Troubling science worship

There is zero evidence to suggest that the mind and the brain are one and the same. (consciousness)

There is zero evidence to suggest that the soul and the body are one and the same. (afterlife)

There is zero evidence to suggest that the laws of causation are wholly applicable to the universe. (what caused X?)

There is zero evidence to suggest that past events is indicative of any certainty in the future. (induction)

There is zero evidence to suggest that probability is indicative of anything in the future. (predicting the future)

There is zero evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as truly random. (quantum mechanics)

There is zero evidence to suggest that the laws of nature are truly laws that cannot be broken. (quantum mechanics)

There is zero evidence to suggest that all creations in the universe are truly and only material. (love)

There is zero evidence to suggest that all figuratively intangible creations in the universe are truly tangible. (faith)

There is zero evidence to suggest that all creations in the universe are truly measurable. (God)

There is zero evidence to suggest that evidence must be evident in a material, tangible, and measurable way. (scientism)

Cut the dogma. Cut the illusions. Cut the worship. Be rational.

So called freethinkers, start actually freethinking.

The dreary depths of arrogance

We live in dreary depths of arrogance with the fear of asking questions and the fright of answering likewise. It is in our deplorable state of cyclical nihilism and secular outer shells that everything and anything that challenges what we want and everything and anything that is contrary to ourselves and everything and anything that threatens misconceptions is avoided, refrained from, ignored. We understand religiosity from what we watch on the television or investigate on  internet comments with no regard, no interest, no curiosity for our fellow men. We ascribe fanaticism or ungratefulness or arrogance or ignorance to who we want and what we want when we want without ever wondering why.

To almost everyone I have ever spoken to, I see a miserable state in our conversations on philosophy and the surreal. There is an impenetrable nihilism in their eyes and voices to know others, to understand things, to learn. There is no motivation nor curiosity to ask others questions. Why are you religious? Why do you believe what you do? Why did you reject God? Fools and idiots, we are, for having not the slightest dare to ask the most important questions, the most essential things to our existence. I have asked many a time why people live in mundane existence, or why people have chosen their respective paths. And the answers are often stupid, commonplace, so inelaborate and so hardly thought out that I don’t know why I bother asking in the first place. And to those who give good answers, never do they ask in return. We live secular lives with secular goals and secular bars and in secular discourse. Religion is in the closet, left so meager as to rot on the floor with our souls as we turn our backs in exchange for self wallowing decadence. Decadence in money, fame, family or even simple existence. Decadence in the commonplace rather then the exotic, arcane, and esoteric. Decadence to comes in meaningless absorption of knowledge, with no purpose other then to satisfy a casual and attention deficient momentary curiosity. True curiosity, true searches for knowledge, true yearns for purpose requires that we look for conscious genuine reasons.

During one harangue on the subject, a close friend asked, “OK, why are you religious?”. The nature of such a question is wholly scaffolding (a word I made up and will explain another day) and unsettling, so I simply refused to answer. The question is no better then asking one “What is your view on the world?” or “what is your opinion on politics?” If you are capable of answering within ten minutes, you haven’t thought enough.

If we want to earnestly understand each other, we have to ask these questions in increments as a living. It should be an essential part of any friendship to learn from the other, to see the way they interpret the world consistently and never ending. We are so afraid of the subject of worldviews, of faith, of religion, and it is a scary reality that is going to destroy us. Our souls are at stake, our humanity, our ways of life. We must communicate with each other, we must ask these questions, we must learn.

We understand those who disagree through digital media of distant people and never with those around to us. Those dirty liberals, the fanatic religious right, militant atheists and the living dead are never our own friends, never our own peers. Those foreign views are in a far distant place only known on CNN and Reddit. Our own friends and peers, whatever their views, somehow cease to have them in a real human dialogue. We fear questions, we fear discussion, we fear learning from each other. We must not fear this. We must understand each other. We must humanize other views, all of them, in order to be real educated people.

