Saturday, October 3, 2009

Arguments against evolution

Share |
Richard Dawkins has done a good job dispelling arguments against evolution in this article. Read his arguments from creationists about the evidence against evolution at Newsweek.

Actually reading the newspaper today, apparently there is new evidence suggesting a further link between chimps and homosapiens called 'ardipithecus ramidus. He is neither a human nor a chimp, but something in between. You can read this story at the NZ Herald. The evidence grows for evolution whilst there is no evidence against. No creationists can find evidence against evolution. There are no misplaced fossils. From creationists however we are already getting the rationalisation that the Bible is just a story to depict ethical principles, and not a factual document.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

False profits of Creationism

Share |
There are few scientists who still retain a belief in creationism. This might be regarded as evidence enough that creationism needs no further consideration. I care to differ. Science is not a democracy. It only takes one thinker to be right, and often its a critical thinker who goes against the majority.

DNA EVOLVED BY CHANCE? - Watch the best video clips here
Here is a video by a scientist against Evolution. Interesting he is not identified by name, he does not identify as a Christian, he does not identify as a Creationism, nor does he pose an alternative explanation. His argument that Evolution is Stupid appears to be based on the fact that:
1. Humanity is not at the top of the evolutionary chain. He rests this argument on the belief that complexity is synonymous with 'higher' or 'intelligent' life forms. I would suggest that is a weak argument. Life only needs to become intelligent if its life depends upon it. Humans are surviving with 42 chromosomes, so why do they need 100 (like a carp).
2. Common evolution: There is no evidence to suggest that humanity developed from the same ancestor. I actually agree with his statement here. There is no necessity for all life forms to share a common lineage, though there does need to be a sequence or progress from simple to complex. This is why its probable that humanity shares a common lineage, but its not a requirement. It in no way supports any argument against evolution though.
3. Common building blocks: He suggests that the reason why we can eat other life forms is because of common DNA. I reject that. Plenty of poisonous plants I cannot eat. The fact that we come from a pool of 20 amino acids is not relevant.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, August 24, 2009

Charles Darwin and the principle of evolution

Share |
Charles Darwin in 1859 released his book outlining the process of 'natural selection' by which living things have evolved on Earth. In this video about evolution Richard Attenborough highlights in single terms the process by which natural selection accounts for the development of all life forms including humanity. It is noteworthy that important fossil finds are still being made today which give ever greater clarity to this natural process. Radiometrics have also been important in determining the age of fossils and rocks, whilst the genetics is promising to unlock even further discoveries.

My particular interest is in the value of science to the development of philosophy and politics. What this video does highlight on this subject is how religion is not only a repudiation of science, it played a big part in repressing scientific development. Darwin postponed publication of his works out of deferrence to the ignorance, superstition and fears of his Christian brethren. Today science and indeed all knowledge and even our livelihoods are being repressed by religion. Such is the depth of the betrayal of human nature.
You can see the video about Charles Darwin and evolution at this website.
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com - just as importantly Andrew Sheldon evolves. Always testing convention.

Friday, August 14, 2009

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

Religion in Western countries

Share |
People reading my religious blog might be inclined to find me very critical about religion. They might find merit in my statements about religion in the third world. True, the third world is full of desperate people who use religion as a crux to manipulate or deceive others out of money. They will assert in defence of religion 'that that does not happen in the West'.

