You're doing it wrong!

[sobrique]

So how do you tell the religions of the world that they've got it all wrong?

Here is the problem - a religion is a structure built by men. It's using 'access to divinity' as a basis for assertion of power. The clergy are no more holy than you are. Or anyone else for that matter. They have no special insight in to the mind of God.

Perhaps they're better educated than average - less the case now, but certainly in the past this was so - and thus worth listing to for the sake of their knowledge and wisdom. But the whole thing built on the false pretence that God cares about your individual destiny.

We have this conceit, humankind, that God loves us. That the world is ordered, and layed out with a plan, and God orchestrates it all. And conceit it is - there is nothing in the way of proof that this is the case.

It's based on this assumption of control. That the universe itself is controlled and orchestrated. This I believe, is grounded in the fact that we're all ... well, a bit unprepared for the concept that there might be nothing else. That this might be our only shot at existance, and there really is no one holding our hand.

But it's not. The Universe is more a work of art, than a planned mechanism. Complicated and intricate, with much beauty at all scales, from the intergalactic, down to the fantasically fascinating interactions at the subatomic scale. This work of art unfolds, evolves and shifts. Maybe it's for a reason, but ... art has no need for a purposes - that it exists is enough.

So for all your prayers, remember this. A prayer doesn't change anything. There is no one listening, no one caring about how sad you are. A prayer is meditation. It's focussing _your_ mind on the things at hand - what is important, what is not. And that's good. Just don't go thinking there's any intervention coming, because there isn't.

There is something that set the Universe in motion. There's something that gives us all the ability to think for ourselves. There's something that set in motion the seeds of life itself. Now stop being sheep, and use that gift. Choose to be yourself, not part of the flock.

Comments

[fearmeforiampink]

The problem is, faith. As well as intentioned as it might be, telling people what they believe is wrong, isn't going to get that far just with a hope they'll see they're wrong.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

Beliefs are awkward, if only there was some way that you could prove something in a rational and logical manner. If only we had that then mothers could prove to daughters that their new boyfriend was bad for them, that football team A was better than team B and that cats are superior to dogs.

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

Suspect you're preaching to the choir, here. :)

I like the old Gnostic idea -- there's no need for priests and popes as intercessors between humans and the Divine (whatever that might be -- and "the observable Universe" is as good an idea as any, and better than most). Everyone can do it.

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

You don't because they aren't.

Believing everyone in all organised religions have got it wrong pre-supposes you know what's right? If you did then things would be very different, not only for you but for everyone else in the immediate area.

Your argument is flawed on the following points:

This is a universe with structure; thermodynamics does not allow for cellular existence in all it's imperfections; evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds. The mere fact your grandmothers and grandfathers met, married and produced your parents who in turn did the same for you is based on a series of events that defies probability. Alan Moore says this eloquently in Watchmen.

On an subjective level, prayer changes perception. Even the act of cognition of a situation alters it at a subjective level; by surrendering your need for control over that situation to a higher power, you've acknowledged the presence of a higher power and your need for something to intervene.

If it happens is another matter (you still have a say in how it turns out even if you've relinquished control) which means you can still make a difference. However, you changed your perception of the situation at a subjective level. And if the universe agrees with you - great!

To believe the universe is art presupposes the existence of an artist; presupposes a message to be interpreted (even if it's nothing more than a doodle indicating 'God I'm bored') by those who can understand such subtleties. To believe that it is a series of random events collaged together with elements thrown in according to blind circumstance cheapens the whole experience.

This world, this life is much more than sound & fury, signifying nothing. How would Newton have stood on the shoulders of giants if those giants had been scrawling doggerel in taverns or laying in the arms of their lovers instead of following the inspiration that there was an order to such things and laying down a trail for others to follow.

Yes there have been evils worked in the name of divinity; there has also been considerable good done in the same names. Do we therefore condemn the whole structure? Do we throw out the care shown to the injured, the advancement of academic sciences by forming universities to lament fallen soldiers or food brought to the starving because people have been people?