I have friends who believe I will rot in a burning hell for eternity with almost no regard to prevent it. If I were infected with some disease and a friend had the anecdote, they would give it. But when it comes to endless hell fire, they could hardly give a damn. That is the danger of our secularization. We fear discussion. We fear religion. We fear talking to one another. We fear imposition of values on each other. And it is nonsense. I have other friends who believe I am wasting my entire life when I could be having fun in the mundane with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. And yet there is so little regard on their part to help me enjoy. There is so little regard for my entire life. Can they really be friends? Why can’t they encourage me to live that life? If they cared, they ought to.

Our fear of questions and discussion is a worrisome reality. I have the same problems, and it is despairing to know it. Our secularization has led us to a “live and let live” mentality that has consumed any real quest for understanding and knowledge. We have to think, critically, with wisdom and courage, about one another.  We cannot be afraid of challenging each other and unsettling one another. I tell you, God is more important than friends. And life is important than friendship. And death (with what comes after), daresay, is more important than life.

We live in our own moronic tendencies where we are right, where we make the considerations, where we give our own thoughts and keep it to ourselves. We live in a secularization so far and deep that religion is nothing to be taken seriously, that worldviews are by default regular, that we have no existence outside of ourselves worth sharing. Our state of ignorance is saddening and infuriating, that we know more on Egyptian mythology than Hinduism and more on the Greeks than on real living Muslims. Where are our minds? Where are our consciouses? Where are our souls? We need to inquire about those who disagree in all fields of life, and we need to live that which we learn and share it. I

To those who are atheists, live it. Live it proudly and outspokenly and make it your existence. Share it with others always. We call the louder atheists pompous and inconsiderate, but we must understanding each other, and we cannot unless we share. But should they do this, should they share and be proud to the world, they too must listen to others, and they must try to understand others. A good majority of the arguments most militants of today make are utterly idiotic, and its frightening to know that people I know buy into it and have no interest in hearing why I don’t. I have a responsibility in my life to change that, and they have a responsibility to listen. Likewise, they have a responsibility to make the arguments they make and be open about it. Of course, for the relativists among them they have no such thing, but that’s a whole other story. 

For the same reason, those with firm with religious conviction must share why they have it. For me, I am often more baffled by these people more than with the “skeptical” “rational” “freethinkers”, and it can be so difficult for many to explain. I once had a very lengthy conversation with someone on the origins of Islam, and I referred to a Christian scholar who converted to Islam. He interrupted me then and explained how many people leave their faith after studying it. He seemed to have no curiosity or interest as to why, him the freethinking Christian. He is a die hard Christian yet, with no curiosity to why others aren’t.

We must think critically about our situation. We must try to understand each other and ask one another what we believe and why. We must not refrain from dangerous territory – lest we dehumanize dissent. It is a scary reality where we lose our ability to think of others besides ourselves, where our egos are the only things that think with no space for anyone else. For those reading, next time you meet anyone else who disagrees with you on the most fundamental questions, just ask. Just ask about their views and opinions, and see what you hear. You might learn something. You might change your views. You might understand better. And ask incrementally, consistently, constantly, in the very tradition of skepticism. And do it always: make it your lifestyle. We have to understand each other, if we want to live fully. Just ask.

Secular Humanism: A Eurocentric Ideology (Response to a Critic)

This man is a genius. Almost as smart as me. Almost.

War is Peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!: Doublethink is Everywhere

The motto in the title is a quote from 1984, a book I wrote a review on, where people are brainwashed in a totalitarian state to believe contradictory ideals with no concept of logic. The absurd reasoning of people in the book is referred to as “doublethink.”

Doublethink is an interesting concept, where people contradict themselves without realizing it. We see this every day. For example, 90 percent of Americans think that nuclear war is unwinnable, and yet 70 percent of the same data pool believe America should build more nukes (see page 12 of the link). Such logic is incoherent, and I love the quote from the Hindu epic the Mahabharata where it explains how we literally never stop to think about the fact that we could die tomorrow while people die in front of us every day.

A more relevant example is how most religious people of America find religion to be good for people and support evangelical causes while simultaneously preaching secular governance. Similarly, many in Britain are against the Sharia law courts they’ve implemented (I am too) on the grounds of secularism, while their own beloved Head of State is the head of the English Church! Or how the American PATRIOT Act is called so as if to tell Americans they should be patriotic, whilst the act itself contradicts what the original patriots fought for!