I want to make a number of points to dispel any residue Christianity in you:
1. Religion in the Western colonies was just as manipulative historically as it was in the third world. Afterall religion was essentially a 'franchise for manipulation' developed in the West before it was spread to the developing nations. You can consider religion to be the first franchise. It was not about accumulating money, it was about accumulating souls.
2. Modern religion is not as manipulative as it was in the old days because general standards of education standards have improved. Not just in your country, but internationally. Churches have to apply quality control measures. Yet no accountability or special ethical standards have been adopted by organised religion. It is all about managing perceptions. In fact, with respect to sexual abuse, the church has proven highly secretive, soliciting confidentiality agreements and offering pay-offs to 'aggrieved' persons. In the same way the Church has also been protective of its 'brand', and it maintains strict compliance with central policy. This would be understandable and logic if indeed logic and judgement were facets of religion, but they are repudiated by the churches. Faith and acceptance were the premises I was raised upon.
3. Rule of law. You cannot get away with deceit in the West as you can in developing countries. People in developed countries have more to lose from breaking the law, both in terms of future employability, damages from any successful law suit, and the prospect of imprisonment. In developing countries, people are less likely to seek legal remedy, police are less likely to take action, and courts are more readily paid off. The poor have no chance against the rich, if only because they don't have the education or support to take successful action.
4. Ethical values. Traditional values in developing countries are often of a low standard, particularly in the lower income portion of the population. There tends to be greater reliance on gratuities, a stronger desire for 'easy gains', greater cynicism about the system (thus greater willingness to breach the rules of that system), less judgement, greater acceptance of collectivist/religious philosophies (ie. They embody these philosophies as opposed to giving lip-service to them). In truth they are the practical manifestation of a Christian people, yet they are materially and spititually they are broke. They have greater integrity than any rich man in their city because they have nothing to give.
5. Western romanticism. The Romantic tradition associated with the Western Industrialisation is a philosophical system that sits juxtaposed against the naturalism of the prior period. Unfortunately romanticism never had a complete philosophical justification. It was smeared by collectivists who far out-numbered the logical exponents of justice. Romanticism still requires a defence today.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Religion breeds hypocrisy

Share |
I'm back in the Philippines. Walking around the neighbourhood yesterday a curious gentleman asked me where am I from. Suddenly another neighbour zeroed in on the conversation. Where are you from? Are you staying in the village? Who are you staying with? Are you married? Do you have any children?
One gets the impression these people are victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Such problem solving skills? So purposeful. It might make you ponder exactly what purpose they are intent on solving. Well no problem per se, except the sins of the world. But is that really their intent. Well no. But either is it to be a good Christian since there really is no such thing. There are only Christians with fewer contradictions. These are the most hypocritical Christians you will ever find. Severely crippled, conflicted minds. Never have you passed across such judgemental people.....and to what end?
I personally engage in a great deal of judgement. Nothing wrong with judgement. The problem is with judges who don't self-reflect. Their purpose is not so much seeking a truth, but running away from one. Fine I say, judge me. There are just two problems with the existence of such people:
1. They have the vote - which means they have some level of power, though in a 'modern' democracy the vote really means very little. In fact, never did it really mean much, so I don't know why people talk it up, like we have freedom. We have the pretense of it.
2. They have the power to initiate force. Far be it for me to incite violence, but the reality is that these people are reproached by a mind like mine for several reasons. (i) I'm educated. (ii) I'm a symbol of the West, (iii) I'm wealthier than them, (iv) I'm consistent in my ideas, (v) I'm courageous, and finally (vi) I am confident.
I am a repudiation of everything they believe in, except their most basic premises (which no one can refute), so they are forced to hate me, to castigate me, to judge. But they will never reflect on the reasons. They are not that honest. In fact they don't even appraise me on a conceptual level. Instead they are motivated by fearings. There are several things they look for: (i) A desire to forge relationships by finding common ground, (ii) An interest in their lives, because they want to talk about themselves, (iii) Finding an excuse to engratiate themselves into your life.
Just because they see more evidence that I am not their type. Don't think that this would repell them. On the contrary, it would be a basis for rationalising or justifying their ultimate purpose, to use me in some way. Being a foreigner, they think I have money to share with them, visa assistance to grant them, or a daughter whom I can marry. In the Philippines I am often offered a prospective wife. I am less surprised to see women do that since they support their children's best interests. Be wary when siblings are setting you up. They are hoping for the day when you will support their alcohol or drug habit.
This is of course the seedier side of the Philippines, whether its the pretentious 'no class' landed class or the uneducated, desperate poor living on hopes. Fortunately I am a diamond-hunter, and as a diamond hunter I am only interested in understanding 'dirt' as long as it helps me find diamonds.
Slightly less painful as dealing with these religious hypocrites is dealing with people who give weight to the assertions or judgements of these people. The victims and fence sitters need to assert their views if such arguments are to be overcome. They are cowards only emboldened by the belief that they embody the social conscience. That is why they hate me so much. I am only accepted by pluralistic thinkers. They too might be conflicted, but they are at the very least (i) Not threatening, (ii) Open to alternative ideas.
The problem of course is that their capacity to know the truth is limited by their lack of conceptual skills. They have been sabotaged by the same Christian dogma as the neighbourhood snakes. The problem is that they are not for me, they are just not against me. They do judge, but its sting is benign because they have effectively desexed themselves, removing the last vestiges of moral pride. They have decided that ethics is subjective. "What is right for you, is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me'. This of course does not prevent coercion, though it tends to be subtler than the snakes in the neighbourhood. They will tend to not repay loans rather than steal money. But they also don't share the same ambition, and they might be safe enough to be beyond even such pettiness. Such souls have long been attractive to protective men who like to be taken care of. So long as you allow such people to believe that, you will pose no threat to them, and them no threat to you.
This dichotomy is the basis for the perpetrator-victim culture we find in the Church. We need to look at organised religion as a business system. Its a place where people come not for religious salvation but business connections. The price of admission is a paltry some. If you pay more you get to network with a higher 'class' of people. i.e. More money which means more influence, that assumes you can connect or resonate in the minds of these people. Money is power in the Church as well. But its not enough. You need to be influential. You need to make people feel good. Not by setting new standards, but by dropping them. By making every person you connect with feel that you have a special bond with them, and then having the diplomacy to drop them like a sack of potatoes as you move on to the next person. This is the realm of modern diplomacy as it is practiced in the Church, politics and business. Some business is different because it demands some level of standards, i.e. We have higher standards for engineers, architects, doctors, and sometimes accountants and CEOs, depending on the stage of the economic cycle.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Monday, May 25, 2009

