Home of the Little-Known Blogger

Conversations With Atheists

Atheist: Do you even understand what logic is?

Me: Yes, I have a thorough understanding of logic: etymologically, historically, and practically. You?
—–
Atheist (statement A): God is a failed hypothesis.

Atheist (statement B): Just because I can’t disprove God, is no reason to believe he exists.

Me: Pick one. God is an hypothesis, OR God is non-falsifiable. Both cannot simultaneously be true.
—–
Atheist: If you were presented with absolute proof that God doesn’t exist, would you stop believing?

Me: Begging the question. The only thing that would ‘prove’ the non-existence of God would be for the universe to stop behaving rationally. In which case, even if I still existed, I could not believe in anything at all.

666th Entry!

Well, here it is. My 666th entry at the Home of the Little-Known Blogger. Since religion is far-and-away my most popular topic, I decided that I might as well make a post about the Devil. Of course, since this isn’t really a topic I take seriously, I wasn’t looking forward to putting in the effort to track down resources on the topic. Happily, I found this little gem.

Note that this website is reference for a group called the “Christadelphians”, who hold some very interesting ideas. Some of them I quite agree with, some I do not. I find it very interesting that they go to great lengths to (quite successfully) demonstrate the entirely mythological nature of “the Devil”, but that they then insist that “Adam” was the historical progenitor of the entire human species.

Anyway, enjoy. I’m still working on some layman’s climatology for my next post.

Obfuscation

About four years ago, I made a post on Facebook about the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the lack of corresponding rise in global average temperature. The information was so easy to come by, I didn’t even think that it was worthy of a blog entry.

Flash forward to today. It took me hours of research to come up with by-year CO2 measurements, and I have never found a site which lists a simple, by-year global average temperature. NOAA is the closest; I can at least arrive at a global average temperature by performing a bit of mathematics. But the vast majority of sites purporting to display this information have cluttered graphs covered in colors and multiple lines for acronym-laden datasets. There is no real way to determine what precise points were used to make the graph, nor is there much effort put into making sure that the reader understands the acronyms being used.

Tellingly, the question regarding getting data to the public on the alarmist websites is not, “how can we more clearly and precisely show the data?” but “how can we make better graphs?”

Here’s a hint: if you really have a case, and you want to win over the general public to your side, show clear data and state your case in plain English. It is interesting that, the more evidence piles against AGW (really, it was disproved as an hypothesis long ago), the more the “scientists” who are its proponents try to hide and complicate the data.

An Unsettling Climate

City Journal has published an excellent article on AGW hypothesis and downfall of modern science. Those of you who hold science to high standards will find the read unsurprising, but informative. Those of you who think that “man-made global warming” is a real thing because someone told you that “there’s a scientific consensus” (or some such fallacy)… well, you will not find it unsurprising.

The Word of God

One of the most common, and most vehement, arguments in which I find myself with other people who call themselves “Christian” regards the Bible as the “Word of God”. This post will demonstrate why that belief is both untrue and unjustified. Although I am an Aramaic primacist, as much as possible I shall use Greek references in this text so as to avoid confusion for the Literalists, who are (almost certainly) without exception Greek primacists.

First, quite simply, the Bible is not a word. “The” is a word. “Bible” is a word. By definition, “The Bible” is a BOOK (it’s Greek); however in this case it is not just “one book”, nor even a single anthology of books, but a collection of anthologies. The first anthology is the Torah, or “The Law” (by tradition, authored by Moses); the first five books of the TaNaKh (the Hebrew Bible, called by Christians “the Old Testament”). Then there are the Nevi’im, or “Prophets”; generally self-titled by their authors. Next there are the Ketuvim, or “Writings”, a miscellany of Hebrew treatises. Finally, there is the Peshitta, or “Direct Transmission”, which the Christians call the “New Testament”. So the Bible is, in fact, many many words.

Second, it is one thing to say that the Bible is divinely-inspired. There is even a Semitic idiom, “written with the Hand of God”, which means “perfectly executed”–which could be used to describe the Bible. But to say that the Bible is the Word of God is to deny the free will, the humanity, of the authors–and therefore to deny the very basis of Christianity, which requires free will for salvation.

Third, “Word of God” is a very poor translation. The Greek words involved here are “λόγος του θεού” (“Logos tou Theou”). While “tou Theou” certainly means “of God”, “Logos” does not mean “word” in the sense that this argument intends. That term is λέξη (“Leksis”). One may see this in modern English: Biology (“bios logos”) is not the “word of life”; it is the “logic of life”. Psychology is not the “word of the mind”, but the “logic of the mind”. Hell, “logic” does not mean “words”!