You know what else is doublethink? CVS, a drug store chain, didn’t sell the latest Rolling Stones magazine since it had the Boston Bomber on the front page “out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones,” while they didn’t hesitate to have Obama on the front page: someone who is technically a war criminal. That is doublethink, and I wish neither ever got a photo in a magazine.

Doublethink is a bit different from hypocrisy, because hypocrisy is when your actions and beliefs contradict, and you know it. Hypocrisy is probably the best adjective to describe any government or head of state. Take Prime Minister Francois Hollande, who criticized America for the NSA spying scandal despite that France (his nation) spys on its people themselves.

Religion is another place where you find a load of hypocrisy from some practitioners, if not most. On the far right, you have ultra-literalist Muslims that use scripture to defend something that the spirit of the scripture refutes. On the far left, you have people that believe in the whole nine yard of mainstream Christianity: Jesus is Jehovah in flesh and if you don’t listen to him you’ll be damned, while they themselves hardly practice! For the people that take religion “liberally”, I have a question: would Jesus act the way you do? If not, you have some serious work to do.

We live in a world of contradictions, hypocrisy, and doublethink, and we don’t even realize it sometimes. So let’s get past the incoherency. Let’s take a look at our values and beliefs and seriously consider what the hell we are doing with our lives. Let’s figure out why we contradict ourselves on a daily basis and solve that problem. Let’s fight the indoctrination and question why we spout secular dogma while being religiously conservative, or the other way around. Let’s talk to our politicians and government officials and try to figure out how to go about stopping the hypocrisy, if possible, and how to make the masses realize it. There are giant hypocrisies in our society, and I only named a few. Chances are, I’m a hypocrite myself and doublethink my thoughts without even realizing it, and I’ll be working on that like you should too.

Why I am not a Christian

Why I am not Christian is a collection of essays written by secular philosophers and academics. I am only writing on the most famous essay of the collection, a transcript of a lecture given by the famed Bertrand Russell at the National Secular Society. This lecture was a short rebuttal to every well known argument for God and some of the arguments for Christianity. His lecture has been renowned by many as a quick, concise deconstruction of religious thinking and apologism. That is too quick of a judgment.

His lecture first goes through the well known arguments for God, pretty much all of which can be seen in The Reason for God book I wrote a review on. Russell briefly runs through explaining each argument, and then points out a particular flaw in said argument that deconstructs the entire conclusion. He does not spend the time to give a full rebuttal and his alternative worldview to each argument, but it was not necessary to prove the theist apologist wrong. As I explains in my The Reason for God review, I do not find any of the mainstream arguments for God’s existence entirely convincing, but I also do not find any of the mainstream arguments against God’s existence convincing either. There are additional argument that we rarely hear about that keep me in theism, and I’ll one day explain them.

In short, his arguments against the theist appeals were quite convincing. His shockingly short rebuttals were satisfactory for the point he wanted to convey, although much more could have been discussed. For example, he dismisses the First Cause argument on the basis that the universe could have been the first cause without God and then proceeds to talk about other arguments. Brutally short and concise, Russell gets the point across without unnecessary commentary. He later starts talking about religious thinking and Jesus, and his views on both.

His dismissal of religious thinking as incompatible with science shows his ignorance of history and utter arrogance for an academic of his esteem. To claim a clash between faith and reason at the level in which Russell does is a moronic outcry secularists have tried for centuries in this plea for academic legitimacy that they once did not have. Now that they do, they insist that this legitimacy is only for them and delude their audiences with dogmatic bullcrap about how men of religion are less intelligent or not free thinking. Academic arrogance of this kind is usually only seen in extreme right wingers or children, but Russell proves to be an exception.

He then proceeds to dismiss Jesus as “the best and wisest of men.” Now most non-Christians will agree that Jesus was not “the best and wisest of men”, but Russell’s reasoning stems from academic dishonesty and hypocrisy. Many of the fellow secularists of his time relented that Jesus was the pinnacle of moral character in the history of man while not supernatural in any way. Russell first states that “historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all” as if he has never entered through a university door before. The existence of Jesus is not questioned by any legitimate historian of our time for a number of well documented reasons that I assume Russell rejects because he lacks the level of reason he so preciously propagates. Let me be clear: Jesus, beyond a doubt, existed during the Roman occupation of Palestine by all historical accounts.What he did and who he was is what is up for debate.

