Theology/Philosophy subjects, relevant pa ba? [Archive]

View Full Version : Theology/Philosophy subjects, relevant pa ba?

GalvanticSST

Jul 13, 2007, 10:28 PM

i just got curious... nabasa sa isang locked thread eh. some UPians think that these are useless courses, but some ateneans and ustians think otherwise.

:)

Jernat

Jul 13, 2007, 10:54 PM

Dacs

Jul 13, 2007, 11:27 PM

Some thomasians think it's really relevant at talagang mahuhulma raw ang mga estudyante para maging mabubuting tao. Tingnan mo yung ibang thomasian PExers. Ang babait di ba? Napaka-humble nila at talaga namang well-behaved. Produkto yan ng The Pontifical and Royal University of the Philippines.
:lol:

On a more serious note, I won't think it'll make any difference for me if I took theology classes, albeit I'm speaking out of ignorance here. I've learned of this classes from my UST workmates and to be honest I'm quite surprised with their curriculum (we're all ChE in my department), noting the need for those subjects in college (I believe 12 units in all).

Before I comment further however, I'd like to hear what others have to say about it. So can anyone elaborate on those subjects for those uninitiated?

Juntrix

Jul 13, 2007, 11:33 PM

Some would say that Theology is useless because they don't see the relevance of studying the course, especially when you line it up along with the other subjects taken during one's study program.

Theology is in fact comparable to values inculcation class... only deeper.

It's not about memorizing the verses of the Bible as others might mistake it from; One studies Theology to discover God's divinity and His teaching about religious truths that are to be applied to our daily lives, so that we will think the way GOD wants us to think.

Theology should be viewed as a "guide" when we make moral decisions as to what we should do, think, or say. So that we would be able to choose the best possible choices, in the eyes of God.

Some would deny the importance of the study of theological concepts but in my opinion, theology is one of the most important subjects in a study curriculum. Theology goes beyond the study of the physical world. It focuses on how to be the person GOD wants us to be.

For me, one can never really be successful unless one would know and appreciate GOD.

The Pontifica et Regalis Universitas STRICTLY mandates every Thomasian to take up at least 15 units of Theology in order to graduate... that's five Theology courses. UST will not mandate such strict compliance if it's "useless", don't you think?:)

quents

Jul 13, 2007, 11:36 PM

relevant personally? socially? to a collegiate education? that needs to be clarified.

maybe ustians and ateneans can share what was taught and what they learned in theology.

further, how did that make them humble and uhm, err, well-behaved (which is the ideal quality of cattle and sheep:p :p :p )?

Juntrix

Jul 13, 2007, 11:40 PM

To those who do not have Theology courses during college... it's actually okay and it should not be misconstrued as a "lacking". As long as you believe in God and you live the way He wants you to live... then you are on the right road.:)

Dacs

Jul 13, 2007, 11:45 PM

Thanks for the info Juntrix!

Unfortunately however, people who came from secular institutions (such as UP) will never realize the relevance of theology classes. And in line with it, secular institutions will never offer subjects that cater to a certain (albeit majority in the Philippines) sector. But I don't think UP doesn't offer those because they're useless. Those classes simply aren't in line with what UP stands for.

Understandably, UST must offer those since you're under the watchful eyes of the Vatican.

Juntrix

Jul 13, 2007, 11:54 PM

^Well, The State university is doing great even without Theology courses... so that is also a good thing. The university also encourages freedom of choice of beliefs, and that is also good.

Besides, you can't deny the fact that most UP students still go to church. That's just how Filipinos are brought up.

quents

Jul 14, 2007, 12:01 AM

ooh aah

good

great

:lol:

math_techie

Jul 14, 2007, 01:11 AM

actually I see a misconception here people think that since there is no theology in UP, then most of us are just apathetic catholics etc... But I think, na even through mas maraming alam yung mga galing sa mga catholic school when it comes to catholic theology, I believe na mas tried and tested naman yung mga catholics inside UP. It is very easy to learn theology inside a school such as UST, since a great majority of the people around you, believes the same way as you do. You don't need to test your faith kasi magkakasundo kayong lahat. Parang nasa loob ka ng comfort zone mo pag sa mga catholic schools ka.

iba naman sa UP, para maging matatag na catholic ka sa loob ng UP, you will have to undergo constant tests. Talagang masusubukan ang paniniwala mo. Nagkalat ang kung sino-sino sa UP, kaya madalas ay nagkakaroon ng pagtatalo sa paniniwala. This happened to me when I was an undergrad, and I was surrounded by agnostics and atheists, araw araw machachallenged ang paniniwala mo. So paglabas mo sa UP at kung buo pa ang paniniwala mo then I can say na you have learned more than someone who took 15 units of theology, kasi yung sayo tried and tested na, yung sa kanila spoon fed lang.