Let me finish by illustrating the point through a simple word-substitution; the Literalist reader may then perform this same exercise with any use of the term “Word of God” in the Bible. From the NSRV:

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Now, let us make a substitution:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the (Unit of Language), and the (Unit of Language) was with God, and the (Unit of Language) was God.”

Now, let us make a second substitution:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the (Reason/Logic), and the (Reason/Logic) was with God, and the (Reason/Logic) was God.”

God did not bring forth the universe by speaking some unit of language into the formlessness and void, which no one else would have heard–nor, certainly, did He do this by tossing about an anthology which was not compiled until about 170 A.D. God brought forth the world by imposing reason and logic on the primal chaos. In fact, God is the reason and logic of the universe.

Settling In

Well, it’s been a long process. I’ve lived in Springfield, MO for about two and half years now. While a lot of the locals bemoan having “nothing to do”, I’ve had a terrible time settling in because there are SO MANY THINGS that I want to do, and they are often scheduled on top of each other.

Prior to Springfield, I lived for five years in Jefferson “No, we really have NOTHING to do” City, MO; before that, several years in Columbia “My God, it’s full of useless Hippies”, MO; and before that I was in the “You have no time for anything” United States Marine Corps. So, I think I can be held blameless for a bit of hyper-activity. 🙂

I’ve cut myself down to ONE decent martial arts school (GM Kevin Luttrell’s hapkido program at Next Level Sport Karate, although I have little use for the main “taekwondo” program taught at the school) (Only one martial art is KILLING me… but it’s better than none. And I’ll get into other programs once I’m re-established), and one non-military physical training regimen (Powerlifting. Sans the progressive calisthenics, kettlebell training, rope-jumping, and all of the other stuff that I had been doing and still want to do. Get established and branch out from there.).

This puts me into almost the exact same physical training regimen that I was in during my latter college days which were my physical peak and, had I not been married, would have been the best days of my life.

I’ve also settled in to the morning shift at work, finally getting a schedule set to maximize my productivity around the weird sleep pattern. My next step is to finally get moved in to a local Church and Lodge.

NanoMineral

From BioPharma Scientific. I won’t use it while I’m doing a Whole30, but when I’m not… This is the only multiminerals supplement I can see myself using for a while. It’s difficult to make certain that I get all of the minerals that I need, and most supplements have an issue with bioavailability. Chelation mostly solves that, but the best brand (Albion) makes pills which are EXTREMELY difficult for me to swallow. Enter the only chelated multi-mineral powder on the market: NanoMineral.

The Issue of Biblical Literacy

Well. Here’s a post that EVERYONE will hate. 🙂

So, as we have previously established, the Liturgical Churches (namely, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Communions) all agree that the Bible is a manual for spiritual growth, and not to be used as a textbook of science or history. The Evangelical Churches, on the other hand (Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc.) all insist that the Bible must be read as if it were literally true. In English, no less.

Now, a full examination of Semitic idiom will be beyond the scope of this post… except to say that if you’re reading more than a few words of something written in Semitic language (as all of the books of the TaNaKh and the Peshitta were), then there’s probably some idiom in there. If you didn’t catch it (note that “catching it” is an idiom in English; can you imagine how that translates into other languages? Exactly.), then you’re not getting the full meaning. Nor will this piece explore the numerical and symbolic content of written Hebrew characters (also important to understanding things written in, for example, Hebrew).

Rather, I’m going to use a couple of stories from the TaNaKh (the Hebrew Bible, or essentially the Christian Old Testament) to demonstrate why modern standards of history cannot be applied to writings from before the invention of history (Herodotus lived during the Fifth Century BC), and how Biblical stories can be true without requiring historical accuracy. To prepare yourself for this, think about the fable of the grasshopper and the ant. Certainly, there have never been talking grasshoppers nor talking ants, nor ants who provided charity to grasshoppers. Therefore, we may readily say that this story has zero historical or scientific value. However, if we understand the meaning of the story, grasp the value of hard work and planning ahead, then we have found that the story is actually a truth (A truth which most of modern American society has forgotten, and is suffering for its loss). This same fact applies to Biblical writings, although they are significantly more nuanced.

Let us begin with the Exodus.

In the story of the Exodus, we begin with a spirtually powerful man, Moshe (Moses), who must lead his people out of bondage in Khemit (Egypt). His people are led through the Reed Sea, which kills the soldiers of the Pharoah, and then follow pillars of smoke and fire through the desert. They remain lost for four decades until, eventually, Moses dies; afterward they find and enter the Promised Land.