Russell continues his dismissal of Christ on the grounds that Christ believed in his imminent second coming. I won’t address whether or not Russell interpreted scripture right, but this has almost nothing to do with Christ’s moral character or wisdom for that matter. Russell throws another red herring in his dismissal of Christ in that Christ warned of a hellfire, something Russell doesn’t find moral. This kind of skewed logic isn’t even shown by extreme right wingers or children. I find murder of innocents wrong, and if my friend was going to be murdered I would certainly try to warn him. Likewise, Christ believed of a coming hell, and chose to warn his companions of its coming. Whether Christ was right or wrong is irrelevant, Russell seems to insist that it is immoral either way to warn someone of something you find immoral that may happen to them.

In conclusion, the secular philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell brilliantly shatters every mainstream argument for God’s existence in a few minutes of reading. His criticisms of Christianity, however, fall short and are academically dishonest and rationally inconsistent. I honestly advice that you only read the first part of Russell’s essay, and not waste your time with his criticisms of Jesus and Christianity. If you do choose to read the whole thing, you have been warned.

TO BE CONTINUED with a review on the essay Why Bertrand Russell was not a Christian by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith.

I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 4/4)

I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1

In the wake of 9/11, we found ourselves asking what could inspire people to commit such a tragedy. We were asking ourselves, why do they hate us? I have begun so far explaining the roots of our religious challenges in the modern west that have lead to the contempt of the west. This is in no way justifying their behavior, don’t get me wrong, this is merely explaining it. Only with understanding the ideology can we combat it. Only ideology can defeat ideology.

But let us continue identifying problems before solutions. The crisis of modern religion in the west so plagued by secularist dogma is a primary factor in the surge of terrorism. The series of questions I asked myself two paragraphs earlier are precisely at the core of the terrorist issue. You may ask how terrorism can be so intertwined with those questions, but it is less the questions themselves but the lack of answers to those questions. There is a specific discipline of study designed to answer those questions. A discipline so utterly rejected and denied of legitimacy: theology.

It is ridiculous to assume the theological field of study is not a legitimate one. And yet this is how the public perceptions are steadily moving towards. It does not take a genius to realize this. In our day and age, the public attitude only thinks about philosophy in general. The books we read, the classes in school, the people we hear about are in the field of philosophy. The Church ministers of our day misinterpret scripture on an almost weekly basis, someway or the other. In the Muslim World, extremists (this does not imply terrorists) refuse to even consider the theological approach to Islamic study, leading to much of the confusion and disaster when it comes to institutions in power such as the Muslim Brotherhood.Many simple questions I have about the Bible are not even addressed on Google today, as if the theologians of our day don’t even have access to the internet (think about John 17:4 – carefully). Most of our intellectual public can explain to you what existentialism is, but don’t have a clue about biblical predestination. This is a sad truth, and this truth is why terrorists terrorize.

To be a doctor is to have one of the most widely respected professions of our day. Doctors have a responsibility for taking our bodies. By analogy, theologians are responsible for taking care of our souls. Ironically, people of western religions would see the soul as infinitely more important than the body, as it is everlasting, and yet we refuse to give even a moment’s thought to the importance of the field. The here and now are equally important to theologians. How we deal with the societies we live in based upon our religious values is decided by them: the very moral structure of society lies in the hands of the theologians, and to lose them is to lose the insight they can provide. A teacher of the Islamic university Al-Azhar states that a theologian requires two disciplines: theology and sociology. The understanding of religion is intertwined with the understanding of society, so that one can apply their faith within the context of their living. Without theologians both are lost.

