My son, Logan, is over eighteen months, and he’s starting to speak now. Sure, it’s just a few words here and there, but the point is that he’s learning to communicate with me. For the most part, the conversations consist of him telling me that various cars are cars, or that he wants me to “tickle tickle” him. In a few years though, I imagine that we’ll expand our subject matter. And sooner or later, the subject of God will come up. Did you know that there are people out there who believe that an invisible being created the universe and has taken a direct hand in world events? It’s true! They think that this being did things like make a donkey talk, punish a snake, and stop the sun from moving. (Don’t you mean that the Earth would have to stop moving? SHUT UP!)
Anyway, my wife and I have discussed how we’re going to deal with this many times. Luckily, we’ve always been on the same page. Neither one of us is very interested in telling him what he should and should not believe, but at the same time, we aren’t too interested in hiding how we feel about things. (My wife has recently started describing herself as an atheist as well.)
While dinking around on Facebook just a few moments ago, I saw an ad for an “atheist children’s book”. The main point of the book is that there are many religions out there, and that they’re ALL not true! (Even Shintoism? Say it ain’t so!) I was intrigued enough to check out the link, but I don’t think that I’ll be buying it. After all, I don’t feel the need to have a book for my son that explains that Star Wars isn’t real, do I?
Giving him a book like that feels a bit too much like doing one of the things that I don’t like about religion in the first place – telling kids what to think, rather than simply teaching them how to think. In other words, it’s indoctrination, and while a certain amount of indoctrination is valuable, I think it’s best to avoid it when you can. (When is it valuable? When it comes to teaching him to treat people fairly, not steal, etc.)
Personally, I’d rather just share Bible stories with him along with stories from various religions around the world. I have a My Book of Bible Stories that I got for him (it was free, but I remember it from when I was a kid) and I’d be willing to get him other children’s books based on The Bible or any other holy book. I’ll read him those stories the same way I’d read to him the stories of Zeus and Odin out of the mythology books that I have for him. I won’t feel the need to tell him at the end of those stories, “Ya know, Zeus ain’t real, son.” So why would I do that with the Jesus stories?
The big difference is that he’ll no doubt run into people who believe in Jesus (and a few others). He’ll probably ask me about it. I’ll tell him that I don’t believe it, and I’ll tell him my reasons for not believing it. I feel confidant that I have good reasons for not believing those stories, and I feel that ultimately he’ll be more swayed with my reasoning over their dogma. And if I’m not using reason, then he shouldn’t be listening to me about that in the first place.
But let’s be TOTALLY honest with ourselves though. For a good portion of his childhood, he’s going to believe what his parents believe no matter how we present it to him. The trick is planting the seeds for critical thinking when he’s young, so that way he can truly make up his own mind when he gets older.
I guess that atheist children’s book would be of value for religious people to give to their children, just so their kids can see why nonbelievers don’t believe. Fat chance of that happening though, I reckon.
This seems to be a problem that atheist worry about more than the religious. Understandably so in that atheism puts you in an often unpopular minority. I happened upon this story yesterday on how Richard Dawkins, a well known “atheist,” admitted he’s not 100% sure God doesn’t exist.
I see atheism as the belief that nothing exists that we can’t some how directly perceive. Some religious try to offer proof that God exists, which flies in the face of faith. If you prove God exists, there is no need for faith. It’d be like having faith that the Rock of Gibraltar exists. I prefer to believe that there is something beyond what we can directly perceive or ever will be able to directly perceive. As I’ve said before, I don’t like to limit my minds set.
Personally, I’d just take as your son asks questions, like “Why do our neighbors go to church and we don’t?” (Be sure and tell him that Catholics believe atheists can go to Heaven, even though you don’t believe there is a Heaven.) Don’t do what my oldest daughter allowed my grandson to do. My grandson decided at an early age he to be an atheist. He also wanted to be a Boy Scout, i.e. a member of an organization that required belief in God as part of memberships. He lied to be able to join, after a couple of years he revealed to another boy he was an atheist. The boy told others and my grandson ended up being kicked out of the Boy Scouts. Some how, the Boy Scouts and other kids were the evil ones in all this although it all started with his lie to take advantage of them.