Several years ago, I read a book called The Bible as History, I believe by Werner Keller. Significant text is dedicated to proving the historical authenticity of the Exodus; I remember specifically (but not verbatim) a passage about certain gates of Egypt mentioned in the Bible, and when the author travelled to Egypt, he found that those gates were real! Therefore, the Bible must be historically accurate. Of course, while there probably was an Exodus, all that this establishes was that the author of the story of the Exodus was generally familiar with the geography of the most powerful nation in the world at that time.

Let us examine the story from a different perspective. At the time this was being composed (very roughly 4,000 BC), Egypt possessed a number of what we refer to as “mystery cults.” (Most of what we know about ante-Christian mystery cults comes to us from Greek sources, so Greek vocabulary will be used here.) The most common structure of a mystery cult would involve four levels of initiation:

1. The Hylic Initiation, or baptism by earth. This would be the physical birth of a person from the womb. At this level, the person is seen as helplessly controlled by the forces of the world.
2. The Psychic Initiation, or baptism by water. This was a ritual bath, indicating the end of a person’s life of purely material pursuits, and dedication to a new spiritual life.
3. The Pneumatic Initiation, or baptism by air. This was conferred upon those who were seen as spiritually mature, and ready to begin an earnest study of the “mysteries.” “Mysteries,” here, refers to spiritual experiences which could not be expressed verbally. It is important to note that they could not be expressed verbally, not that they should not be; today we would refer to them as “right-brain” experiences.
4. The Gnostic Initiation, or baptism by fire. This should be seen as the same as the Buddhist doctrine of “enlightenment”; death of the ego.

Why explain all of that? Well, let us suppose that Moshe (the spiritually powerful director of the Hebrews) is the ego, and that the Hebrews represent the person’s soul. Khemit is not only the most powerful nation on Earth, but literally translates as “black earth”–and the Hebrews begin the story in bondage to the forces of Khemit. The ego takes over and leads them through an initation of water (the Reed Sea, which frees them from the forces of the world/Khemit), and they then follow air (a pillar of smoke) and fire into a desert. It is not until the ego (Moshe) dies, however, that true enlightenment (the Promised Land) is reached.

So, while again the Exodus was probably a true event, the Biblical account was not recorded for the purpose of exacting historical accuracy which we expect today, but to illustrate a spiritual truth.

How about another favorite from the TaNaKh, the story of “Adam and Eve?”

To begin this section, a word on names: while in modern English usage, we treat “Adam” and “Eve” as if they were given names, in fact, “Adam” is a Hebrew word for “Man”, and “Eve” (actually, “Hawwah”), roughly translates as “mother” or “life-giver”.

When Man is created, he is originally tasked with naming everything in creation. Later, God makes a suitable partner for him from part of his own body. The couple are basically free to do whatever they want, with the exception of eating “the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” At some point, the Life-Giver is approached by a “serpent” in the garden, who convinces her to eat from the Tree, and to convince her husband to eat from the tree. As a result, they are banished from the Garden forever.

Now, if we take this story literally, we have not only God Himself as a physical person walking through a garden, but talking snakes, trees which impart knowledge, and several other significant issues. Let us look at this story from a less-literal perspective:

What was Man’s job in the Garden of Eden? He was to name all of the things in God’s creation. The Life-Giver was made from a part of Man, and was subordinate to him. Her job is to create, and to keep Man from getting lonely and bored–but she is to be subordinate to him. Can we think of any pairs significant to human beings, one of which deals with numbers and language and the other of which deals with creativity?

What we are looking at is probably the earliest examination of left brain/right brain psychology. Again, the modern science would obviously have been beyond the ken of the author(s), but the fact that they were examining the concept is fascinating. What, then is the Garden? The Garden is childhood, or innocence; that time in our lives when we are free to do as we like. The serpent is actually curiosity; that to which our imagination (Eve) is subject, and which leads us to mature knowledge (the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Once we have tasted that fruit, once we understand the concept of good and evil, we are no longer innocents. We must “put on clothes” (be constrained by society), and we can never have our innocence back (we are cast out of the garden forever).

These are only two examples. I challenge you to think about these as you read the Bible, and find more. Studying Hebrew and Aramaic will certainly assist you, as will an examination of early Christianity and the Mystery traditions (many of which survive in modern Christianity, despite vehement denial by people who really don’t understand them). One of the great failings of the modern Church, in my opinion, has been its relentless drive to evangelism and abandonment of mystagogy. It does no good to simply get people in the door and then have nothing substantial to give them when they arrive. Have something savory for the guests, and they’ll show up on their own. (I hope that allegory wasn’t lost on you.)

