My post on limbo has attracted a good deal of intelligent comment, but what puzzles me is how atheists who believe in all kinds of immaterial reality (free will, consciousness, the unconscious, human rights and so on) profess utter amazement when religious concepts like the soul and immorality are mentioned. "So where is this soul?" these radical empiricists demand to know. Yet at the same time they talk about "self-discovery" as if there was a certain kind of "self" hiding inside of them. They speak of their "unconscious" as if it were observable under a microscope. In short, these empiricists are phony realists whose empiricism only seems to kick in when religious ideas are mentioned.
In this context several of them like to respond to theological concepts by asking, "And when will the church resolve the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" No reason to write Pope Benedict about that. For the benefit of humanity, I am going to settle this issue once and for all. Angels, like dreams, are immaterial things. They don't have a bodily existence. Consequently they do not take up actual space. Therefore an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. Of course the atheist may laugh and say that angels don't exist. But equally obviously the atheist doesn't know that. His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do. And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably. You see, my atheist friends, it's a simple matter of logic.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 4)
31. To Stian:
Very good point. I completely agree on the premise, yet not your conclusion. Psychometrics is pointing us toward metaphysics. However, I do concede that it can point away from it, in some cases. Depends on what we're measuring. Thank you very much for your blog comment on my page.
Brian Boothe
Brian Boothe at 2:52PM on Apr 23rd 2007
32. Maybe your next essay could be on how many Klingons can dance on the head of a pin. You'll sound only slightly more foolish.
Michael Koppelman at 3:05PM on Apr 23rd 2007
33. Tony:
As an atheist, I respect your religion, but as a neo-positivist, I have a hard time respecting your view of science.
That, I know, puts me in a bad elitist light, but I can not help realising that your theories of God and Jesus, Heaven and Hell, etc, can not pass falsification. Having falsified your theories, I can not help concluding that it is MORE correct to not believe than to believe.
My lack of respect for you as a scientist comes from the fact that I can not understand how a man of science can put the most elementary questions of his existence out of the realm of science, and still call himself a scientist. If you had chosen the profession of preacher, I would have respected your choice.
I am sorry, it is terribly crude of me, but I hope you at least can appreciate my honesty.
To Zoro and those other name-callers and theist-bashers out there: I don't see how it helps our cause to be so rude and disrespectful as you are! Please stop it!
Stian at 3:06PM on Apr 23rd 2007
34. Brian Boothe,
When you say, "We have a brain and spinal cord, but we are not our brain and spinal cord. We use our brain and spinal cord to translate the world," you're claiming the existence of some self irrespective of your physical body. Like a soul. As if "you" inhabit a little vehicle instead of being an aspect of that vehicle. If a copy were made of just your body as it is right now wouldn't it act exactly like "you"? What could possibly be the difference?
Later,
lil_turk at 3:55PM on Apr 23rd 2007
35. Stian writes: "To Zoro and those other name-callers and theist-bashers out there: I don't see how it helps our cause to be so rude and disrespectful as you are! Please stop it!"
Actually, I'll leave it to His Holiness Jerry Falwell, the Pope, and Saint James Dobson to feign outrage at an atheist disagreeing with me. I don't think its rude at all to present what you believe and why you believe it makes more sense than what another commenters believes.
As someone who strongly believes in God and an afterlife, I simply chose what works for me and what is most compatible with my own common sense (while respecting others' right to believe I have "uncommon sense.") I'll never belong to an organized religion, never try to cram my beliefs down anyone's throat, and never challenge anyone else's belief or non-belief unless it involves animal or human sacrifice (and if I'm the one being sacrificed expect my challenge to be loud and rather frantic!)
Wasn't there a saying, "if it feels right, do it"? That's what I have done in regard to my beliefs. I chose what helps me get through the day - and what makes the most sense to me, regardless of science. I think of science as a way of further understanding what God created, not the end all and be all of human understanding. That would be making science a religion. However, if someone wants to do that, you'll get nothing but support from me - you're not hurting me or any other third party I know of, and each of us creates the reality that works best to keep a smile on our face.
Phil at 4:51PM on Apr 23rd 2007
36. Stian: For the first 40-or-so years of my life, I went along with your:
“I don't see how it helps our cause to be so rude and disrespectful as you are! Please stop it!”
