Does religion convey good values?

Share |

What is the purpose of a relationship with God? The idea that you need a relationship with a person before you are able to connect with a being strikes me as asymmetrical. We associate a relationship with mutual interaction, yet a relationship with god is polar. You may as well be talking to yourself; and more importantly, there is good reason to think that you are talking to yourself. I do not dismiss that some Christians are even able to talk themselves into such a ‘frenzy’ that they can imagine gods.

Having established a ‘loving relationship’ with god, what is the purpose of the relationship? I guess it is a shared love for others. Why does God need us to do that? Why doesn’t God simply have the same relationship with them as he has with us.

It seems a great many people only want a relationship with God for material things. It might be argued that herein lies the problem. But I think if these people could have a good job, they would be more than happy to earn the money to get those material things. Maybe God could give them the courage and conviction so they could actually get those things if we concede the argument that the role of God is to give us things; that is the things which are not material. It makes one think; if the role of god is not to give us things, what is the point of having a relationship with him, unless we are a useless hobo.

Even if we admit that God has the capacity to give us things; so he has the capacity to take them away. How can we argue that we either deserve to receive things, or deserved to have things taken away from us? Does god intervene in our life to do justice or charity? At the end of the day, is it not simply us getting things, whether by earning them, stealing them or being given then. At the end of the day, is it not good for our sense of pride to do these things for ourselves.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do atheists find a purpose in their lives

Share |

Another common statement by Christians when they find out that you are an atheist is….’how do you find meaning in life’. What is there to live for if you are going to die in 50-60 years. This of course suggests that there is an after-life.

I personally find value in life from being good at a skill and exercising my mind. I think a lot of people do the same, whether they identify it as a sense of identity, or simply something they have to do to live their lives. I don’t particularly care a great deal about money, but I love the idea of investing in ideas which pay off, developing or discovering knowledge, and the companionship of people who have similar values…which is pretty rare, so instead I spread a lot of time investing in knowledge so that I can contribute to a better world, where my values have more likelihood of being held. I am thus fighting a pitiful education system, a collectivist government and a good handful of Christians. But it’s all fun if you are engaging your mind in purposeful, constructive, efficacious action. I can take pride in a hard day’s work, and at the end of the day its building something great, so at the end of my career I will be able to look back and say at any point that “I did that”. …then die with a smile on my face. Anyway, I won’t be complaining when I’m dead, and I’m not going to waste time worrying about it now.

------------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christianity is the origin of capitalism

Share |

There is a belief among some Christians that religion actually gave rise to Christianity. This idea was suggested to me in my early 20s. He must have studied a different period to me because I had always associated religion with the political and religious oppression of the Dark Ages.

Years later I would learn more about the period in history which placed this notion in his mind. It was the Calvinists of Switzerland, and he probably took some comfort from Thomas Aquinas who also had some notional support for freedom from tyranny. Adam Smith was a Christian too, and perhaps John Locke.

It is safe to say that anyone in this period is going to espouse to be a Christian, even if they are not, precisely because these periods were periods of oppression. We even have this legacy today…why is it that no one talks about religion and politics. Ok, you won’t be executed, but in those days people were, so they were more cautious. Today you are merely marginalized or alienated.

The point is that Christianity was incidental to the development of religion. Certainly there was the concept of ‘divine rights’ but most of these philosophers did not argue them on the basis of divinity, but rather on the basis of logic, which is the counter-point of faith and mystic revelation. The implication is that philosophers did not seemingly have much integrity, and not much scope for honesty about their religious beliefs. To be fair, the clergics and followers would have pulled them apart if they preached anything which contradicted the church. Look what happened to Galileo.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The Universe - A justification for God