I believe that the best way to learn Theology is for you to learn and discover it alone. Atleast that way, you will remove much of the biases that you might recieve if you learned it from somebody else. At the end of the day, when you are alone facing with God, he won't ask you questions on Church and the Sacraments, but instead he will ask you what you did to the person around you.

GalvanticSST

Jul 14, 2007, 01:27 AM

i'm waiting for atenean_blooded and SUX2BU's reply here.

si Thomas (for ust) sana but i haven't seen him pexing na. :glee:

Juntrix

Jul 14, 2007, 01:35 AM

math_techie

Jul 14, 2007, 01:58 AM

math_techie You have a point there. Thanks for the insight.:)

What's great when you study in a Catholic school is that you are in a community wherein Faith in God is a norm, not a challenge. Besides, accepting God should not be as difficult as you make it sound. Faith should be about harmony and not a source of discrepancies.

By the way, let us segregate Theology as a course and "Faith". I think Theology should be studied, while Faith should be discovered, either alone or through God's channels.:)

when you are in a place such as UP, faith can be a source of discrepancy.

It is hard for me to separate faith and the theology, because they are very interelated. Theology needs assumptions. I think we cannot study theology without having building blocks. And I think those building blocks will come from the faith that you have. Studying catholic theology (since i think this the one that is studied in catholic schools) would need assumptions that comes from the catholic church, so mahirap para sa akin paghiwalayin yung pag-aaral, pagdidiskubre ng paniniwala at yung pag-aaral ng theology.

that's another problem when we study theology under somebody else, madadala natin yung assumption nung nagtuturo. OK naman yun kung gusto mo yun, pero for wandering souls, mas gusto ata nilang mag-aral ng theology ng walang kasamang bias. And I think the only way that you study theology without having bias is for you to study it alone.

I don't know kung ganito rin ang paningin ng mga taga catholic schools...

Juntrix

Jul 14, 2007, 02:20 AM

All of us are in the challenge of seeking the truth. Personally, I do not agree on everything that the Catholic Church preaches... but I also can't deny that Catholic Priests and Theologians, especially the Jesuits and Dominicans, are in a common goal of leading their followers to the path of light. So this might mean that questioning one's faith is also a way of expanding your spiritual and religious awareness and not a violation of your vow to trust and believe in God. Students from UP might also face the same challenge but on a different situation.

Well in UST, theological dogmas are laid down upon us, and we must know them... but not necessarily to accept them as our personal and spiritual truths. I have Muslim friends who studied in UST. The university doesn't prejudice other religions or it's members. But it is clearly written (even in the student handbook), that for you to be a student of Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, you must respect the Christian Doctrine... the Doctrine that UST and The Holy See intends to protect and defend come hell or high waters...

This is evidenced by a word from the university motto: VERITAS.