Because of this loss of insight, we live in a sort of religious anarchy today. Religion is practically free for all, and we interpret things whatever and whichever way we want to. We do foolish things like quoting “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” without even understanding the meaning of the phrase (no, it has nothing to do with secularism). To most secular minds, the theologian has no relevance, but I don’t think even an atheist should see it that way. When the learned of a faith suddenly lose relevance to that faith, the people with the loudest voice and the most testosterone take the faith into their own control: thus the terrorists. When the voices of the scholars that repeatedly and constantly preach against extremism are suddenly silenced, the bloodshed continues on. This is the phenomenon in the Muslim World, where the theological tradition was nearly destroyed after colonialism. Just as I can feel philosophy to be pointless, the destroying of such an institution would only cause more problems then I’d seek to solve.

The lack of religious understanding in our modern world can be attributed to the loss of theology. The numerous questions we ask, or don’t ask for that matter, are what terrorists answer themselves without the tools to look into other methods. This is in broad terms of course, as the majority of terrorists would be gangsters if they lived in America, or cartel members if they lived in Brazil. But the foundations and roots of radical ideology come from this lack of resources, this lack of understanding. The chaos that erupts from no learned opinion is disastrous. Imagine if half of all US bills on civil law in America suddenly disappeared. Our court system would go haywire, and our justice would become unjust. The loopholes would tenfold, and the system would be abused to the point of no return. This is what has happened, to an extent, to the religious traditions of the world. The secularist dogma has destroyed it seemingly irrevocably, and the gaps were filled by maniacs. Put simply, the maniacs then do whatever they want. That is why the terrorists terrorize.

TO BE CONTINUED.

I Know why the Terrorists Terrorize (Part 1)

This was originally going to be a poem modeled after I Know why the Caged Bird Sings. But I couldn’t get passed the first line, and I wouldn’t want to kill a good idea to a time when few will see it. So instead I will talk about what I know.

Yesterday I talked about what the “mainstream” really is. On one side we have the extreme right: Westboro. Al Qaeda. Bodu Bala Sena. But we have another, less violent, forgotten, extreme: Jesus Seminar Philosophers, the NOI, the secularists. In the spectrum of religion, the outward and inward ones, we have a massive middle ground that is lost. Some of them take on secular liberal worldviews. Some of them take on nationalist terrorist worldviews. Most of them a mix of the two. A stupid, incoherent mix that doesn’t make sense. This is the view of everyone I know. Honestly, everyone I know has a stupid, incoherent world view so mashed between a dividing line they think exists between reason and faith: “I don’t take it too far!” “I am modern!” To them, I say: on the contrary.

We are told today in the Modern West, reason and faith collide! Religion shall not publicized! Just be good, be moral, be happy! We are bombarded with secularist dogma: religion should be practiced lightly. Stop believing in hell. Ancient texts are no longer relevant. To them, I say: on the contrary.

The other day I was discussing religion to a far-right friend, and I asked him: should America be a Christian Nation? He said no. That would mean other religions would be oppressed. I talked to another liberal friend. He said no. Church and state should not mix. He probably doesn’t even know what that means. I asked another, about the applicability of the Old Testament. Old Jewish guys from back then were crazy, apparently. This is coming from Jesus loving Americans. As if Jesus would respond that way.  To them, all of them, I say: on the contrary.

I am not saying the church and state should be one. I am not saying we should revive Biblical criminal justice. But we must ask ourselves why we refuse to even consider things because we are told not to. We must ask ourselves the relevancy of religion in the public sphere, earnestly, honestly. We must ask ourselves what church and state really are and what they mean, and how they build on each other, and how they compete against one another. We must ask ourselves how ancient texts play a role in the modern world, or how they should play a role, or if they should play a role. To claim the instantaneous answers most of  is to say the very things we all spout from what we are indoctrinated to believe. We are told from day 1 in the west that they have no relevance, that religion should be private, that secularism is the way to go.

I ask you to question this, to go beyond our childish preconceptions and really question what should and should not be done about these issues. You may arrive at the same conclusions – but the journey of thinking must be taken.My questions must be toiled, by all of us, lest we fall into the trap of backwardness in following secularist dogma and refusing progress because we are told that is what is best. Should we not question, or should we take answers prematurely, we hit an extreme view on the spectrum without realizing even why. This is what the terrorists do, and that is why the terrorists terrorize.

TO BE CONTINUED.