Ignorance + Dogma =

On my daily read of the blog Unreasonable Faith, I came upon something extremely saddening. Daniel Florien, author of the blog, posted an excerpt from a documentary which follows an African Community, whom is primarily of Christian faith, which believes that many of their children are witches and wizards. They exploit the children and put them in very dangerous situations. Many of the children are either disowned or even killed. If these people did not have these strong religious beliefs, they would have no reason to accuse their children of witchcraft. These people are not interpreting their religious texts much differently than most western believers, they just do so more literally. Religion is destructive, religion is dangerous.

Become a Follower

If you have a Blogger account and you like what you are reading, please become a follower. If you do not already have an account, you can very easily create one. This will keep you up to date on my postings. If you agree or disagree with my thoughts, please comment and let me know. I will also be allowing comments from non-Blogger members as well, in hopes of stimulating discussions. When commenting, feel free to leave a link to your own personal blog or website.

The Burden of Proof

Ricky Gervais, British comedian and actor, is very 'out' pertaining to his atheistic views. He makes a very simple argument about where the burden of proof truly does lie: not with the skeptic, but with the believer. This is not a new approach, however, one I thought worth mentioning.

Need I say more...

Darn kids...

Congressman's Son Won't Shut The Hell Up During Hearing

What have you got to lose?

When the debate between a theist and an atheist begins to wind down, one final question is usually posed; a question that speaks more about the purpose and nature of religious thinking than any other: 'What if you are wrong?' (Don't you hate the 'What if's'?)

Following this line of reasoning takes us back to 17th century French Philosopher Blaise Pascal. In his life's work posthumously titled the Pensées, which literally translates to "thoughts," Pascal jotted down one final justification for monotheistic religion, namely Christianity. In the Pensées, Pascal posed the famous pragmatic (or problematic) argument, which is commonly referred to as, "Pascal's wager." It went as follows:

Either God does or does not exist. You can wager on the possibility that God does exist or on the probability that he does not exist. If you believe in God and he does in fact exist, you will receive eternal life. If you do not believe in God and he does exist, you will be punished with eternal damnation. Furthermore, if God does not exist you will have lost nothing in either case.

Pascal essentially wagered that "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." Often without notice, many theists use this argument as an end all defense of their beliefs. Initially, it sounds commonsensical and to many, more than enough reason to go 'all-in' for God. These are my responses, in no specific order, to the 'what if?' for God's existence.

1. This in no way progresses the argument to prove the existence of a theistic God.
   
2. This only furthers the idea that religion may just be a coping process developed to help deal with the consciousness of our immortality.
3. Would God not know that you are not sincere and only believing for fear of punishment?
4. What if the flying spaghetti monster, in his infinite power and love, ascended to the Earth and fed the hungry with his deliciously satisfying flying spaghetti tentacles to end world hunger and ended all wars and peace reigned.......and?
5. What if humans conquered the inevitability of a short mortal life and created life sustaining processes which enabled us to live millions, billions, or even an infinite number of years? We would have even less reason to believe.
6. What if....?
7. Do I need to go on?
8. I think I'll stop here.

Do you see what I am getting at with this? The 'What ifs' could really go on forever. Just because a proposition makes you feel better and helps you get through life, does not mean that it is necessarily true. A great response to the 'What if' questions in life, is provided below by YouTube-r "EyeDunno."

The Richard Dawkin video referenced in the video above, can be found below. Enjoy!

No Statement Can Bear Its Own Truth

In each sector of our society, criticizing the basis for someone's religious beliefs has become taboo. The scrutiny of religious beliefs is sometimes encouraged in certain contexts, however, a line is drawn and is drawn incredibly thick. Religious beliefs have reached safe keeping from general inquiry and evidence that reveals incongruities and erroneous claims that, for example, pertain to the origins of life and the nature of the universe. The very basis for belief in religious statements raises suspicion. If the rationale applied to belief in religious claims were applied to any other beliefs about the world they would, at best, raise frequent skepticism. When questioning the validity of religious beliefs, the core responses are usually as follows, as adapted from Sigmund Freud's 1927 work, The Future of An Illusion (pg. 273).

