A Deep Atheist

In the first chapter (of The God Delusion), Dawkins delineates the religion of Einstein and other scientists who use the word God in a metaphoric, pantheistic, or literary sense (p. 19) and the religion of the “supernaturalists” (p. 13) who use the word God “to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’.” (p.13)

The next quote reminded me of Your God is Too Small, by J.B. Phillips because Phillips recognized that non-believers thought Christians (specifically) made their God out to be too small, to be confined into too small a space for any inspiring faith. Phillips then made the case that the God revealed in Christianity is not small at all. Perhaps Dawkins should read Phillips book with an open mind. Atheist Carl Sagan wrote, “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by conventional faiths.” (p. 12) Modern science only describes and physically explains the wonderful works of God that are worthy of awe and wonder. One should not worship the “Universe”, but the God who brought it into being. God is not little at all. Note that atheists implicitly say (above) that God must be large to “draw forth reserves of reverence and awe”, but I read that Dawkins will say that God must be necessarily too large to exist.

Next, Dawkins says that “if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’.” (p.13) He uses the following quote for a backdrop. “Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that ‘God is the ultimate’ or ‘God is our better nature’ or ‘God is the universe.’ Of course, like any other word, the word ‘God’ can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that ‘God is energy,’ then you can find God in a lump of coal.” (pp. 12-13) The connection between this quote and Dawkins’ point are not clear since it is possible that the God of everything-that-exists can at the same time be “a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship’.”

Dawkins gives the atheist creed from Julian Baggini. “’What most atheists do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values – in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life.’” (pp. 13-14) The causality of all things (“out of this stuff come(s)”) is purely physical. All that exists purely derives from what physically came before. We have no control over what is going on since we are just behaving as our physical self determines via its inner workings. In other words, there is no free will. Since there is no free will, there is no morality. Therefore, there is no beauty, moral values (morality), or richness to human life. In other words, the physical nature of things gives meaninglessness to all of creation. Hitler was just doing what his physicality determined he was to do. But there is morality. Therefore, there is more to humanity than physicality. What gives morality? The creator of the universe, or God is above physicality, or supernatural.

“As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.” (p. 15) I hope Dawkins gets into historical analysis theories and theories on the nature of science. Otherwise, Dawkins is delusional (‘a false belief or impression’, p. 5) in that there is necessarily a dichotomy between Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion. Why can’t there be a unification theory of God?

Regarding Einstein’s statement that “‘I do not believe in a personal God’”, Dawkins goes on to say that “The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed ‘fairyologist’ on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying.” (p. 16) Einstein was not making a statement about something (fairy) that did not exist, or ever had a record of existing. He was making a statement about the existence of an entity that had a history. The Jews had history about leaving Egypt via plagues and a river and the Christians wrote about Jesus coming back from the dead and talking to hundreds of people. Theologians understand the nature of God that is consistent with their beliefs of God’s work. Perhaps the theologians thought that Einstein “misunderstood the nature of God” because he didn’t believe in God’s aforementioned works. Perhaps the theologians thought that Einstein did believe in God’s aforementioned works but did not nevertheless make the connection between them and the God that performed them; he was then labeled by the theologians as unqualified to comment in theological discussions.

This comparison between entities that don’t exist (fairies) and the entity that made us all exist cannot be substantiated since fairies didn’t make us, God did.

The Christian letters that follow are really bad (pp. 16-17). Yes, Christians say and do bad things. Please forgive us.

The following is worth noting because Dawkins actually is religious, but not a supernatural religious. “[Einstein said,] ‘To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.’ In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that ‘cannot grasp’ does not have to mean ‘forever ungraspable’. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, ‘religion’ implies ‘supernatural’. Carl Sagan put it well: ‘if by “God” one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying … it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.’” (p. 19) Why not believe that some entity called God is not actually “the set of physical laws that govern the universe” but the One who created “set of physical laws that govern the universe”? What would be needed to make that connection? I believe the nature of science can never take us that far. Only theology and philosophy can achieve such understanding. I’m sure we’ll get back to this later.

By the way, the above parts of chapter one fell under the heading “Deserved Respect”. (p. 11) The next section comes under “Undeserved Respect”. (p. 20) Dawkins goes on and on about religious people who get to do or have what they want because they use their religious prerogatives and that religions are respected because they are “especially vulnerable to offense”. (p. 20) He sums it up at the end of the chapter. “But I am intrigued and mystified by the disproportionate privileging of religion in our otherwise secular societies. … What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect? …” (p. 27) Is this another call to start the next religious political group as I mentioned above: “Atheists are always Right”: AAAR? (Picture a pirate?) Then they’ll get some respect (and plunder your irrational booty too).