fraytorquemada

Jul 14, 2007, 02:45 AM

double post

fraytorquemada

Jul 14, 2007, 02:49 AM

I hate to use the word relative for it blurs the idea of Truth. Yet, this I think is the safest (not the best) response to the thread question. If a person has the inclination for let's say faith, mysticism, even religion; and has a rudimentary understanding of the former(s), then I think theology courses may be relevant to him. Is it going to be directly relevant to his chosen career path (let's say derivatives analyst for Goldman Sachs)? Probably not. However, at the end of the day, he's still a basic human person with splintered elements of what formed his totality (his religion or lack of, mysticism, faith, socialization, etc....). When he goes home, he's not merely a career "technician." He has to contend with issues that transcend career and vocation--family, values, personal relations, etc. All of which in some way or manner leads to the issue of providence. It doesn't even matter if you're an atheist or not. Personally I would rate my theology experience at the Ateneo as a 6 in a scale of 1 to 10, ten being the highest. Sadly, it wasn't a conversion process for me. It was enlightening for it sort of polished my sophomoric understanding of the Catholic faith. But, it was all mind and no heart. It was an exercise that one had to submit because it fulfills the graduation requirement. Ateneo is an agenda school (so do many of the others), but it REALLY is an agenda school. It takes its indoctrination and inculturation process seriously. If you don't want to be proselytized the "Ignatian" way (faith, social justice,men for others, etc....) then go somewhere else. The requirement for liberation theology was probably the rub. The capitalist in me just wouldn't budge and wouldn't relent (even at the risk of an F). But then again, I entered an agenda school and thus, I had to suck it up and drive on. Seriously, Ateneo would have probably done a better job on proselytizing me if it just offered 4 credits of Soren Kierkegaard.
Philosophy, on the other hand, was a different matter. Not only it's relevant, but it's essential (my opinion). I know it sounds anecdotal, but my 16 credits of rigorous philosophical academic experience was also very PRACTICAL. Such irony huh? From Socratic dialectics to Heideggerian existentialism, the skill of critical thought was and has been invaluable whether it be in job interviews or making critical management decisions. I know you don't need formal courses on philosophy to successfully engage in critical thought processes. It is however a leg up. For those with no ADMU experience, incessant oral exams are some of the most dreaded (and loved) experiences. They are the hallmarks of philosophy, theology, and even other courses. They were dreaded exercises of pure intellect, argumentation, articulation, and yes search for truth..not bola. Bola gives you a D or an F easily. Not to say that other schools don't have this academic process, but it is definitely more salient and common place in the grounds of Loyola. Philosophy and yes, theology required these mental exercises. If I didn't absorb or buy into the "men for others" or "for the greater glory of God," hooey of the Ateneo, at least I would venture to say that those pesky philosophy and theology courses and their oral exams made me more appreciative of intellectual, eloquent, and articulate discourse as opposed to intellectual stagnation and pedestrian ballyhoo. And besides, intellectual, eloquent and articulate discourses are never irrelevant be it in career terms or in terms of personal life.

atenean_blooded

Jul 14, 2007, 05:20 AM

I speak for myself. And I will be making conjectures and stretches along the way.

The Western tradition of university education has been that of the liberal arts. Liberal, because it was meant to liberate the person from ignorance and make him well-rounded and educated. The same Western tradition was one that was largely developed by the development of both philosophy and theology.

One can say that guilds, which eventually became the universities, were largely vocational in orientation. The end goal was mastery of a particular craft. But as education developed, it provided a venue for the continuing rethinking and challenging of assumptions. This, as we have seen, has given rise to many popular thinkers, whose endeavors in their respective fields have led to society as it is today.

And given how the world works today, a relevant question can be asked about the relevant role of universities in today's world. One can point to quick, easy answers: professional training! Skills development! The training of problem-solvers! The training of people who will put left headlights in every car that rolls down an assembly line!

That's true. Universities are largely charged with the training of the workers that drive today's world economy (and by this I mean even individuals who don't really do "economic" jobs, like say, librarians or nurses or even lawyers). A lot of effort goes into professional training.

There's a clear danger in just ending things with professional training. Inevitably, schools become diploma mills, with diplomas being "badges of approval" for particular "products," which are essentially (spare) parts of a very big global, socio-economic-political machine.

So we say that the work of universities also extends to furthering human knowledge through research. Sure. Research allows us to test new theories, develop new ways of doing things. Research reminds us of our heritage, so that we can hopefully do something about it (remember our heritage, at least). But then again, to use another analogy, we are simply figuring out how to make the human machine more efficient.

And when push comes to shove, when we find ourselves able to simply reduce things to such easily compartmentalized concepts, we can see that if we limit the work of universities to simply building a better human social machine, we end up forgetting what society inevitably is about: people. We very easily tend to forget that human society is about human beings. And when we forget, we tend to engender unfettered consumption, we tend to encourage the precedence of social structures over people, and in the end, actually contribute to problems such as poverty, marginalization, etc.

It is very, very easy to reduce the work of universities to problem solving and training. It is very easy to forget that the work of university education has been necessarily one of liberation. We love saying that we look for the "truth," or at least, investigate how the world works, so that we can train people better and make our machine better.

But as pointed out earlier, this "truth-seeking" can lead to very real violence. It can lead to the undermining of human dignity and value.

And this is where I think both philosophy and theology come in.

Philosophy, as it is experienced by many university students, is a smattering of subjects about certain people who liked to think. Or for others, it's a smattering of subjects like logic, positivism, etc. But philosophy, if we are to get to the very bottom of what it really means, is much more than just a "love for knowledge," the convenient translation of the Greek. If we're to pay proper attention to the word, we find (or at least Heidegger say this) that the original word "philosophia" points to something: an open, continuing, wondering fascination with being. With what is. And this openness leads to constant pursuit of what is in order, perhaps, to come to some sort of understanding of the truth. But at the very bottom of things, when we ask about what is, we end up asking about what ought to be. And that's where I think a lot of philosophy's value shines. Philosophy, in the context of a university education, properly taught, is a warning against complacency in terms of thinking about how we engage the world, about how we engage what is, because we find ourselves concerned about what ought to be. Properly executed, properly done, properly taught, philosophy reminds us that we need, in order to be free of our own complacency, to realize that there is more to things than we are content to have them be. That we must constantly question our own assumptions.

Philosophy, properly taught, properly done, properly situated in the context of a proper university education, pertains to a lot of the power of reason that makes us human, pertains a lot to us as humans who are not alone, who are in a world that is, frankly, beyond the finite grasp of our human understanding. And philosophy, properly done, properly taught, properly situated in the context of a proper university education, should show us that there is more to human experience than simply being a cog in a machine.

We ask questions about why we are here. We ask about who we are. And we ask about who and how we ought to be. And maybe, just maybe, we ought to ask about what more we can be, other than elements in a machine. We ask about what we ought to do and be vis-a-vis other people. We dare ask about God, too.

Philosophy, as it is, ends where our human understanding of things tends to end: when it comes to first questions, such as "Okay, science says the Big Bang was the source of the universe. But why did it occur?" And I think that it is here that we see some of the value of theology.

Christian and other religious hubris aside, we've got little empirical evidence that such a thing as God actually manifested itself in our world and day-to-day affairs.

But what happens when our other human instruments such as science and philosophy and art end at first questions? How do we begin to talk about God, assuming God is an important thing to talk about in the first place?

Theology might provide some talking points about God. It's bolstered by philosophy, and it also bolsters philosophy. And mind you, almost all theology, actually, almost all religion, has something to say about how people ought to treat one another, about how societies should be run. And there are some clear points in theological discourse that run counter to an obsession with efficiency and mathematical precision and other by-products of wanting to do things better. In that sense, theology provides an excellent counterpoint to what can be dry and antiseptic professional training, and bland and regimented research.

Do philosophy and theology hold all the answers? Of course not. They do, however, call us to live upright lives, and to continually think and rethink if we're doing this right.

A lot of universities talk about excellence. What is that exactly? And why do we need to be excellent? Maybe it's because we know the world isn't perfect, and that the state of things is broken. And maybe excellence in the things that we do, whether it's living out the training we've had as professionals, or whether it's simply being the very damned best in a field that we hope is relevant, is something that we like because it sets a high standard for everything we do.

We talk about "veritas." Truth. In fact, that word is the motto of so many schools, colleges, and universities.

As pointed out above, however, truth, without, well, love, without concern, is violence.

The motto of universities, as one Jesuit put it, ought to be not just "veritas," but "veritatem facientes in caritatae." Doing truth in love. We seek the truth, not simply because it will allow us to conquer limits to the human condition. The truth ought to be sought in order to illuminate and serve people who are at the heart of the social order.

So, are theology and philosophy relevant subjects? Yes. They're not essential, if one's idea of a proper education is simply acquiring skills. But if one wants an education that frees him, or that allows him to set the rest of the world free, then these two subjects are, at least in this long-winded (and rather incoherent, I imagine)opinion, pretty damned relevant, because they continually make us ask if what we're doing is what we need. They call us to ask if what we're doing is itself relevant.