1. They must be believed because our ancestors believed them.
2. We possess proofs which have been handed down from antiquity.
3. It is prohibited to raise questions of their authenticity, regardless of evidence and the progress of rational thought.

If we applied these same tactics to a belief in scientific propositions, such as Evolution, much skepticism and dispute would be raised. Society well knows why the premise of most religious doctrines is to become void of doubt: they are full of uncertainty.

"If all the arguments that are put forward for the authenticity of religious doctrines originate in the past, it is natural to look round and see whether the present, better able to judge in these matters, cannot also furnish such evidence. The whole of the religious system would become infinitely more credible if one could succeed...in removing the element of doubt from a single part of it" (pg. 274).

Although the religious say that it is because of this doubt that faith is such an important component of religious beliefs--they are not able to disprove the idea that their pious convictions more probably, may be the products of their own mental activity.

Question of The Week

It is clearly evident when looking at the traditions of many peoples, religion is an important aspect of this cultural history. When looking at a geographical map of the world which indicates the distribution of religions, it is apparent that people generally adopt the religious ideals of their society and more coherently, that of their parents. Likewise, we are all subject to our personal histories. More so, all religious people make absolute truth claims about salvation and affirm the absolute sanctity of their religious doctrines over all others. A person of Muslim faith, who declares supreme truth concerning conceptions of divine ultimacy, could have just as easily been born into a family and a society which affirms the infallibility of a very different religious faith, such as Christianity. How can one make absolute truth claims about their religious convictions, when it was by pure chance that they were born into a society that affirms the religion in which they believe?

Religious Pluralism and The Diversity of The Anthropomorphic Religious Experience

I recently sat down to write about my ideas on religious pluralism, the interpretation of religious texts and religious tolerance. I examined chapter three: Symbols of Faith, of Christian philosopher Paul Tillich's book, Dynamics of Faith (1957) as well as John Hick's thoughts on plurality of the religious experience.

John Hick is a Christian theologian as well as one of the foremost philosophers of religion to date. Hick rejects Christian exclusivism and instead promotes religious pluralism and universalism which in my eyes, is the only rational way to perceive religion, because when we actually look at the religions of the world, they are all equally valid contexts of experiencing, what John Hick refers to as, the 'Real' (transcendent reality). Out of all my online searching, sadly enough, Wikipedia provided the most thorough and complete synopsis of Hick's views on pluralism and since I am not writing an academic research paper, they will suffice.

"...Hick claims that knowledge of the Real (his generic term for Transcendent Reality) can only be known as it is being perceived. For that reason, absolute truth claims about God (to use Christian language) are really truth claims about perceptions of God... Furthermore, because all knowledge is rooted in experience, which is then perceived and interpreted into human categories of conception, cultural and historical contexts which inevitably influence human perception are necessarily components of knowledge of the Real. This means that knowledge of God and religious truth claims...are culturally and historically influenced; and for that reason should not be considered absolute" (Wikipedia.com).

Paul Tillich, like Hick, was a Christian Theologian who did an extensive amount of work in the philosophy of Christian existentialism. He also promoted the concept of religious pluralism and philosophized about salvation and universalism similar to Hick. With both of these well established views in the philosophy of religion and pluralism--I set out to analyze and add my own ideas upon them. Although it is quite lengthy in comparable to most of my posts, it will provide anyone who cares a little more insight into my pluralistic views about religion. The final essay can be found below through the link below.

Relgious Pluralism

Dr. Jesus! Make This Cyst Dissolve!

Do you think God really gives a crap about peoples monetary stability, when 963 million people around the are hungry each day? When one child dies from malnutrition every five seconds? If these lump sums of 'miracle money' are the work of God, then I think God really needs a reality check. It also scare me that these people are reporting alleviation form extremely dangerous maladies, by simply drinking some water from the 'Prophet Peter Popoff.' Either these people are just dishonest actors (which is most likely the case), the people never had ailments to start out with, or they have deluded themselves into believing they are healed when they are in fact still sick. The latter is the most dangerous, if these people do really believe that drinking water can heal cancer, cysts, neurological disorders, high blood pressure, and lung cancer then these people are in much danger in the future of not receiving medical assistance when they really do need it. Attributing ailments and disease to 'Satan' is neither logical nor necessary anymore, scientific research has shown us the true causes of these illnesses.