Update Not that the historicity of the Egyptian bondage has anything whatsoever to do with the content of this article, but for the satisfaction of one poster’s bizarre obsession with my aside comment, here is an article on Israelites in ancient Egypt…

And here’s David Wolpe… stating that the best archaeological evidence supports EXACTLY my position at the bottom of page one.

Why God is Not Proved. And Why That’s Right.

Physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace is best known, among post-modern atheists, for a quote from a conversation with Napoleon Bonaparte. When Napoleon asked how he had composed an entire book on physical operations without a single reference to God, Laplace replied, “I had no need of that hypothesis.”

Except, of course, that that is not at all what happened. The hypothesis which Laplace did not need was Sir Isaac Newton’s supposition that God must periodically intervene to keep the universe running smoothly. Physical theory had advanced to the point that all known operations could be demonstrated mathematically. This mis-quote began circulating Laplace’s lifetime, and he was mortified by it.

But that is of no moment to the post-modern atheist. As devotees of post-modernism, terms like “fact”, “truth”, “honor”, and “respect” mean nothing to them–except as empty strings of letters around which may be constructed equally-hollow sophistries. “God-as-Hypothesis” is all the rage amongst this pseudo-intelligentsia, with Richard Dawkins even devoting an entire book to it. Worse, non-atheists have accepted this position, constantly trying to find ways to “prove God”, while the atheist stands back and demands “empirical proof”. There are several problems with this approach:

First, hypotheses are not proven. They are DISPROVEN. If the atheist wishes to claim that God is an hypothesis, then they reinforce the burden-of-proof on themselves (Reinforce, not “shift to”. They already bear burden-of-proof by making a claim contra status quo). The usual retort will be something about “the impossibility of proving negatives” or “disproving magic sky-men.” It is, of course, hardly impossible to prove a negative: if I state “there is no elephant in my pocket”, I may simply turn out my pocket and show it to be true. And “magical sky-man” is so laughably naive that one must suppose that atheists spend their time in argument with toddlers; we are speaking here of First Cause, not first-grade Sunday school.

Second, God is not a physical entity, and therefore standards of empirical evidence are not valid in this argument. Happily, empirical evidence is not the only standard of evidence which exists–otherwise, very few court cases would ever find resolution. While our limited human perspective will always color our perception of God, giving rise to the various cultural lenses today called “religions”, the fact is that all major religions involve humanity’s attempt to understand the same universal Truth: God.

The Hindus may call God Brahman, and reference reincarnation and the dissolution of subject-object. The Evangelical Protestant may call God the source of all good, opposed by Satan. But in all cases, we are discussing the rational, metaphysical foundation by which reality exists–and the non-atheist may therefore draw upon a body of direct eyewitness accounts spanning the whole world and all of human history.

But the most important problem with the God-as-hypothesis position is this: God is not an hypothesis, but an axiom. All systems of logic operate on axiome–statements which must be accepted as true in order for the system to be valid, but which have no basis for “proof” outside of the system.

The most familiar example would probably be the number “one.” In order for mathematics to operate, “one” must be accepted as true. It can only be proved valid by operations performed on other numbers (3-2=?, etc.), but all numbers are, in fact, the result of operations performed on “one.” There is no empirical evidence which proves the existence of “one”; it is entirely metaphysical. It has no weight or dimensions to measure. You may either accept that “one” exists–thus giving you numbers, thus giving you mathematics and everything derived from it–or you may reject the existence of “one.” In which case, you have no valid basis to perform any mathematical operation.

Similarly, God is an axiom. Remember, we are not attempting to validate any particular religion, nor certainly are we attempting to provide an historical basis for systems of mythology. Rather, God (as a universal concept) is the rational ordering principle of reality. One may accept the existence of God, in which case the universe is rational; this gives us a basis for logic and therefore science.

Or, one may reject the existence of God. Without a rational ordering principle, the universe would be, by definition, irrational. As a subset of the universe, we also would be by definition irrational. Finally, by definition, an irrational being cannot undertake a rational examination of an irrational system. So, by rejecting God, we have rejected reason and science.

It should be noted also, that ‘the laws of physics’ are not sufficient to provide a rational ordering principle, thereby negating God as the basis for reason. First, while we call them ‘laws’, they are in fact completely arbitrary to our powers of perception and cognition (witness General Relativity vs. quantum mechanics). Second, they are dependent upon the pre-existence of the universe: that is, the universe did not come into existence because of the laws of physics. Rather, the laws of physics describe how we observe the universe in its current state.

Kung fu vs. Jiu-Jitsu (sic)

I don’t care what you have to say about how it translates to “real combat” (like you’d know). I’d still rather spend my time learning how to do this:

…than learning how to do this: