[MD] Are theists irrational?

[Mary]

Hello Mark and all,

I think I am doing you a disservice, Mark.  I am skirting the issue here
about religion.  As I have revealed in other posts I am an atheist.  Perhaps
In fairness to you I should explain why.  I apologize in advance, because I
guarantee you will not like hearing this.  However, if we cannot be truthful
with each other, then we have no basis for real conversation and will never
reach any kind of understanding.  Perhaps you will find this interesting
because I have never heard this elsewhere.  As far as I know, It is a little
bit of original thought.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Probably pretty
presumptuous of me to think so. 

I am but one insignificant individual on a planet now occupied by billions.
Is it reasonable to assume that if there is a god he should care about me as
an individual? No.  Is it reasonable to assume that if I pray to him to ask
for guidance or favors, that he will respond? No.  "Why not?", you may ask.
The answer is because I do not believe I am of any particular significance
to a being so great as a god.  You see, god is a construction of the ego.
We require our ego for survival.  If we did not have a high opinion of
ourselves, we would not have the drive necessary for survival.  The ego is
an evolutionary construct that is necessary for our very survival - and
evolutionarily speaking - survival to reproduce into the next generation is
of the greatest importance. 

Let me say that again.  Our ability to survive into the next generation if
of the utmost importance to biology (the Biological Level if you will).
There is nothing more important to a biological being than that.  To
facilitate this, our brain evolved, along with that of every other species,
with in innate "high opinion" of ourselves as individuals.  My ego and yours
are biological survival mechanisms.  If you are not willing to defend
yourself, you will not survive.  You must not be willing to defer to others
in any way, otherwise you reduce your own chances of survival.  How would
evolution ensure this?  By constructing an enormous ego.

This enormous ego that we all have insists that we are important.  Dogs and
cats probably have an ego too, but they do not have the higher brain
functions necessary to feed it in the way we must.  Let me repeat that.  In
the way we must.  You see, once intelligence within our species developed to
the point where we started asking questions about why we are here and where
we go after we die, the ego had to be there to provide the answers.
Evolution ensured that.  If there were early humans that posed existential
questions (which I believe there absolutely were, since we do) then the
entire human species would have been at risk of extinction had we not had
some sort of brain function that prevented us all from just committing
suicide so to speak.  The ego will not tolerate this.  The ego is necessary
and saves our lives daily.  It is as necessary as breathing.  We are the
center of our own universe and that universe cannot be allowed to die.

The ego, then, is our will to live.  It is present in every creature, but
has achieved greatest complexity in humans.  This is because we need more
than a basic survival mechanism now.  Once we were capable of formulating
the big questions, another evolutionary threat was posed.  I am sure that
within the general population of all people existing at an early stage of
Homo Sapiens, there were some who did not have this enormous ego.  Those
people had a higher probability of failure to reproduce.  Over time, having
a small or non-existent ego was a trait weeded-out.  Those people, though
probably nicer and more thoughtful of others than we are, were unable to
compete.  Few if any of them are with us now.

It is unacceptable to us to believe that we are born and simply die without
continuing to exist in some fashion afterwards.  This is a byproduct of our
enormous ego.  You cannot just turn it off when you get old.  Have you ever
wondered why humility must be taught?  This is why.  Humility is not a
survival skill.  It doubtless existed in the distant past, but has been
gradually weeded out of our gene-pool.  

So, what does this have to do with why I don't believe in God?  I am a
seeker of humility.  It takes great shepherding of your thoughts to achieve
even a modicum of this; but, once you do begin to see it, you realize that
there is absolutely no reason to believe that you should exist after death.
Another way to put this.  What makes me think that I am so important that I,
where "I", after all is nothing more than my ego, should continue to exist
after death?  My brain will have ceased to function.  Those pretty bright
lights people with near-death experiences report to observe are nothing more
than a lack of oxygen to the physical brain.  Wouldn't it be pretty
presumptuous of me to believe, nay _insist_ that I have a "soul" which is
greater than my body?  Why?  That's ego talk.  Pure and simple. 

Do not take this as an insult, because it is not intended as such, but I
have always thought that religion is fine if you think you need it.


Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mary [mailto:marysonthego at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:23 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Cc: 'Mary'
Subject: RE: [MD] Are theists irrational?

Hello Mark,

[quote]
I still do not understand the moral distinction between using plate
tectonics to explain something, or a benevolent god.  
-----
This is getting old, but I will make one more attempt.  

1) Not everyone, everywhere believes in your God, so using her to explain
things to them may not be helpful.

2) There is no need to resort to God to explain things that have sound
scientific explanations existing, and even if no sound explanation exists
maybe that's because there is no explanation.  Do you require an explanation
for everything?

3) It is insulting personally to the people of Haiti who are in the midst of
a terrible tragedy (which, by the way could easily befall any of us in any
location tomorrow) to maintain that the earthquake is a punishment for Aids.
If Aids were a punishment for promiscuity then Lila and Pirsig would have
it, in which case, since you object to immoral behavior to this extent,
makes me wonder why you ever read the book.

4) Please explain how accusing people who have suffered a great tragedy of
bringing it upon themselves is helpful to you or them?  Does it make you
feel morally superior, Rigel?

5) You are exhibiting a moralistic, Victorian era, holier-than-thou point of
view that has been rejected by even those steeped in the Social Level 100
years ago.

[Quote]
But if we [myself and colleagues] are talking philosophically, we start with
faith, because we make so many assumptions to begin with.  We do not have to
prove that which we accept.
-----
Excuse me, but 

1) perhaps a little less talking and a little more experimenting should be
the order of the day in your scientific laboratory.

2) This is beginning to sound like the most unscientific group of
"scientists" I have ever heard of.  I do not know what you are working on,
but I hope I never have to rely on it.

Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.