Politics in the Catholic Church

Share |
There was an interesting story on ‘Australian Story’ tonight about a Catholic priest at St Marys Church is Brisbane. Father Kennedy was evicted as administrator of St Mary’s because of his alleged ‘unCatholic’ practices. It showed how ‘unCatholic’ the Vatican is, because it sends out spies to check on its parish administrators. Now, one cannot blame them for taking an interest or for investigating the conduct of Father Kennedy. Without question he is engaging in controversial practices, but then two issues were overlooked:
1. The Church survives on the contributions of its members. In this case Father Kennedy has the overwhelming support of his congregation
2. The Church never had a dialogue with the Father to establish the facts, or his position on them.
3. The Church was lacking objective perspective, and certainly it was acting with a ideological zeal that cannot be good for the Church.

This case highlights the hypocrisy of the Church or religious institutions. There is no question there are two issues here:
1. The ethical values of the Church – the institution
2. The ethical values of religion – as displayed by Father Kennedy, or anyone else who displays religious conviction which is independent or free thinking

It is apparent that the Vatican wants to dictate how its Church administrators conduct themselves. The problem for this administrator was that he embraced homosexuals, allowed women to address the congregation and even allowed them to address the Church. One can understand why this man was highly regarded by his congregation. He made people feel they mattered. The Church on the other hand wants to tell people how it is. It has an ideological agenda. That’s ok, but it’s an agenda divorced from the facts of reality. The Vatican is living in the past.
With respect to Father Kennedy, I support him to the extent that he has his own judgement, I support that he earnestly believes he is right, but he to departs from facts with respect to his values. Implicit in his values are that values are intrinsic, that people are good in themselves, regardless of what that may do. This is a hard position to maintain because he is not in a position where he can thus criticise the actions of the Church. No wonder he went relatively silently, but not before knocking the camera out of the hands of a spy from the Vatican. He displays the flawed values inherent in religion, though I respect his stand of relative merit. The Church is an autocratic institution; clearly there is no room for liberals. Clearly his popularity is a reproach to the institutional hierarchy. Further related news here and here.
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Attention all atheists!!
In fact anyone who has had an interesting encounter with a Christian which involved manipulation, deception or blatant rationalisation. This is research or material for a forthcoming book. I am not suggesting that all Christians are criminals, dangerous or threats to society, but I am suggesting that Christianity is a basis for moral inefficacy. There is a reason why Christian nations are always at war. There is a reason why former Christians (or children of Christians) have a tendency to drift into cults and extreme religious groups. Thank you for any life experiences you can recall. ----------------------------------------------- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com