Gising

Jul 14, 2007, 06:59 AM

Gising

Jul 14, 2007, 07:02 AM

i just got curious... nabasa sa isang locked thread eh. some UPians think that these are useless courses, but some ateneans and ustians think otherwise.

:)

La Salle has no Theology subject before. Do you know that?

student_dos

Jul 14, 2007, 08:17 AM

for me, i think it is still relevant , as far as i can remember

15 units ang theology sa Pontifical and Royal University.

_______________________________________
UST car sticker registration is now open
DO NOT forget to buy a UST Long Car Sticker for only P60 :love:

math_techie

Jul 14, 2007, 01:26 PM

atenean_blooded

Jul 14, 2007, 02:11 PM

Guys I have some questions.

I came from a Catholic High School, and we had religion classes. Dun, ang pinag-aaralan namin ay yung hierarchy ng simbahan, yung mga sacraments, yung bible, etc...are these the same things that university students study in their Theology classes? Sa Theology din ba tinuturo yung values formation? or magkaiba pang courses yun. Yung Church and the Sacrements, under din ba siya sa Theology? When Catholic schools teach Theology, paano nila tinitingnan yung concept of God, are they looking at it as believers? or tinitingnan nila yung concept of God in an objective manner?

Let's use a common definition of theology: Theology is "faith seeking understanding." High school religion classes are often treated as venues by which Christian schools can transmit Christian doctrine. Theology seeks a deeper understanding of doctrinal points, a deeper appreciation of why these are beliefs.

Some things taken up in Theology classes (at least at the Ateneo, I have no idea how other schools do it) revisit themes that ought to be taught in any proper high school religion class (the church hierarchy, etc.), but these things are dealt with in passing, and usually only to situate the college theology course in a proper context. But we don't delve much into the sacraments unless we are, say, looking at the doctrinal underpinnings of each sacrament, and don't really talk much about values formation.

Theology can be said to more "academic" than high school religion classes. Theology, naturally, deals with things with much more depth, and at the Ateneo, in a much more philosophical manner. There are critical readings of scripture, of treatises, and other materials. A lot of critical reflection.

College theology classes (again, at least at the Ateneo) also touch upon things that are not discussed in depth (if at all) in high school religion classes. Take, say, the Ateneo's Th131 course, which deals with morality and marriage and human sexuality. There's discussion about marriage as a sacrament, but we don't go through the step-by-step "script" of a marriage ceremony, but rather, discuss moral and religious issues when it comes to marriage, as well as canon law points on marriage. Or take the Ateneo's Th141 course, which is about Catholic social vision (the course used to be called Liberation Theology), which deals largely with Church social teachings as well as the theological and philosophical bases for these things, which are realized in class through praxis (whether through the immersion program or some other outreach work). Lots of these themes are touched on in most proper high school religion classes, but hardly in the same depth as a proper theology course.

Of course, sometimes, the simplest questions in these classes can expose the weakness of many high school religion classes (well, either that or the obvious lack of interest on the part of students when they were in high school). One my Jesuit professors, one of the leading theologians in the country and a recent recepient of a papal award, once threw a question at our class: "What does the Christian faith say about who you are?"

3/4 the class did not come up with a satisfactory answer. The satisfactory answer wasn't even astoundingly difficult or philosophical. It was a basic response.

As to perspectives on God, the perspective depends largely on the professor, I guess. I had a theology professor from Latin America, and his sense of faith and belief was apparent in everything he did in class. It was, lots of times, like listening to a preacher, except he was a bit more academic about his "preaching." On the other hand, two of my theology professors were Jesuits with advanced ecclesiastical degrees, and yet they were very, very objective in their treatment of the subject of God. Sometimes he was treated as an abstract concept. Other times, as the bedrock of morals and good and beauty. Other times, something to get angry at. Other times, something taken for granted. One of those Jesuit professors hardly even mentioned "God" in class. I think he only mentioned the word "God" ten times throughout the semester.

In UP, there are courses that discuss the readings of St. Thomas and Augustine. At siyempre when professors discuss this things, they try to discuss this in an objective manner. Can we consider these courses to be somewhat Theological? When we study buddhism, hinduism, judaism, islam in our history/sociology classes, we look at how people of different look at their respective Gods, is this Theology?

