[MD] Are theists irrational?

[John Carl]

Mary, Arlo,

I just finished a delightful book by A. J. Jacobs about living the bible
literally, wherein an agnostic Jew tries to live by the bible as literally
as possible for a year.  A delightful book, full of wry observations and
interesting interviews from atheists to snake handlers.

Anyway Mary, pertaining to your point about utility, at the atheist meeting
the leader shared a tasty rhetorical tidbit I thought I'd pass on:  If you
ever do find an atheist in a foxhole, he'll be digging, not praying.

John

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Mark,
>
> Appreciate your comments.  I have read them all and will be pondering them
> over the long term I assure you.  Long live humility over ego!
>
> I have to say this, though, in defense of science.  It plain works.  It
> gives us some control over the vagaries of nature, you gotta admit.  It may
> not be THE answer, but we're on to something.  Who knows where it will go?
> If my car won't start I'd rather be equipped with a good set of metric
> socket wrenches than with faith.  Of this I am certain. :)
>
> Mary
>
> - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of markhsmit
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:18 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Are theists irrational?
>
> Hi Mary,
> Thank you for your thoughtful post.  I tried to address some of the
> misunderstanding in my
> previous response to you.  We have a different definition of God.  My posts
> are more from the spiritual side of things, if you will.  I have no
> interest
> in
> a dogmatic, human-like God.  It doesn't work for me.  I have some personal
> comments in your post below, for what they are worth.
> 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.
> The way I look at this is that I am just as insignificant as everything
> else.  The logical corollary
> of this is that I am just as significant as everything else.  My god does
> not look out for me.
> My God is a construction of the psychoemotional as far as my ability to
> interpret it.  But this
> interpretation is but a poor shadow.
>
>
> 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.I
> I personally do not think that evolution is a very useful way of looking at
> things.  There have been many discussion on this, it is just my belief.
> We are not governed by competition and survival.  We are drawn
> into niches like water is drawn into pools.  What exists is a
> perfect match for everything else that exists.  Much harm has been
> done in the name of evolution.
>
>
> 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.
> Yes I agree, this is how it seems, until one gets beyond the ego which is
> based on SOM.
>
>
> 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.
> I don't think that humility has to be taught, it just has to be accepted.
>  Again, basing
> ones belief on a survival skill I do not think is appropriate, that is just
> what we are
> taught.
>
>
> 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.
> Hmm.  I believe in reincarnation, not of the body/brain, but of the self.
>  We will never
> remember, because that resides only in the brain, which is gone.  But the
> sense
> of self continues.
>
>
> 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.
> I'm not sure that I need religion.  I suppose if one's belief system is
> based on modern
> psychology, then that could be argued.  But such a belief system is simply
> taught
> to us, and we accept it.  Then we think that it is truth.  I have no choice
> but to have
> a God.  In my opinion non of us do, we just all define it differently, it
> is
> the human
> condition to think we know.
>
> Thanks again,
> Mark
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>