Seriously, I don’t know about you, but everyone should respect each other’s religion. Most of the people I know think about why they believe and try to act accordingly just like Atheists do. Theists/deists deserve respect just like atheists do. We’ll also gladly answer your questions about our religion. However, I do agree that theists/deists and atheists who do not think deeply about their religion do not deserve respect. They need to understand their beliefs or they will get burned somehow in them.

Starting "The God Delusion"

I started reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins on the train going home on 23 April 2008. I plan to write a running commentary about each section. I wonder if I can really do it, especially before the book it due from the library (I’m definitely not buying it).

I will be retyping quotes from the book. All of them will be referencing the Houghton Mifflin Company 2006 copyrighted version.

Here it goes.

The first quote by Douglas Adams before the book begins is telling: “’Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?’”

Belief in God is not a belief in something that exists besides, or as a part of a garden. Belief in God presupposes that from the beginning of our universe’s comprehension of time (in terms of causalities), God designed laws from the beginning and was involved in the handiwork of all creation to eventually bring the garden into existence. God made physical laws. Scientists study the work of God’s handiwork.

God and an engineer agreed to have a contest to find out who would make the best pasta bridge on the condition that each of the contestants would make their own materials. On the day of testing the two bridges sat sitting on a desk in front of the judges. The judges disqualified the engineer’s bridge. The engineer asked why he was disqualified. The judges said, “You didn’t make your own materials.” The engineer said, “What?! I made my own pasta and glue from materials from my own garden!” God said, “Well, but I made the dirt, the sun, the rain, and the seeds.”

Theists don’t believe in fairies; we (I included) believe that the garden grew because God made all the materials in the garden. We see the beauty of a garden and thank God for making it possible to be grown. Hopefully we thank God for our ability to help in creating the garden with the intelligence that he created within us. We thank God.

In the preface, we are told that many people don’t realize that they can leave the religion of their parents. “But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn’t ‘take’, or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether. At very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, ‘I didn’t know I could.’” (p. 6)

Wow! What sweet talk! I don’t know about you, but I know many people who left their parents’ religion (mostly to join another religion, some to become agnostic/atheist/practical atheists). If someone were intelligent enough, why would they need Dawkins to tell them that they can leave?

Dawkins then seemingly divulges his ultimate reason for being a Militant (shepherding) Atheist. “…[A]theists and agnostics are not organized and therefore exert almost zero [political power] influence. Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority…. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and [sic] they cannot be ignored.” (pp. 4-5) Wow! They want to be the next religious political group. What would they be called? “Atheists are always Right”: AAAR? (Picture a pirate?) This reminds me of the Magnificat, “he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts (or in their proud conceit).” (KJV, Luke 1:51)

I’ll get into the first chapter in the next post. Hopefully, I’ll write one post for one chapter. (There are ten chapters.)

Interview with Ben Stein and R.C. Sproul

You might be interested in this video. It has good points against evolution as a final answer for what seems like everything.

The Pope and the People

Yes, I did see the Pope in person today at National Stadium in the District. I was blessed to be a part of his Apostolic visit to the US. The mass seemed to be a tribute to our multi-cultural nation. The first reading was read in Spanish and many of the responses were done in other languages including Tagalog, Vietnemese, and Korean.

May the symbol of our Catholic unity on Earth be blessed in his mission and Message of Hope and Love. May Jesus our Sacred Head and Salvation be praised!

Walking Copses?

The Militant Atheists are finally getting to the heart of the argument. They are questioning Christian beliefs, such as virgin birth and resurrection from the dead, head-on. This is due to some Christians’ insistence that Atheists should study theology first to really know what Christians believe. The Atheist's response is that the Nicene Creed gives all that is necessary to critique.

They say that the creed is irrational dogma that cannot be proven. It is said that Christians have been dodging this point in all the Atheist-Theist/Deist debates. I would like to address this.

All Christianity is grounded in the belief that Jesus the Christ came back to life, or “rose from the dead”, after His crucifixion and burial. This point is in the creed. However, after this point, Atheists need to study some theology that is beyond the creed to understand what this really means. This point in Christian theology is crucial in understanding Christianity.