But subsequent evidence (such as the World Trade Center) convinced me that I was wrong. I’ve found that it’s useless to try to reason with them. As someone else wrote (and I’m extremely sorry to say that, even with Google, I can’t find the author’s name – please provide it if you know):
“It turns out, the myth of peaceful, easy change is just that: a myth. There is no polite way to tell people they are deluded hypocrites. And it’s not like we have infinite time. It’s not just selfishness that makes me want to bring about rationality in my lifetime: the planet is in danger. Faith in the sky-daddy will not reverse overpopulation or global warming. If we don’t hurry up and get rational, there might not be a hundred years from now for atheists to finally, gently, convince everyone else to behave like adults.”
As per usual, Sam Harris said it well:
“Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and – all too often – what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy…”
And of course, so did Richard Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion”:
“Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure ‘evil’. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith.”
But even the brilliance of both Harris and Dawkins leaves me with the impression that they’re pessimistic about the possibility of success. I think that C.W. Dalton saw the reason in his book “The Right Brain and Religion”:
“Believers are interested in fulfilling emotional and spiritual needs, not intellectual needs. In some cases, one might as well try to use reason on a dog. For many people God is primarily a warm feeling. How can one argue with a warm feeling? Arguing with someone who places reason below faith and biblical authority is blowing against the wind.”
Yet, I think that Thomas Jefferson saw a solution (in 1816 letter to Van der Kemp):
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…”
From what I can make of what happened in Europe – why they are so far ahead of the U.S. in ridding themselves of the god meme – is that Voltaire ridiculed religions and the religious.
I’ve therefore concluded that the best way to proceed is the same way that little kids try to change the behavior of other kids who are “real brats”: 1) ridicule them, 2) set a better example (e.g., as humanists) and 3) exclude them from cooperative activities (e.g., working to exclude the Pope’ influence on the EU, working to exclude the religious from holding public offices, etc.). Elsewhere, I do what I can applying step 2) and 3). For the case of what I’ve been reading here, Jefferson’s method seems best: ridicule them. I would welcome your giving the matter more thought – and then, of course, urge you to continue you to do what you think is best to “help… our cause.”
P.S. to Phil:
That’s an extremely dangerous error. It’s called the “pleasure-principle fallacy.” Nietzsche said it well:
“An agreeable opinion is accepted as true: this is the proof by pleasure (or, as the church says, the proof by strength), which all religions are so proud of, whereas they ought to be ashamed. If the belief did not make us happy, it would not be believed: how little must it then be worth!”
Think of the pleasure it gives the suicide bombers (and their mothers!) for them to die for their Jihad.
zoro at 5:22PM on Apr 23rd 2007
37. It is very simple.
God is omnipotent, and He tells us via the Bible that angels exist (e.g., stories involving the Angel Gabriel, or Michael the archangel), then if follows that angles exist.
Ken Berg at 7:54PM on Apr 23rd 2007
38. Now exactly how many of these angels could dance on the head of a pin (together, at the same time) is another matter.
I leave that question for minds much bigger than mine!
; )
Ken Berg at 7:56PM on Apr 23rd 2007
39. Hi Zoro - In reference to the your comment above, to me it shows the beauty of a secular government and strict separation of church and state. I DO believe what makes me feel the best, and rings the most true to me. That which I would like to be true, to me is true - and trust me, to ME, they are good for both me and society, and logical. I don't presume to be correct - even though I'd like to be - as I am such a tiny spec in the enormity of existence that I simply don't have the brain to figure it out. I expect belief "tune ups" after death, but I also expect my deceased cat of 18 1/2 years to be there fat, happy, and THRILLED to see me.
But, while I'd love to have the whole world follow my social values, several billion people aren't cooperating, so I just try to assert my First Amendment right to state my values and the generic "why". What else can I do?
Religiously, I'm a religion of one, converts are not allowed but copycats are fully allowed - or maybe I'm copying them. In any event, no one has to, or will be invited or encouraged to join me, because what we're talking about is so immense, that maybe each of us are believing in something that for our individual selves IS our respective reality.
Wanna hear the ultimate in religo-babble? YOU have a belief which could be construed as religious. Isn't not believing in any religion or the existence of any higher power as much a religion as believing in one? After all, somehow the topic is what are our religious beliefs, and you convey you believe in not believing. So, not believing is your religious belief.
What was this original blog about anyway?
Phil at 8:19PM on Apr 23rd 2007
40. You know, it does get stranger... what about Maslow's idea of 'self-actualization?' That is pretty whacked if you ask me...
Dinesh, I am beginning to think that you get a kick out of the response you get from atheists and that all of these anti-atheist posts are just to supply you with warm fuzzy feelings.
Hmm... it does seem that an infinite number of immaterial beings could dance on a pin head, but since they are immaterial, pins are not in their realm, and mathematical measurements seem to be lacking too. Why then does it matter? Oh, the things that people will come up with to inflate the sense of their own intelligence.
Death of Reason at 8:34PM on Apr 23rd 2007
41. Ken Berg,
Still no response to my earlier statements on scientists and secularity? I'll re-post the link as it gives me a chance to practice my internetting skills: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
And for secular types who still fear Christian fanatics more than Muslim fanatics, I recommend the interview of Tawfik Hamid on: http://pointofinquiry.org/
lil_turk at 9:57PM on Apr 23rd 2007
42. "My post on limbo has attracted a good deal of intelligent comment"
Really? You think so? 'Cause I was kind of curious how you were going to spin the obvious vitriol on the part of the fervently religious in the comments to that post, in light of your whining about how mean and unfair the rather mild responses by atheists were to your claim that they are by definition unfeeling monsters who hate god and the godly. A theme you apparently can't seem to let go, no matter how ill-informed and bankrupt it obviously is in your hands.
So in your book, page after page of Protestants condemning Catholics to hell, and vise versa, for perverting the word- and accusing each other of deliberately dragging millions of otherwise innocent souls into perdition along with them, for no other reason than a desperate need to cling to a false doctrine- That represents "a good deal of intelligent comment."
And let's not even mention the wildly inaccurate mis-interpretations of scripture. "And suffer the children"- either the people responding to your post have never actually read Matthew 19, or they're being deliberately obtuse. Or, more likely, both. It never fails to amaze me how little the religious seem to actually know about their religion.
But, to your third rate intellect that was lively, well-reasoned debate, because- well, apparently because the hatred was good, Christian hatred. For other Christians. In the name of Christ. Well, I guess we all know where your priorities lie.
As for this entry in your apparently never ending foray into non-sense- Well, I have to say, even from a purely biblical stance, meh. Angels are like dreams- how very twee. Now go tell that to Jacob. Or Lot. Or Adam and Eve. Apparently _their_ angels had a little more substance. A little more heft, if you will.
Although I suppose one could argue that Jacob was merely wrestling with an "undigested bit of beef." In fact, It would seem to explain a lot. But I hardly think its a line of thought you would want to endorse.
Given that, your trite musings _don't_ follow inevitably. And, unless you reject large potions of the book you supposedly believe in, it's a trivial matter to show that your position rests soundly in _illogic_. So, either you're wrong, and rather smug about it, or the bible is.
By all means, fill us in- wich is it?
And as for this:
"His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do"
Really, that bit takes the cake in the poor reasoning fiesta you've been holding. Since it escapes you- Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Disbelief in the absence of evidence is something we call _Reason_. They're different.
Really, third graders have better critical thinking skills than this.
TJ at 2:19AM on Apr 24th 2007
43. I think I'll just stick to my religion of one - find out where I went wrong if I did in the afterlife, and work from there. Hell, (play on words) if I can just keep the fanatical Christians that are trying to destroy the First Amendment out of my house and life, and the fanatical Muslims from bombing it - I'll be just fine. And, I do believe in self-actualization.
Phil at 3:31AM on Apr 24th 2007
44. lil_turk: "And for secular types who still fear Christian fanatics more than Muslim fanatics, I recommend the interview of Tawfik Hamid on: http://pointofinquiry.org/"
Thanks for the link, I am a secular type - live and let live pursuant to a non-religious government. Thus, anyone can believe or not believe what they want, and no one has the right to cram their belief or non-belief down someone's throat unless they are directly physically threatened - as I am by fanatical Christianity and Islam. They just don't make sense to me, and my one man religion doesn't make sense to a lot of people - but I'll still believe it. Even as a believer - I'd rather have coffee with an atheist than a James Dobson, Jerry Falwell or the Pope. At least the atheist won't ruin my latte telling me what a sinner I am before they send me off to the concentration camp (the Christians) and kill me there, or simply chop my head off pronto (the Muslims). I'd rather be called stupid, simply agree and continue to believe, as I am stupid in relation to something so immense.