Share |

People look at the magnificence of the universe, its expanse and complexity, and conclude that this is evidence of a God. I look at this reality and consider it justification for no God. Let's consider the evidence:
1. Science suggests that the universe is 20 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Despite this Christianity is a very human-centric philosophy. I cannot argue that religion is consistent with science, whether astrophysics or human nature. Religion to me is a repudiation of everything I know. I can disprove every argument you can make about religion.
2. Grand design: The idea that the universe is a miraculous design, so there must be a designer. This ignores the reality that there was no conscious designer for the universe, it developed or unfolded as a result of its nature. i.e. The materials comprising the universe developed as they must, in accordance with their physical properties.
3. Creation. The argument that there must be a God, otherwise who created the universe 20 billion years ago. The origin of the universe is a speculative issue, however I would posit that the universe was never created; that it has always existed. I would assert that every 20 billion or so the universe goes through a 'Big Bang', or sometimes perhaps smaller bangs. I don't think the universe has the uniformity in its evolution as posited by physicists.
4. Motive: A human-centric God as the maker of the universe and humanity is dubious when you consider the requirement for God to be so patient. He would have to wait 4 billion years for the Earth to form, and 20 billion years for the universe to develop before he could have created humanity. It seems more probable that he does not exist, and Christians are ignorant idiots.
5. Causation: The idea of a God defying all the natural laws that drive every other physical entity is another basis for driving a peg through the Christian hypothesis/'scare model'. The Christian philosophy is a repudiation of human nature, as shown elsewhere.

For a greater appreciation the smallness of humanity in the context of the universe watch this video clip. I recommend it not to show how small you are. You are very important to you, and to anyone who values you. You cannot detach the value from the valuer, which it was Christianity asserts. You are not intrinsically good. You are good for reasons....as determined by a thing which has the capacity to value, whether your pet dog, a presidential nominee, or your wife.

-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Intelligent Design - the pitfalls

Share |

I see this argument as an over-simplification or context-dropping if you prefer. Actually there is no definition of God since God does not exist. What people take to accept as God is really just a repudiation of what is 'real''. For instance God is 'supernatural' (= non-natural), Gof requires such to accept him on 'faith' (non-reason), he wants us to love others unconditionally (non-values), he wants us to live this life his way (non-reality) for a chance to live in another. When a dictator asks me to trust him to deliver a better life, I am cynical. When a ghost does it, I laugh. When >50% of the population think this is a reasonable proposition, I consider democracy dangerous.

Religious people seem to accept the notion that there was a Big Bang. I prefer to believe that there was a succession of Big Bangs every 24 billion years or so, that in fact the universe was not created or destroyed, but rather is recycled. I see no evidence that matter can be created or destroyed, just that it changes forms, whether at a chemical or sub-atomic level. The universe explodes, expands, coalesces, contracts, then explodes again. I dont see the need necessarily for a single 'symmetrical' Big Bang, because I see no structural reason for assymmetry. But maybe the assymmetry of the universe is reason to believe there are sometimes multiple Bangs or the coalition of matter. I don't know all the dynamics. I know that the ethics underpinning religion are flawed and contrary to human nature (ie. faith is not compatible with reason).
I dont think the creation of humanity is such a mystery. Nor do I think that the conditions for the development of life are so stretched. I think the problem is the low probability of sustaining conditions on a planet long enough (billions of years) without some meteorite destroying it. But we dont know we are alone. Maybe the odds are higher than we expect. Maybe lifeforms are on their way as we speak.
I dont think there is a wrong or right amount of energy, since there is a focus of area where conditions where conditions would have been right somewhere in the universe. The problem was not that there was no place suitable, the problem was sustaining those conditions. The 'cratered' moon shows Earth was spared destruction, that humanity was given the opportunity to evolve, because we had an atmosphere. Some want to believe it was because of God. But Earth is not the only planet with an atmosphere, or with oxygen. So where is the 'intelligent design' that requires God.
The next question is really a nonsense question. "Why were we created?" There is no answer to this question because its an illegitimate question. Its like asking the reason for reason. It just is. Reason is inherent in the transformation of things, not in the things themselves. You can't ask why an orange is yellow instead of green beyond understanding the light that causes it. It just is. At root this question is really 'why do life forms evolve?' to give it a non-religious bias? We just do. The nature of things is so organised. If we destroyed everything it would happen again, and not because of God's grace. What possible explanation could God have for the meteorite explosion that wiped out the dinosaurs? Did this perfect God decide to reschedule human evolution? Duh!
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A positive spin on religion

Share |

Is there anything positive we can say about religion? I think there is. Religion was man's first attempt to explain the events that shape his world. Its not surprising that religion is based on fear since in an age before science, there was a great deal that was unknowable. But we now know. It is not surprising that he is depicted in negatives, because we really have no relationship to him. Afterall isn't he a he because we dont know any better. Isnt he 'supernatural' because 'he' or 'it' is not natural.
So the most positive thing you can say about religion was that it was humanities first attempt to explain the world and the elements that shape it. But why do people still believe it today? I suggest its because fear-ridden people communicate the same fears and confusion to their kids.
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com