure how you feel about him - I assume you admired him.
I will sorely miss him. What a fascinating, eloquent, charismatic human being! I truly enjoyed hearing him speak. Unlike Dawkins and a few other prominent "skeptics", he was a very likeable man. I would like to have known him personally. He was, of course, profoundly wrong about the ultimate issues. But, to quote Peter Kreeft, it takes a profound thinker to be profoundly wrong. He has made me think about what I truly believe and why. God bless him.
Hitchens was eloquent. He was wrong on some issues and right on others. But when he was wrong, he was wrong in such a way to make me really think in depth why he was wrong.
As for him being wrong on the "ultimate issue" (I assume you mean God) he may have been, I don't know, but I doubt it.
You don't know either, but you believe it.
Calladus,
"Are you saying we live in a deterministic universe? That is not the case."
You have obviously determined that the universe is not deterministic.
"I won't be bothered by my non-existence for the several trillion years it takes to wind down to its heat death."
You have determined that the universe will wind down to its heat death.
You have again contradicted yourself.
Please make up your mind.
You dissapoint me Calladus. Please don't misquote me. I never said "everything must have a cause except this one thing". I said everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Perhaps this explains the lack of understanding.
"It didn't bother me not to exist for the 13.7 billion years before I was born."
Yes?? Not sure of the point. You didn't exist then. How could you be bothered by anything? You do exist now. Therefore you can comtemplate your future and the meaning of your existence. Are you truly saying you have no misgivings about the total meaningless of your existence and the existence of all of your loved ones and of all of human civilization?
"..while someone I love is spending eternity being tortured by god."
Please let me correct the crude misunderstanding that most skeptics have of Christian doctrine.
God doesn't torture anyone.
You and I face the consequences of our decisions. You believe those consequences are non existent or only momentary at the most and ultimately have no meaning as you have previously stated. I believe there are permanent consequences for the decisions I make. That gives my life and the decisions and actions resulting from those decisions great meaning.
If I felt my life had no meaning I would live in the moment too. I would not believe in a benevolent creator. I would have a faith that denies it is faith. That faith would be based on one-dimensional evidence that I would chose to believe because it confirms my pre-conceived notions.
If I truly believed that life had no meaning - that this life and the lives of my loved ones and of all of human civilization were, for all practical purposes, meaningless, I would spend the few moments of this existence puking my guts out.
Imagine -
The entire works of Shakespeare -
meaningless- pointless.
The novels of Hemingway/Steinbeck/Twain/Hugo/Orwell,Dostoevsky, etc.etc.
Meaningless- pointless
The symphonies of Beethoven/Mozart/Brahms/Dvorak,etc.
The works of Bach/Vivaldi
Meaningless- pointless
The agony and ecstasy that produced the ceiling of the Sistine chapel
Meaningless- pointless
The ageless insights of the Buddha/ Moses/ the Apostle Paul/Jesus/ Mohammed
Meaningless- pointless
The beautifully constructed philosphies of Plato/Aristotle/Socrates/St.Augustine/Hume/Kant/C.S.Lewis, etc.
Meaningless- pointless.
The profound discoveries of
Galileo/ Newton/ Einstein,etc.
Meaningless- pointless
The look of joy and accomplishment on the face of your child as
he/she rides a bicycle down the street for the first time, overcoming the pain of skinned knees meeting hard ground.
Meaningless - pointless
All of this - meaningless??
I would do more than puke my guts out.
I would probably do what Hemingway did when he realized the futility of his beliefs - blow my brains out with a hunting rifle.
Or I would end up like Nietzsche when he realized the logical dead end his belief system -
in an insane asylum.
Peter,
My comments were a poor attempt at humor.
I never said knowledge is wholly subject. That is silly.
I am probably out of my league philosophically, but I will respond after I look at this a bit. I am hoping to learn something.
You have obviously determined that the universe is not deterministic.
...
You have determined that the universe will wind down to its heat death.
You have again contradicted yourself.
Please make up your mind.
You are being willfully stupid. Stop that.
I said everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
One of (the many) theories in physics is that our universe is the natural outcome of a larger Meta-verse, that has no beginning. This would fit your definition nicely, and not require a God.
You didn't exist then. How could you be bothered by anything?
Exactly!
God doesn't torture anyone.
...
I believe there are permanent consequences for the decisions I make.
Is one of these "consequences" an eternity in Hell? Or are you one of those Christians who doesn't believe in Hell?
That faith would be based on one-dimensional evidence that I would chose to believe because it confirms my pre-conceived notions.
This would seem to be an excellent description of any religion.
All of this - meaningless??
This is a Red Herring logical fallacy, specifically, it is an appeal to emotion.
It doesn't matter if it makes me feel bad that I didn't win this week's California lotto - the truth is still the truth.
And frankly, I would rather know the truth than to be satisfied with a comfortable lie.
Maybe it might make you feel good, make your life "have meaning" to imagine that you have a chest full of diamonds buried in your backyard. Maybe you can be happy living in that sort of delusion. But I cannot be.
So is my life without purpose or meaning? No. It is not. Meaning is what we make of it.
Hemingway ... Nietzsche
I am extremely disappointed in your vulture-like attack on people due to their deaths. Do you think that God punished Hitchens with cancer too? Are you one of those who crow that Anthony Flew's denial of atheism at the end of his life negate all of his previous works?
This is a very simplistic, black and white universe you seem to want to believe in. In reality, life is much more complex.
Here's a hint... read up about what happened to Hemingway before he died, before you exhume his corpse and make it dance to your holy music.
Atasca,
You said, "I am probably out of my league philosophically."
I should hope not. My argument is not especially complicated.
What is your argument?
" You are being willfully stupid. Stop that."
Seriously, is the law of entropy totally invalidated?
"One of the many theories .... doesn't require a beginning. ... this would fit your definintion of God nicely."
At least you quoted me correctly.
One the claims of atheists is that they have better arguments. As you have stated, God meets this criterion as well as an eternal universe.
"Exactly!"
Religion is the opiate of the masses ????
Of course I believe in hell. Why would I not? A meaningless life would be hell for me. If that is because I am not tough enough psychologically, then so be it. Hell is truly a state of mind.
"That would seem to me to be an excellent description of any religion."
Fits Humanism the best.
.."I would rather know the truth than be comfortable with a lie."
Does the truth ever make you uncomfortable? If so, how?
"Meaning is what we make of it."
Very true. Why mention winning the Lotto or finding diamonds in the back yard? Is that what you would wish for if you didn't have to contend with the truth?
"I am extremely disappointed with your vulture-like attack...."
At least I rate enough to dissapoint.
Righteous indignation has never invalidated a position.
Your view of their deaths is what you have made of them. My point is the effect that meaninglessness has on the human psyche.
"...God punished Hitchens with cancer?... Anthony Flew... negate all of his previous works?"
I am not sure how to react. Where do you get this stuff? You are implying that God has punished Hitchens or anyone else with cancer? Huh?
Please explain the part about the negation of Anthony Flews works.
Excuse my ignorance.
".. simplistic, black and white universe.. Life is much more complex."
What do you mean by a "black and white universe"?
Atasca, you said, "Please don't misquote me". However, you do not feel bound to your own request?
How nice.
I'll have more to say later.
Atasca,
You said: "What is your argument?"
Now you're just being stupid. I'm done talking to you.
Seriously, is the law of entropy totally invalidated?
Seriously, what does entropy have to do with causality?
I'll break it down for you. You've stated that, "I said everything that has a beginning must have a cause". You seem to believe that the state of reality can be shown to be determined by a prior state. In other words, "the universe exists, it didn't exist prior to its existence, therefore something caused it to exist."
This statement is not reflected by reality.
There are a class of quantum-level events that happen uncaused. This is not a reversal of entropy, and it is a phenomenon that scientists and engineers make use of to build everyday things.
Although these uncaused events happen at a quantum level, they have a real effect on standard physics, and are statistically predictable. (Called determined probability) This is how we can calculate the rate of radioactive decay, without being able to pinpoint the cause of any one atom of decay.
Does the truth ever make you uncomfortable? If so, how?
What does it matter? Should I believe in a lie if the truth makes me uncomfortable?
Tell me, is it important to you that you know that what you believe is true?
Righteous indignation has never invalidated a position. Correct. But it does well in pointing out a heartless individual who is willing to use a logical fallacy to make puppets of dead people in an attempt to prop up their beliefs.
I'm amused again at how you misquote me as saying that God punished Hitchens, when I was asking if that was what you believed. As for Anthony Flew, I am somewhat surprised you don't know of him. He became very famous in Christian circles for renouncing atheism to become a deist.
My point is the effect that meaninglessness has on the human psyche.
You are the one who is asserting that life without a deity is meaningless. Not I. Meaning is found in what we do.
You seem to agree with that, while completely (perhaps intentionally) missing my point about believing what you want to believe, rather than what is true.
What do you mean by a "black and white universe"?
I mean that you apparently believe in a simplistic universe with easy answers, and are unable to come to grips with the truth that the universe does not conform to your beliefs about it.
Of course I believe in hell. Why would I not? A meaningless life would be hell for me. ... Hell is truly a state of mind.
This sounds like an equivocation. So I'll be more specific in my question. Do you believe in the immortality of all human souls, and that those souls that do not proceed to Heaven will instead go to a place that is not Heaven? And if so, how would you describe this place?
Christian beliefs are all over the map on this - and I'm curious how you would answer.
It looks like Peter is finished speaking with you. I am almost at my limit too. The amount of intellectual dishonesty that you have displayed here is instructive.
So, let's cut to the chase - I've asked you before to give evidence for God. Please do so now.
You have claimed there is a God. I do not claim to know that there is NO deity, but I have no reason to believe your claim without evidence.
There is really not enough space to respond properly so I will be brief.
Can we not determine there will be a heat death of the universe through the second law of thermodynamics?
We should believe the truth even if it is uncomfortable.
You used Hitchens and Flew. Welcome to the heartless individual club. I would be thrilled if someone used my mistakes in this life to help someone not to do the same thing. I would not consider them heartless.
I didn't misquote. I was simply pointing out that believing that Hitchens was punished by god with cancer was ridiculous. Obviously I know that you don't believe that.
Meaning is found in what we believe. What we believe determines what we do.
Believing that one forest is made of many trees is simplistic and true.
The doctrine of hell can hardly be treated properly here due to space resrictions. But quickly-
Hell exists. It is a result of the free will given by God to his creation, mankind. It is willful separation by the creation from the creator, the source of all life in the universe.It is therefore an existential nightmare. Hence the attempts to describe it as fire or outer darkness. It is a consequence, not a punishment.
For a brilliant treatment of the subject, if you are ever so inclined, read C.S. Lewis.
We all have the need to find an object for our faith. Atheism requires faith as much as any religion. I am skeptical of your claim that there is no god. Your evidence is not conclusive just as mine is not. You believe in materialism. I believe in a benevolent creator.
I can never see a human as simply a brain supported by a protoplasmic structure governed by chemical reactions and electrical impulses. I see not just a brain, but a mind. Not just a physical body, but an immportal soul.
I believe we all have a purpose. You believe we come from nothing and go to nothing.
You would probably acknowledge the existence of love, hate, ideas, theories.
These things exist but by your reasoning there is no evidence for them.
I see, even in the one dimensional arena of "evidence" you assign all importance to, hints of levels of existence other than this life.
This is ultimately a psychological issue. Acknowledgment of a power greater than oneself causes a death of sorts. A death of the ego. It is therfore very difficult to accept.
I'll get to the rest of your comments later Atasca. But I want to address on thing first. You said,
Atheism requires faith as much as any religion.
This is not true. You've claimed this earlier, and I've demonstrated why it is not true. And yet you continue to claim this.
This is an excellent demonstration of the closed-mindedness that is inherent in some religious people.
This is an excellent example that you are unwilling to learn even something so simple, that you are more comfortable sticking your fingers in your ears and blinding yourself with a religious blindfold.
This sort of willful, deliberate, ignorance is exactly what I've railed about in this blog post. This inherent dishonesty aptly demonstrated by you here.
And it saddens me. Because you are propping up a wall of BULLSHIT with your intellectual dishonesty. Because you are happier to believe that you are right instead of actually, honestly examining the answer. Because of this, it is clear we have little common ground.
This is sad. And it is very telling about you.
Calladus,
You have said that we make our on meaning in this life.(Please - this is just a paraphrase) What is the purpose you have assigned for yourself in this life?
You need to capitalize that don't you? "What is the PURPOSE that you've assigned yourself"
Are you asking for something big? Something eternal? Because the universe we live in isn't eternal.
Here is what I strive to do with my life.
I try to understand ethics. I promote the ways of finding knowledge that actually work, I try to promote the welfare of my fellow humans, and I do so (mostly) locally instead of globally.
I try to be a decent person. Not because it is demanded by a deity, but because we all do better when we live in a society made of decent people.
And I tend to point out that since we all only have this limited time to live, that it is extremely important that we care about each other NOW, instead of wasting our efforts to procure some future nonexistent afterlife by groveling before some nonexistent deity.
Hello Calladus,
Thanks for your response. I have little doubt that your intelligence quotient is higher than mine. I am not being a smart*ss when I say that. I am in awe of the accomplishments of the field of engineering. Nevertheless, if something doesn't make sense to me, I must ask questions. Substantive questions are very often pointed. Please try not to see these questions as attacks or these responses as attempts to humiliate.
The capitalization of "purpose" is brilliant. I should have thought of it. This is one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves. One of the best ways to get to know ourselves. One of the best ways to make the world a better place. It is definitely something big.
"I try to understand ethics".
What you strive to do is commendable in my mind.
Where do you get your ethics?
What is a "decent" person?
I can't help but ask again - if you and all of these people and the society they live in will be anhiliated (sp) and therefore, in the grand scheme of things,never have existed, what is the purpose?
This is somewhat an emotional appeal but, mostly, an appeal to sanity.
Bertrand Russell wrote - "the whole temple of man's achievements is destined to be buried beneath of the debris of a universe in ruins" and "no thought, no heroism can sustain an individual life beyond the grave". He realized that such a belief system necesitated us building our lives on "the firm foundation of unyielding despair." Is he not being honest about the anti-theistic view of life?
As you know, I believe in an existent "deity". However, I don't feel that I am "groveling" before it when I worship.
Why do you think that is? Is it simply cultural conditioning or self-delusion or, God forbid, stupidity? (That seems, for most people,to be the ultimate insult)
Am I a threat to a better society because of this?
When you quote Bertram Russell's article "A Free Man's Worship", please do not do Mr. Russell the disfavor of "Quote mining" his words to mean what you want them to mean, instead of what he wanted the article in its entirety to mean.
In the paragraph after your quotation, where Russell asks his rhetorical question, he answers it by saying:
How, in such an alien and inhuman world, can so powerless a creature as Man preserve his aspirations untarnished? A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil, with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking Mother. In spite of Death, the mark and seal of the parental control, Man is yet free, during his brief years, to examine, to criticise, to know, and in imagination to create. To him alone, in the world with which he is acquainted, this freedom belongs; and in this lies his superiority to the resistless forces that control his outward life.
Yes, Russell says, "we are alone" and we alone have the power to understand what is right and wrong, because there is no other. We alone have the freedom to act, and we alone are responsible for our actions.
We alone, are responsible for our actions, toward each other.
Upon that statement a true moral and ethical code can be created. Upon that statement a purpose for our lives can be found.
I'll respond further as I have time.
Very good Calladus. Please don't be combative when I say this but you shouldn't presume to read my mind when I ask a question. I am simply asking a question because I would like to know your thoughts. The paragraph is very interesting but I still don't see a response to his statement about ultimate purpose- or purposelessness. The "firm foundation of despair".
I also see a bizarre and fascinating parallel in his "theology" with other religions.
I.e. "Nature in her omnipotence", "has brought forth a child" - "unthinking Mother" "Death- the mark and seal of parental control" "Man is yet free" ending in deification of Man "his superiority to the restless forces that control his outward life".
Those restless forces may be inferior but they do control, don't they?
Great quote.
I still don't see a response to his statement about ultimate purpose- or purposelessness
We are free. We are responsible for our actions. This is the response. It is a satisfying response for me, and for many others. I'm sorry that you don't get this.
I also see a bizarre and fascinating parallel in his "theology" with other religions.
Yes, I know. When all you have is a hammer, the whole world is a nail. You are immersed in your theology, so of course you will assign poetry to theology. It's not completely your fault that you do this - the most poetic words in the English language have more than a passing connection to religion.
You are right - I evidently don't get it. I assume that you disagree with Russel in that there is no despair?
I love your second statement. I have some initial thoughts but I will think on it a while.
This is good. Thank you.
No, I disagree with your interpretation of Russell that there is only despair. You are seeing what you want to see, and disregarding what Russell (and I) have said.
Speaking as a theist, I think "supernatural" is a category error, but one not critical for theism. I thus find Atasca's comments shallow and pointless. On the other hand, I don't think "God did it" lacks moral fiber as much as it lacks imagination.
Hello Calladus,
I never said that Russell said there is only despair. But it is obviously "foundational" to his belief system. I will take him at his word on that. There is despair in everyone's life. How we handle it is what varies. I am still not sure where you stand on this but that is ok.
Your hammer metaphor is interesting but I may have to have you elaborate. A hammer can be used as a tool to build or can be perverted into a weapon. Whichever, I guess it is all I have?
Poetry and theology are not mutually exclusive. I believe we express our "theology" or basic beliefs in the most ordinary ways or in ways not so ordinary.
Religious imagery can be beautiful as you say and not just in the English language. Maybe this imagery is beguiling and takes us away from the real facts?
I'm sorry that your life is founded on despair, Atasca. Mine isn't.
But unfortunately, if all you feel is despair, then of course you would project that feeling to everyone else. This is why you can't see that Russell has asked a rhetorical question, and then answered it.
Perhaps you should stop writing to a blog, and seek more professional help.
Hello Calladus,
I understand. Theology cannot be in poetry. Russell was just being rhetorical. I found my life on despair.
In the face of such devastating logic and profound insight I must admit defeat.
Post a Comment