Pages

Thursday 27 October 2011

Smacking the round peg in into the square hole...

OK, last atheist post for a while, I swear.

I've listened to about 30 debates, many with Christopher Hitchens, in the last month. More than anything they have given me a thirst for understanding the Socratic method. Like all good thirsts I've taken a few massive gulps and cannot stomach any more until I've digested what I've taken on board. On an aside, please take a moment to look at this effort, which I totally support.

The best debates seem to have an opposing theist who starts off by saying that they won't be debating from scripture. That is to say, they'll be using argument based on reason to explain the existence of God. The most commonly used argument seems to be the intelligent design argument of "The universe is so finely balanced, one tiny change to the strong force or gravity would have caused us to not exist. It is designed for life. Ergo, god made the universe". Dinesh D'Souza uses this argument often.

If you found a round hole with a round peg which nicely fits into the hole it would to fair to say "it looks like that peg was designed to fit into that hole". It is also fair to say "It is the only peg that will fit into that hole". It is then you look around and notice millions of square, triangle and octagional pegs littered around, with scuff marks around the edges where someone has tried to jam them into the round hole. Guess what, they didn't fit.

The universe is a round hole, and we are a round peg. We are the only sodding shape that fits. It does not mean we were designed to fit - we just couldn't be any other way. There are trillions of possible pegs (think silicon lifeforms or life made of pure energy) that cannot fit into our universe because of it's physical properties.

I bet the god of silicon lifeforms is pretty pissed off about that one. Now he's going to have to wait around for infinity to create a new universe that allows silicon life (or maybe multiverses really do exist and they're crunching their way through some other universe with a irrational belief in a silicon god?).

Just because we fit, does not mean it was designed just for us.

Thursday 20 October 2011

An atheistic state of mind...


In the last post I mentioned that I'd been listening to some fascinating debates by atheists and monotheists (up to this point, mostly Christians). There are some pretty switched on people talking with a great deal of understating and knowledge. There also seems to be quite a lot of respect, within reason.

Often the format of the debate seems to actually hinder free discussion, in favor of monologues. These can be very interesting but often lead to very broken and fragmented answers from one side or the other. There were a couple of points I don't really feel get answered to "my satisfaction". A couple of times I heard arguments or points made and they seem to get glossed over. Here is an example :

In the intelligence squared debate, Peter Jensen said
 "I have an atheistic mind and an atheistic heart. First, I am sceptical of the existence of all gods ... but one. Many concepts of God are human beings on super-steroids, dismissed by atheists and Christians alike.Thank you atheists."
Um, what? So you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo. Borvo or Brighid.  Xochicalco or Cacaxtla. But you're fine with God. And Jesus. Oh and don't forget the holy ghost. This would because what? The other gods are just SO obviously fakes? It's just made up mumbo jumbo! Clearly the only REAL God is, well, God. I really do not get how a monotheist can trot this one out and expect everyone to say "oh well done, good point".

Often the science Vs religion debate comes down to the creation of the universe. The atheist will bring out the scientific argument of cosmology and the Christian brings out, wait for it, the fact that god is eternal. Now, this would be a pretty good argument where it not for the source. Which is of course, the Bible.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
So, you're going to fall back on to the very book which the atheist is currently saying is claptrap, and use it as "fact" to back up your point, eh? That's just not on. You can't make up a book and then just use it casually as fact! What if I bring out the "Atheist bible" which denies the existence of a God, and use that? Of course the monotheist would say "Hey, that's not fair!". Well guess what, I'm going to say the same.

At some point the debate will move on to ethics. The standard Christian position seems to be :
"The only objective moral value is one that comes from God. Science cannot provide a definition of, or measure, good or evil"
What is moral, or immoral, is largely (if not wholly) a product of context within the time and society we are talking about. I'm not going to drum up a load of examples but it's clear that the following is true :

  • Non religious societies have objective moral codes. They are simply created by, and objective to, the group rather that to a deity. Anyone who does not follow this code is seen to be "wrong". Therefore it does not take a God for morals to exist.
  • Moral structures change over time. Truly objective moral codes would not change.
  • Many religions have moral imperatives that contradict each other, making in effectively impossible to be 100% moral.
For any one group to claim that they have moral superiority based on a supernatural force that they cannot, in fact, prove strikes me as shaky ground.

I cannot overstate my respect, appreciation and thanks for Christopher Hitchens, for his massivly intellegent input into the field of philosophy. 

Thursday 13 October 2011

Makes you wonder, eh?

Was forced to go to London on work recently. Having not been up in the town for a few years, it was with some trepidation that I smacked the off button on the alarm at 5:30, in time to get the 8:00am train from, the ever charming, Temple Meads station.

Moaning about public transport aside (but really, how much do I have to pay for a ticket on the "not run by tards" service?), it all went, well, it went OK. OK if you discount the taxi driver who when asked "Can you take me to Paddington" said "Yeah Mate, I'll just do a U turn" and then promptly drove off. Tosser. Hopefully he won't read this blog.

Long and inactive travel by public transport aroused my attention to a new and disturbing problem. What the hell to do for one and a half hours when you can't, legally at least, play with yourself? A bit of poking about led me here. A neatly packaged collection of atheist Vs monotheist debates. Some really good meaty debates that can largely be downloaded onto your device for free.
Get cracking on listening to that lot, as my next post will be based on some of what's in there!