St. Paul summarizes the necessity of this belief in the best way. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, ”your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.” (1 Corr 15: 17b-19)

Atheists say that Christians believe in “walking corpses”. In fact, the above small dive into the Christian Bible reveals that Christians actually do not believe that Christ became a “walking corpse”, but that he became a changed man. A few more Bible passages give the backdrop.

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. (John 20: 19-23)

But someone may say, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come back?" You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. … So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible. It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious. It is sown weak; it is raised powerful. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one. (1 Corr 15: 35-38, 42-44)

In the Gospel of John, Jesus came to his Apostles even though the doors to the room in which they were was locked, and he breathed on them. In 1 Corr, St. Paul describes the resurrected body as incorruptible in contrast to our current corruptible body, or “seed”. Christ was the first person to experience this transformation. Christians believe that on the last day of this corruptible world, or Judgment Day, the faithful dead will rise to incorruptibility on the New Earth.

So, in judging Christianity, its most fundamental tenet must be examined more closely by Atheists. Christians actually don’t believe that “rising from the dead” brings about zombies or half-dead persons. By looking at the Christian Bible, it can be seen that Christians actually believe that people can come back after death changed in the best possible way (“incorruptible”).

Atheists as well as Christians realize that the rising of Jesus approximately 2000 years ago in history and the future rising of the world’s dead cannot be proven. However, these events have taken or will take place outside our empirical domain, i.e., not in our testable, or empirical time and space. One must take it on informed faith through the Bible and Church Tradition from the Apostles, or first-hand witnesses that these events did and will happen.

Further, one can arrive at Christian belief in other ways. Since many historical Christian tenets are not provable directly, one must look indirectly at the available historical data. As described in Your God is Too Small, by J.B. Phillips, it stands to wonder how a cowering group of Jews (the Apostles) in the ancient Middle East went onto become boisterous and vociferous spreaders of “The Way” (of Christ). “Nor was this a short-lived spirit of defiant courage, but a steady flame of conviction which baffled, embarrassed, and infuriated the authorities for years as the [Christian] movement began to spread throughout the then-known world.” (Part 2, Section VIII, subsection 1)

Also note Part I, Section X, “Perennial Grievance”, or “God is a Disappointment”: “God will inevitably appear to disappoint the man who is attempting to use Him as a convenience, a prop, or a comfort, for his own plans. God has never been known to disappoint the man who is sincerely wanting to co-operate with His own [God’s] purposes. … But they [the former men] misunderstand the conditions of this present temporary life in which God withholds His Hand, in order, so to speak, to allow room for His plan of free-will to work itself out. Justice will be fully vindicated when the curtain falls on the present stage, the house-lights go on, and we go out into the Real World.”)

Yes, I admit that I don’t know with 100% certainty that a Jew from ancient Palestine rose from the dead, but I have faith and hope that he will prove me right when the time is right for His return in Glory.

PAAAC (PAK) and OTAAAC (O tak)

In an article that I responded to, the author reported that no one is really pro-abortion. He said that people are going to get pregnant and will want to end the pregnancy, so we should at least allow women the choice to have an abortion. He’s not personally for abortion, but it should be a choice for other people. In other words, he’s not pro-abortion, but he is pro-choice.

I have two responses. First, if one considers the personal human life within the woman as a life that is to be protected, they would never approve of abortion for themselves or anyone else. It seems that he does indeed think the life is to be protected; hence he is not personally for abortion. But, to say that women should have the choice to kill the life, he is contradicting his own personal view.

Second, I realize that most people are not for abortion but nonetheless are for the right of women to get abortions, which is contradictory as shown above. In response, I propose that we change the labels of pro-choice and pro-life to PAAAC (PAK) and OTAAAC (O tak), or “pro-abortion as a choice” and “opposed to abortion as a choice”, respectively.

What does this rhetoric do? It clarifies the abortion position of each side. I think it creates confusion to label the sides pro-choice and pro-life because each side is pro-choice and pro-life. In addition to the obvious views, the former wants to protect the life of the mother while the latter wants to give the mother choices so that her child can have life.

Changing the labels to PAAAC and OTAAAC get to the actual differences between the two camps. Since I am a person OTAAAC, I think this distinction will further the cause of those that are OTAAAC. When society gets down to reflecting on what abortion really is, abortion will be eliminated as a choice that is in reality a cruel and inhumane murder.