Another challenge your son may face is that, according to the merican Sociological Association, atheist are more likely to be less educated and poorer than church goers. The writer at the link believes much of this is due to the lack of a church’s social support system for atheists.
There are some benefits of religion. I find it admirable that you do have a children’s Bible book. I like reading the parables occasionally which are simply story lessons on life. Another favorite book of mine is “101 Zen Stories” edited by Paul Reps. Your son will have to be older to understand it.
One of my favorites: The emperor Goyozei was studying Zen under Gudo. He inquired: “In Zen this very mind is Buddha. Is this correct?”
Gudo answered: “If I say yes, you will think that you understand without understanding. If I say no, I would be contradicting a fact which you may understand quite well.”
On another day the emperor asked Gudo: “Where does the enlightened man go when he dies?”
Gudo answered: “I know not.”
“Why don’t you know?” asked the emperor.
“Because I have not died yet,” replied Gudo.
Seems I messed up a link.
Link to Dawkins: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102164/Richard-Dawkins-6.9-out-of-seven-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html
Link to American Sociological Asso story: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/21/inequality-grows-as-poor-ignorant-atheists-swamp-us/
And you’ll forgive me, but I think you’re misreading the article about poor/uneducated people being atheists. Actually, it’s the blog writer, as I checked out the original link, who’s getting it a bit wrong. Seems to me that people who are already poor and uneducated are dropping religion. I’m not sure what that means one way or another, but there are studies that show that many people, when they become more educated, tend to become less religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Still, I don’t think that anybody should be a believer or nonbeliever based on what other people believe. After all, a dumb person can be right about something, just as a smart person can be wrong.
“Still, I don’t think that anybody should be a believer or nonbeliever based on what other people believe. After all, a dumb person can be right about something, just as a smart person can be wrong.” (LcJ)
.
.
Now there’s a very well put and concise bit of lucidity!
YES, NO ONE should base their beliefs on what others think or believe, NOR suppositions over “how many intelligent or dumb people believe what.”
AND it’s also very true that otherwise very intelligent people can often be wrong on any number of things (“experts” DO tend to be almost as often wrong as they are right on a whole range of issues) and that uneducated, ignorant people (less likely actually “dumb/stupid” people…given that ignorance is a lack of knowledge NOT intellect, while “dumbness/stupidity” is the absence of the intellect needed to correctly process information) can be right about a whole host of things.
.
.
.
What I’ve always found hard to get is the vehemence that so many “so-called atheists” have against religions and religionists.
Leaving aside those who appear to revile one religion (ie. Christianity or Islam for instance) and rarely focus much rage on the others, as they are merely ethnic/religious bigots, there are still a LOT of other folks who viscerally revile all religions and all religionists.
Like I said, I don’t get that.
And I believe I have as much (if not MORE) reason to revile religions (especially Catholicism (given my long ordeal of maltreatment at Catholic School), BUT individual “believers” have never really been a threat or even an annoyance to me. I’ve never had any problem telling folks that “I’m out on all that.”
Moreover, IF the fear of some giant “cop in the sky” keeps some people from misbehaving worse than they already do. . .I very much appreciate that. Many, MANY people tend to be much more dangerous than the wildest of animals. Even the most predatory of animals tend not be as cold and calculating as some humans are.
If religion or anything else (mediation, etc.) makes some folks less dangerous than they’d otherwise be, I’m glad of it.
As for the very long list of abuses caused in “the name of god/gods,”. . .in virtually every case, I blame the governments that partnered with those theologies.
It’s vital that we come to put the blame where it rightfully belongs. One of the reasons America’s Founders 1st enshrined religious liberty, AND while acknowledging that our laws and customs derive specifically from our Judeo-Christian morality, barred government from sanctioning or favoring any specific religion was because they knew first-hand the horrific abuses of earlier partnerships between various governments and various religions.
Re: The Dawkins quote. I don’t find it very surprising that he said that, considering he pretty much says the same thing in The God Delusion. His point is that it’s not good to be absolutely certain because there might be something that you don’t know or don’t understand. I’m the same way. I’m not sure if I give myself a 6.9 out of 7. Maybe a 6.6.
I don’t know any atheists who describe their (lack of a) belief this way though. I won’t speak for every one, but for me, it’s just that I don’t find any of the arguments for God to be very convincing. Considering that I don’t believe in any concept of a god that’s been described to me,, I just describe myself as an atheism.
I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, but until I am, I’m just going to assume that there aren’t any deities out there.
Agnostics have an easier time with the question, I guess. In the hypothetical, I’d probably tell my child that lots of people believe different things even though none of those things can be experienced in the same way that my child and I experience being with each other.
I’d go on to explain that there is so much wonder and discovery to be found among the things we can experience that I don’t feel the need to go trying to figure out things we can’t experience. But other people do and they seem to enjoy the process so much that they might ask you to come try to figure out the stuff they are interested in with them. It’s okay to tell them, “No, thank you.”
“I happened upon this story yesterday on how Richard Dawkins, a well known “atheist,” admitted he’s not 100% sure God doesn’t exist.” (DaD)
.
.
Richard Dawkins is a fool. . .but in his defense, he sells a lot of books.
In that article, Dawkins appears to make that statement to seek to inanely include agnostics (empiricists, like myself) in with faith-based believers, like himself.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED); atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god, while agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we really know nothing.
One of the latest postulates “a universe from nothing” supposes a system in which matter and energy ALWAYS existed, BUT, of course, we know that all matter (and therefore all energy) has a starting point. . .somewhere, back in the eternal vastness of that eternal past, there was a point at which there was merely “the void of empty space”. . .that “perfect vacuum. The question as to where that initial spark, that first bit of matter and energy came from is not satisfactorily eliminated by postulating “eternal matter and energy.”
Agnostics are empiricists who merely acknowledge that there are some things that appear humanly unknowable. They tend to hold this position because reason compels them to doubt the existence of any specific god/gods, yet they resist calling themselves atheists because they hold to that view tentatively.
In that regard, agnosticism is the position counter to Gnosticism – the belief that a human being can possess knowledge about a god. It’s an epistemological term – about the possibility of knowledge in regard to the existence of a Creator – and not a statement about matters of belief. ‘Agnostics’ hold to the epistemological position that human beings can’t actually know anything about something beyond nature, something theists call ‘supernatural’. So they believe that there’s no way for a human to know anything about a ‘god’ and there are many theists who agree with agnostics on that.
Theists can be agnostics, in fact, many theists say that they hold to their god belief on faith because they agree that we humans can’t know things about the supernatural, or ‘god’. Some very famous theologians have agreed that man is limited and that this means that man cannot have ‘god knowledge”. The list of theologians would include people like Martin Luther or Soren Kierkegaard.
It is this empirical doubt that separates agnostics from BOTH Gnostics AND atheists, who, as Lance does here (and elsewhere) imply that there is some reason or evidence to support the view “God does not exist,” whereas ALL empirical thought leads ONLY to the conclusion that “we DO NOT know.”
I don’t keep up with the debate of atheism vs agnosticism vs gnosticism except when it falls in my lap. Christopher Hitchens was the only atheist whose opinions I’ve read much of lately, but not on religion as much as culture and politics.
many theists say that they hold to their god belief on faith because they agree that we humans can’t know things about the supernatural, or ‘god’. I’ve read this line of though too. But, again, who knows. Argue your limitations and they are yours. Then again, faith is what most religions preach, faith in the unseen and unprovable. As I said above, if it’s provable, it doesn’t require faith.
We are here now. What are we going to do? That seems more important than arguing over the existence of God. Religion does seem to help a lot of people decide what to do though.
“Then again, faith is what most religions preach, faith in the unseen and unprovable. As I said above, if it’s provable, it doesn’t require faith.
“We are here now. What are we going to do? That seems more important than arguing over the existence of God. “ (DaD)
.
.
I think the issue many have with religion is that such faiths (including atheism – USSR & Mao’s China) have been responsible for many tens of millions of deaths and have been a source of tremendous conflict throughout human history.
Of course, almost all of that conflict came from governments using religion and not the other way around.