Maybe hell for James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and the Pope is a burning hot metal object that looks like a bodily organ that they will have a close inside relationship with, in drag, while they watch Ann Coulter frustrated because she can't cure Cpl. Matt Sanchez (aka Rod Majors) from being gay.
Phil at 3:44AM on Apr 24th 2007
45. Phil:
1. You asked “What else can I do?” My response: just keep struggling. Think more; study more; try to get to the top of Maslow’s pyramid. As a start, maybe read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” and Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”. You might even want to look at my own (free!) book at http://zenofzero.net – as a minimum, you’ll find many more references there. [Incidentally, I promote the book at forums such as this, because with no sales, I have no advertising budget. And even if sales were possible, I don’t want to go that way, since I don’t want money to deter teenagers throughout the world (for whom the book was written) from reading it.]
2. Re. your “YOU have a belief which could be construed as religious”, I agree. My religion is similar to that of many other humanists, as illustrated with the following few examples.
“Choose to live and choose to love; choose to rise above and give back what you yourself were given. Be moderate as you flee for survival in a boat that has no place for riches.” [Shin-eqi-unninni, ~1600 BCE, author of the most famous version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, from which the Bible’s myth about Noah was plagiarized, bowdlerized, and ruined]
“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful… For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love – this is the eternal law… Be lamps [or islands] unto yourselves. Be a refuge unto yourselves. Do not turn to any external refuge… Owing to their creation of a Supreme Deity, men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious, and perverse in views. Thus, for those who fall back on the creation of a God as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor the effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed… ” [The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama]
“What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others… Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness… When we see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves… While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve spirits {of the dead}?… While you do not know life, how can you know about death? [Confucius]
“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world… There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” {Or maybe better: There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal.} [Socrates]
Have I done something for the general interest? Well then I have had my reward. Let this always be present to thy mind, and never stop doing such good. [Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome]
“My country is the world, and to do good is my religion.” [Thomas Paine]
“To have a positive religion is not necessary. To be in harmony with yourself and the universe is what counts, and this is possible without positive and specific formulation in words.” [Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]
“Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies. It is not a result of ‘inspiration’. It is the child of invention, of discovery, of applied knowledge – that is to say, of science. When man becomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights; when thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing useful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized.” [Robert Ingersoll]
“Is it a small thing to quench the flames of hell with the holy tears of pity – to unbind the martyr from the stake – break all the chains – put out the fires of civil war – stay the sword of the fanatic, and tear the bloody hands of the Church from the white throat of Science? Is it a small thing to make men truly free – to destroy the dogmas of ignorance, prejudice and power – the poisoned fables of superstition, and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of fear?” [Robert Ingersoll]
“The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.” [Emma Goldman]
“My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests.” [George Santayana]
“The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.” [Bertrand Russell]
“This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” [The Dalai Lama]
“Finally, I would like to assure my many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim friends that I am sincerely happy that the religion which Chance has given you has contributed to your peace of mind… Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is the best of all to be sane and happy. Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future.” [Arthur C. Clarke]
“Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug superstition to their breasts.” [Isaac Asimov, when asked why he fights religion with no hope for victory]
And I’ll end these quotations with the following excerpt from “A Letter to Mankind”, which starts “Dear fellow humans” and was signed by the following twelve, brave, former Muslims: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, and Ibn Warraq. The full “Manifesto” is at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/manifesto .
“We urge the Muslims to leave Islam. Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Stop dividing mankind into ‘us’ vs. “them” and Muslims vs. Kafirs. We are One people, One mankind! Muhammad was not a messenger of God. It is time that we end this insanity and face the truth. The terrorists take their moral support and the validation for their actions from you. Your very adherence to their cult of death is a nod of approval for their crimes against humanity.
“We also urge the non-Muslims to stop being politically correct lest they hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims. To Hell with their sensitivities! Let us save their lives, and the lives of millions of innocent people.
“Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out! ‘All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.’ Do something! Send this message to everyone in your address book and ask them to do the same.
3. Re. your “What was this original blog anyway?”, my version is this: in his ignorance, D’Souza demonstrated his support for terrorists (via his support for ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ in the absence of evidence). A number of us objected.
zoro at 6:44AM on Apr 24th 2007