Pick a Side

I responded to an article regarding reasons not to be Catholic. The same author wrote another article regarding abortion and “gay marriage”. He writes,

The point of this long rant is simple: I will no longer stand for individuals
telling me what I am or what I am not. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I am
pro-gay marriage, not pro-homosexuality. This does not in any way mean that I am
against abortion or homosexuality. It just means that I am not for it.

And that's ok. The next time somebody gives you grief about these
two subjects and demands that you take a side, just respond by saying that the
world is not black and white, but shades of gray. Tell that person that just
because you vote a certain way doesn't necessarily mean you think that is the
way people should act in their personal lives.

In closing, I sincerely do hope the people with the bumper sticker do mean "You can't be Catholic and be Pro-Abortion," because if they really meant "You can't be
Catholic and be Pro-Choice," then what they're actually saying is "You can't be
Catholic and have freedom of ideas."

Why be pro-choice & “pro-gay marriage” and not pro-abortion & not pro-homosexuality? If they’re just ideas, don’t take any side. Whatever people do, just accept it all, and I mean all, as being right. Why not? They’re just ideas.

How can you say, “This does not in any way mean that I am against abortion or homosexuality. It just means that I am not for it”? If you think abortion is wrong, why should someone else do it? Should they do wrong? Maybe they don’t think they’re doing wrong, but at least you should insist that they are doing wrong since you believe it is wrong. Having “freedom of ideas” shouldn’t mean that your ideas are not meant to be relayed or even enforced.

Shout from the rooftop that abortion is wrong and say why. Most people will agree with you. Join the other people in saying that abortion is wrong and should be made illegal like murder and rape are. People still murder and rape; it doesn’t mean that they should be made legal, even if some people think that they should be legal.

Regarding “gay-marriage”, you say that you are not pro-homosexuality. (I discuss “gay-marriage” at length here .) What do you think gay people do in gay-marriage? They engage in gay sex! If they were just platonic, they wouldn’t need to get “married”. Since you are not pro-homosexuality, why aren’t you writing that “gay-marriage” should not be civically institutionalized, knowing full well that people in “gay-marriage” are pro-homosexuality?

Sure there is “freedom of ideas”. It can never be eliminated. However, actions should be stopped if they are wrong. Abortion and “gay-marriage” are wrong and should not be legal, institutionalized, or be allowed to continue. Pick a side. Actually, support the side above that is right for each issue. It’s only gray when you personally blur the colors; they are in reality, whatever anyone thinks, black and white, right or wrong.

The Iraq War and Pro-Choice Politicians

Have you noticed that the rhetoric of the Iraq War and Pro-Choice Politicians follow a similar progression? First, the war was started to preempt the use of WMD’s; then, the mission was to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. It’s similar to the progression of Pro-Choice Politicians. First, legal abortion was to protect the actual life (as opposed to death) of a pregnant woman; then, it was to safeguard women’s role in society as productive citizens. In both situations, a seemingly legitimate reason is placed front and center of the debate, while the real impetus is lurking in the background.

All these games are played despite the fact that the first reason is not true and actually misleads the public. In other words, there were really no WMD’s and the life of the mother is rarely threatened by the presence of the personal human life within her (in comparison to the on-demand abortions performed for the same time period).

Practical Atheist Violence

The talk between Desists/Theists and the Militant Atheists usually comes down to what group carried out more violence. Numbers, time periods, and severity stats are given.

However, I wonder if the group of Practical Atheists should be included in the list. Sometimes when we sin, we act as if God did not exist (rather then for temporary convenience, pride, etc.). In reality, this group would include all of us at some point in our lives, Atheist or not.

It’s easy and constructive to group people into camps: Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. However, what if the groups overlap. In this case, Practical Atheists include the Religious and Atheist groups.

How much violence has occurred by Practical Atheists? How about closet Atheists/closet Religious? Which groups would carry out more violence?

I think by far, Practical Atheists (at the time of perpetration) and closet Atheists do more violence, or even crime than all the other groups combined.

Is this a cop-out for the Theists? No. What I think is that when Theists are following their religion, the number of crimes committed by them is less than the crimes committed by all the other groups (even after subtracting the so-called fundamentalist offenders).

The other question is how often do Theists become Practical Atheists that commit crimes? I suspect that it’s less frequent than the times that Atheists and closet Atheists commit them.

What do you think?

(Note to Atheists and Practical Atheists alike: please be civil in answering the question. If there are any (civil) questions about this request, please ask via comment to this post.)