The poison in Theocracy is government, just as surely as the poison in Corporatism is government. It’s unfortunate that so many educated people fail to see that.
I was raised and educated as a Roman Catholic, but abandoned that faith very young.
I don’t think either Catholics, other Christians or any other co-religions are innately bad, at all. In fact, to the extent that they keep some people striving to be more moral and decent, even if only “not to get on the bad side of some divinity”. . .that’s almost certainly a good thing.
Still, given that the accepted Gospels (there were numerous other ones not accepted) were written many years AFTER Jesus’ death and that Jesus himself was actually an orthodox Rabbi named Joshua of Joseph who led a Jewish revolt against Roman authority AND stranger STILL, that what has come to be called “Christianity” is really based almost entirely on the teachings of Paul, a man who had been an orthodox Jew (like Joshua of Joseph), but who converted to Roman Mithracism, thus paganizing those beliefs to the extent that Thomas Jefferson came to note, “There is very little Christ in Christianity.”
I am not a “believer,” but I have no issue with those who hold to that faith. . .or any other.
I DO take issue with governments partnering with religions to better control the people and to rationalize actions for the benefit of the connected few. . .which is what most governments have done.
The odd thing for me is that I’ve met few “Christians” who deny the Crusades and the Roman Catholic Church’s involvement in them for the personal gain of the governments involved, BUT I’ve met many “atheists” who either deny the fact, or the extent of the mass murders of Stalin & Mao and the fact that they were related to the government sanctioned faith of atheism.
As in Christian and Muslim Theocracies, it’s the toxic nature of governments (and the entitled mentality of so called “elites”) that is the poison, rather than any given faith.
I don’t believe that atheism is any better nor worse than any other faith, in regards to individual decency. . .good people can believe in any given belief system. It’s when governments sanction/endorse one that horrific things tend to get done in the name of faith.
I agree with your position on government, and the partnering of religion and government. Government usually ends up being controlled by people lusting for power and/or wealth. People like that don’t hesitate to use religion for their ends.
Jeebus Cripes, JMK, you’re still spitting out this nonsense that’s been refuted ad nauseum on this board? I’d write a refutation, but I need to go slam my head into a brick wall right now.
“Jeebus Cripes, JMK, you’re still spitting out this nonsense that’s been refuted ad nauseum on this board?. . .” (LcJ)
.
.
My view that “The poison in Theocracy is government, just as surely as the poison in Corporatism is government. It’s unfortunate that so many educated people fail to see that,” may have been debated (though I don’t recall anyone challenging it), but it has not and will not be refuted, as such facts tend to be hard to refute.
I’m assuming that’s what you’re taking issue with.
Whatever you may be, my good JMK, we can confidently dismiss empiricism as a constituent. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Actually I’m completely empirical in my outlook on every matter. Expanding Variability requires that I consider that we don’t have enough information about the majority of the things we consider. That new data always tends to uncover/present new (previously unseen and unconsidered) variables makes most conclusions suspect.
Regarding “eternal matter” (which you appear to take issue with), physics (the 1st law of Thermodynamics) postulates that matter/energy is constant in a closed system. Given that matter and energy, are constant and that all individual forms of matter/energy are subject to entropy (degradation), that would seem to indicate that all matter/energy has a start and an end point.
Quantum mechanics theory hypothesizes that there is a continual creation and subsequent almost immediate annihilation of particle and anti-particle pairs everywhere in the universe. This process results in what is called “vacuum energy.” and it has been measured (see Casimir effect), BUT this process does not tend to result in the actual creation of matter, because these particle pairs immediately degrade upon their appearance.
Moreover, this “vacuum energy” is NOT hypothesized to be “coming from ‘nothing,” as, to date, no one has postulated that the law of the conservation of mass and energy is, or has been anywhere or at any time violated.
So, there appears to be no way to empirically believe that “matter/energy always existed,” without presuming that SOMEWHERE along the line “something derived out of nothing,” which would seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
.
.
.
I believe that seems to be the only portion of my above view that appears to confound you. Still, as I’ve often acknowledged, you and/or anyone else has every right to believe that “matter/energy is eternal,” or even make the assumption that “gnostic atheists” (like Lance) who seems to believe that there exists “some evidence” that bolsters the view that god/gods don’t exist. . .I only insist that such folks do not claim their views are based on empirical evidence (as there is NO empirical evidence for such views), thus claiming folks who acknowledge that “we simply don’t have enough information” (like me) as belonging to their “faith.”
IF I had some sort of “faith,” even a faith in “democracy” or the “innate goodness of mankind,” or even that “advanced civilization has improved the behavior of men,” I’d immediately and gladly reconsider my empiricism, but I’ve found no evidence for any such faiths.
According to Gibbon, pure democracy led to the fall of the Roman Empire, the incredible amount of violence that exists and has long existed in our world shows that men are neither innately good OR bad and while the rise of homo sapiens was almost certainly born of genocide – the eradication of competing hominids (Neanderthals, Java Man & Peking Man), “civilization” hasn’t appeared to improve the behavior of mankind. Throughout “civilized” history slavery and horrific abuse was not only rampant but also state supported. The 20th Century saw, not a decrease but a huge increase in mankind’s spasm of violence (100 million killed in Mao’s purges, 50 million in the USSR beginning with Stalin’s purges and wars, 16 million killed by nazi exterminations and wars and millions of others killed by the likes of Sukarno, Pol Pot, Mugabe, etc.). Advanced civilization has allowed for more humans to survive on the planet, but it has done little (if ANYTHING) to improve man’s behaviors.
I think many who hold a “faith” in such things (as well as others) often mistakenly believe their views are based primarily in “empirical observations,” even though nothing could be further from the truth in such cases. Even things we believe we “know” are subject to change. Gravity has been shown impact the tiniest objects (sub-atomic particles) differently than they do larger ones.
Of course, the majority of the most brilliant of thinkers almost always believe there is some empirical foundation for their beliefs. . .only the most clever question everything. Very few “educated” people remain clever after completing such indoctrination.
My good JMK,
No, I was merely taking issue with your fundamentally malapropian misunderstanding of empiricism, as forcefully revealed in the second paragraph I quoted above as it was unwittingly, which you then insisted on doubling down on in the Clavinesque exposition which followed.
Again, not that there is necessarily anything wrong with such personal intellectual choices: those here who deal with empiricism professionally already recognize your error, and those who don’t probably don’t care either way anyway. My comment was only intended at most as helpful broccoli-in-one’s-teeth advice, nothing more.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
I don’t think it’s necessarily Calvinist to believe that the laws of Thermodynamics that substantiate, among other things, that something (ie matter or energy) cannot derive out of nothing.
That appears to be even more unlikely to have occurred as abiogenesis.
Consider that the best modern supporters of abiogenesis can say in its defense is, “While the probability of having life arise from nonliving materials is extremely low and it would require a very unique and remarkable set of circumstances, Creationists often neglect to mention that the circumstances which could have led to abiogenesis probably happened a number of times before anything happened, and that even when something is statistically unlikely, it can still happen. Statistics are not disproof, they are merely statements of probability.”
INDEED.
Yes, the possibility of some form of rudimentary abiogenesis IS extremely remote, especially considering that real abiogenesis requires the enervating (enlivening) a bunch of complex proteins not merely combining them.
While it is almost certainly very possible that over eons, exactly the right chemicals could wind up in the same puddle to form the precise “chemical soup” required to form some of the basic amino acids required to constitute proteins, that is still several steps away from those amino acids actually combining under just the right circumstances to form those basic proteins required for life, but even positing ALL the precise combinations of chemicals coming together (and I believe that it isn’t all that far-fetched to believe that such combinations COULD very well have come together over the eons), we STILL don’t understand the mechanism that would be required to enervate inanimate matter.
So as remote as abiogenesis seems right now, it STILL seems more probable that the puzzle of how life is constituted and enervated, will be understood before we’re going to see the laws of thermodynamics violated in the ways you seem to suggest – “matter being produced from nothing”.
Lance – don’t forget to include the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although there is yet to be a pictorial version for young Pastafarians.
Perhaps I should make one.