Being able to think independently does not lessen your ability to be part of something greater. That choice is always up to you and if you prefer to stand apart, that's your decision. Even if you're a wolf, you know what a pack is...

Though life is rarely easy, I know I am loved.

[fearmeforiampink]

But mothers are often wrong, and both cats and dogs have their own advantages. And new useful new ideas often come from the contention between existing ideas – when thesis and antithesis meet, synthesis, best of both, can be formed.

[fearmeforiampink]

thermodynamics does not allow for cellular existence in all it's imperfections;

O RLY? Please tell me you're not using the "The earth needs an external power source" entropy argument...

evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds.

And had a long time to meet those odds.

The mere fact your grandmothers and grandfathers met, married and produced your parents who in turn did the same for you is based on a series of events that defies probability

Only from the position of someone trying to predict the production of a sobrique in advance. The chance of someone rolling along from the population producing the next generation is quite a reasonable possibility.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I stand somewhere between the rock and the hard place.

I loathe organised religion in the same way I loathe labels and pigeonholes. However I do have my own belief system that is based partially on physics, chemistry, biology, and maths, and partially on my own ideas of why the world is. I DO think most organised religions have got it wrong, because the Universe is an entirely subjective experience, and any organisation, religious or otherwise, that tells you how the Universe IS, cannot be right for every single person on the planet. It just can't work. People are too different.

So whilst I don't believe in gods of any sort, I do believe other people do, and that gods therefore exist in the subjective version of the Universe that those god-fearing folk live in - in my Universe they don't exist and I therefore don't worry about them.

I do not, however, believe that this is the first and last time this particular energy form, currently known as Elrohana, has existed, because science tells me energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change state, and thus I have high hopes of finding a new form after this one wears out, perhaps as a speck of dust or maybe even a seed, an amoeba, an embryo, a cloud formation. Wouldn't that be wonderful, to have the cloud's view of the Earth, assuming we arrogant currently-human energy packages haven't ravaged it beyond beauty by the time I change state?

[malal.livejournal.com]

if only there was some way that you could prove something in a rational and logical manner

http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_0.png

I CBA to find the relevant comic - if indeed there is one.

Though, I will admit, it's not entirely useful in some of the cases quoted.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

You know, Ed, the bridge doesn't suit you.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Time to nit pick I'm afraid.

To believe that it is a series of random events collaged together with elements thrown in according to blind circumstance cheapens the whole experience.

Why? It's not at all obvious that that would follow.

How would Newton have stood on the shoulders of giants if those giants had been scrawling doggerel in taverns or laying in the arms of their lovers instead of following the inspiration that there was an order to such things and laying down a trail for others to follow.

While a fair point, that's kinda off topic. What does a belief in order have to do with a discussion on religion? Nothing so far has been arguing against it.

Yes there have been evils worked in the name of divinity; there has also been considerable good done in the same names.

Agreed.

Do we therefore condemn the whole structure?

Maybe. As always, it should be debated & questioned. Does it on balance cause more good that evil? It's not a question I feel at all armed to tackle.

Do we throw out the care shown to the injured, the advancement of academic sciences by forming universities to lament fallen soldiers or food brought to the starving because people have been people?

None of them are intrinsically tied to religion though. Heck, I'm not even sure that they're even mostly done via religion, but the numbers to back that up are going to be hard to dig up.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Subjective version of the universe? I believe that several large branches of philosophy would whole heartedly agree with you there. :-)

YA SRSLY

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

Earth doesn't need an external power source unless you discount the presence of celestial bodies who don't always have a helpful influence on the biosphere. However, the external power source does tie into mitochondria in cells; if planning on evolving into amoeba, you need something to perpetuate the strenous activity of genetic reproduction.

Evidence exists for mitochondria being external organisms caught within a membrane who had to evolve a symbiotic relationship in return for very limited travel/reproduction opportunities and all the glucose they can metabolise. There's nothing in it for the mitochondria yet they're the only way a cell gets enough power to do the job.

Interesting point about the bombadier beetle - the mixture of the chemicals it uses occurs in an organ that is almost the perfectly wrong place to do so. There are organisms with similar organs that aren't as near-suicidal as the bombadier beetle but for some reason, the imperfection has perpetuated over millions of years.

The fact that sobrique has become who he is is the culmination of a series of events which if you take them on their raw probability is so very outside the pale that you would almost certainly discount it as statistically infeasible.

And yet, he exists!

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

It's not at all obvious that that would follow.
If you take the view that all this is the result of a series of random events, there would be no need for critical reasoning; to quote the philosopher "shit happens".

While wonderful things can happen under this regime, society would degenerate quickly. Consequences would be a lottery and while anarchy is in principle a noble endeavour, very few people have the time to make a worthwhile attempt.

What does a belief in order have to do with a discussion on religion?

Quite a lot. If you posit the existence of a creator/artist and their responsibility for the work in progress, it implies a causal relationship and a chain of events. Some say mythology, others intelligent design and yet others scientific theory. People need an order they can subjectively accept (even if they can't objectively observe it) as the alternative is chaos.

None of them are intrinsically tied to religion though.
Examples of religious charities are plentiful and actions in religion based on charity are equally plentiful. If you want a quantitative analysis that may require much Internet use but it does run from alms to zakat.

Formation of universities (especially Oxford) was done during the time of Henry VI by establishing a chantry for singing the praise of the dead. As these were populated by monks initially, there was considerable book collections associated with these and these became breeding grounds for clerks (the word cleric comes from the same root as clerk) and with Humanism, the chantries became universities for the study of the arts and sciences just in time for mercantile middle classes in need of knowledge.

Feeding the hungry? Doesn't ring any bells at all??

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

The clergy are no more holy than you are. Or anyone else for that matter. They have no special insight in to the mind of God.

Islam is based on just that. The imam (in theory, at least) is elected by the people as being the most suitable for the job based on their knowledge of religious matters. Their purpose is to lead prayer. There are a few other functions, such as being the official to perform the marriage rite, but this is more on the same grounds as a registrar.

Quakerism is even closer to what you've just said. Quakers have very wide-ranging beliefs, although the faith is historically rooted in Christianity. Some Quakers don't even believe in god. The difference between a prayer and a meditation is that meditation is an isolating thing, with a self-focus. A prayer is a connection to something, be it the people in your thoughts, the people in the room or a higher being or holy spirit. A Quaker meeting is an interesting thing, because it's like meditation, but with a few words now and then from other people's deepest thoughts.

Based on comments you've made here and in the past, I think you'd find it an interesting thing to learn more about.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

Until science can answer those basic questions of human nature what use is it?

Re: YA SRSLY

[fearmeforiampink]

Well, unless the mitochondrial workers union were important enough... oh wait, they're just subcelular organisms, they're just along for the ride, there doesn't need to be anything 'in it' for them.

The bombadier beetle works. The fact that its organ is in the 'nearly wrong place', to me suggests more of making use of how chance led to its formation than anything else, like the way our food and air pipes cross.

And the 'wonde' of sobrique is only a wonder when you try amd predict it ahead of time – given the known start conditions, you could probably make a reasonable case for someone rather approximately as he is to exist. And oyu can make a very good case for 'some human being' to exist. Realy, what you're saying, and what Alan Moore said, sounds very pretty, and means very little.

Rolling a one on a thousand sided dice seems infeasable, until you're told you're rolling that dice six billion times.

[fearmeforiampink]

If you take the view that all this is the result of a series of random events, there would be no need for critical reasoning; to quote the philosopher "shit happens".

While wonderful things can happen under this regime, society would degenerate quickly. Consequences would be a lottery and while anarchy is in principle a noble endeavour, very few people have the time to make a worthwhile attempt.

Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation

Why? People are interesting, groups prosper better than individuals, sex is fun, raising children is rewarding, leaving something behind that will last to the next generation makes you proud

Critical thinking is useful in the absence of gods or an external reason for life. Whether you believe in god or not, people need to deal with consequences of their actions, thus the world won't degenerate into horror because there's no external thing to keep an eye on us for it.

Morality does not have to depend on an external force.

As regards charity, can you prove that those people wouldn't have given in the absence of religion? There are a lot of very successful non-religious charities these days. Similarily, can you prove that the universities wouldn't have been formed in the absence of religion?

[fearmeforiampink]

Microwaves. Spaceships. Computer games. Cheap dice. Reduced death rates. Cures for the majority of diseases that trouble us. Greatly increased average lifespan. Safely stored food. Increased productivity, and thus increased leisure time. Contraception.

I could go on...

[zaitan.livejournal.com]

Believing everyone in all organised religions have got it wrong pre-supposes you know what's right?

You do not have to have the right answer to a problem to falsify somebody elses.

...evolution of organ development (such as that found in the bombadier beetle) is ridiculously against the odds.

Why did you not mention the bacterial flagellum, or the human eye? All the examples that have been offered up as examples of 'intelligent design' have been demonstrated to be evolvable without massive steps. Just because something is amazingly complex and we cannot easily explain it, do not automatically make it 'divine' in creation.

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

Could have but at 3.30am I decided sleep was a greater attraction even though I enjoy late night philosophy :)

I'm not asking for a simple explanation for these wonders but it does intrigue me that people are not open to the possibility that the complexity of a problem may imply an creator (gender-neutral).

Is that really so unthinkable?

Re: YA SRSLY

[zaitan.livejournal.com]

You have answered the question about mitochondria, but you fail to recognise it.

very limited travel/reproduction opportunities

As opposed to what, NO travel/reproduction opportunities? Very limited is better than none at all in evolutionary terms. How is having your development keep in lockstep with another organism limited?

all the glucose they can metabolise

Sounds like a pretty cushy number to me. How you can reconcile that with your following statement about "There's nothing in it for the mitochondria" is beyond me.

[zaitan.livejournal.com]

Initially we are open to any possible explanation. Then we critically evaluate them all based on the evidence and arrive at a conclusion. Unfortunately a divine creator does not withstand the rigors of this process.

If you came to this planet with no preconceived ideas about how life occurred, I very much doubt that you would look at everything and conclude that it was all created and designed by an intelligent agent.

nice icon btw

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

Critical thinking is useful, full stop. However the desire to pass on your thoughts, genetics etc is not driven by pride in achievement alone is it?

Whether you believe in god or not, people need to deal with consequences of their actions, thus the world won't degenerate into horror because there's no external thing to keep an eye on us for it..

There are so many examples of how this doesn't happen I'm not going to list them. Morality doesn't have to depend on external forces but the process of doing so makes it much easier, game theory can only take you so far after all before someone decides to play selfishly.

As regards charity, can you prove that those people wouldn't have given in the absence of religion? There are a lot of very successful non-religious charities these days. Similarily, can you prove that the universities wouldn't have been formed in the absence of religion?

There are successful non-religious charities and equally there are successful religious charities. All have merit and all have more work to do. I think it's telling that where government has regulated charity that religion is considered one of the key criteria for definition as a charity.

What I will do is point at Islamic madrasah, Confucian schools at Nanking and Oxford university and note that all of these had some religious basis in their founding and teachings.

Why should I show logical proofs of things that did not happen to support your arguments? That's your job!

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

That critical evaluation has not yet been completed, much to the annoyance of many atheists. There still remains no concrete proof that there is no divinity in the universe.

If the proof exists, show me.

[zaitan.livejournal.com]

The problem with divinity is that it falls at the hurdle of being unfalsifiable. It is impossible to prove that there is no god because the definition always changes when the faithful are challenged. From before Galileo and up to the present day, the target shifts.

Disprove the following statement "The universe and everything in it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

You cannot because it contains as much authority as the statement that the christian god did the same.