Sorry kung maraming tanong, pero this area of learning is particularly interesting for me, kasi walang ganito sa UP, and I had to do my own readings.

This little quip from Wikipedia might help shed some light: "theology is often distinguished from many other established Academic disciplines that cover the same subject area. Those who contend it is different sometimes claim that it is distinguished by viewpoint (suggesting that theology is studied from within a faith, rather than from without) and by practical involvement (suggesting theology cannot be truly studied or understood without a practical faith - an idea that would have been familiar to some of the early Christian Church Fathers, who described the theologian as a person who "truly prays.")."

While there are theological themes in some other subjects, I think these have to be distinguished from theology. I agree that Theology demands a certain practical approach in order to be complete. At the Ateneo, we have a philosophy of religion course as part of our core curriculum, and there are quite a lot of theological themes visited (like the nature of God, for example). But the whole theory-praxis relationship of theology in our theology classes is absent, there being a different approach to how philosophy of religion classes treat things.

math_techie

Jul 14, 2007, 02:27 PM

thank you :).

zacharaiolsen

Jul 14, 2007, 04:22 PM

sa UA&P, di ko na appreciate ang theo ng mga paring opus dei, kasi puro memorizations na lang, kaka antok pa magturo. protestante pa naman ako! mas natuto ako maging mabuting tao dahil sa mga morally upright at marunong makisamang mga classmates, bilang na bilang lang naman mga tar@ntado sa UAP e. kahit mayayaman sila, hindi mahangin, maliban lang sa ibang frehsies. (diba ganun rin case sa UP? *** mga 1st and 2nd yr students na di maka get over sa UPCAT hehe)

sa UST, mas ok ang turo ng theo, hindi pari ang mga profs (or hindi mukhang pari hehe) kaya di boring, tska sa discussions, sinasali talaga sa tunay na buhay at experiences ng mga studyante.

kaya kahit protestant ako, nakatulong **** to sa paghubog ng katauhan ko, sa pagdedesisyon ko sa buhay, sa pag interpret ng mga verses at pagkuha ng signs from God, pati sa future marriage ko hehe.. kapansin pansin naman siguro sa labas *** diperensya ng ina-asal ng mga studyante who had/has theo subjects compared sa mga wala diba.. but being atheists doesnt mean asal kalye ka, in fact most japanese dont believe in any God, pero mas matino pa sila umasal kesa sa mga katolikong pinoy haha..

can sum1 post the course names from theo 1 - 5 pls?

atenean blooded, i suggest you sum up your posts, im sure ull have more readers. no offense, just a kind suggestion, ur free to reject.

atenean_blooded

Jul 14, 2007, 04:33 PM

zacharaiolsen:

I believe in being thorough.

No offense taken though.

To humor you, here's a summary:

Theology and Philosophy are relevant in the context of university education because they constantly call attention to the human condition, and therefore make university education a truly liberating thing. By constant reexamination of assumptions, by a call to be better people, to be more human, philosophy reminds us of our tendency to simply want to consume everything in our path, reminding us that there is the other whom we should not simply reduce into a statistic or object for consumption. Theology provides possible answers to first questions that our human reasoning cannot seem to fathom and which we only address with our faith. And like philosophy, proper theology calls on us to uphold human dignity. The question of God is a question of hope, and sometimes, that's all we can ever really have.

cutieplx16

Jul 14, 2007, 04:46 PM

^zacharaiolsen, this is what you are asking for...

eto yung theo subjects sa AB, ewan ko lang sa ibang colleges ng UST kung ganito rin yung theo subjects nila..

THY 1: Contextualized Salvation History
THY 2: Church and Sacraments
PHL 5: Christian Ethics
SCL 9: Social Teachings of the Church
SCL 6(not sure of the course code): Marriage and Family

:)

erap_arroyo99

Jul 14, 2007, 09:27 PM

math_techie

Jul 14, 2007, 10:10 PM

maybe what the catholic schools should do is that they should not require non-catholics to take theology courses.

Juntrix

Jul 14, 2007, 11:56 PM

maybe what the catholic schools should do is that they should not require non-catholics to take theology courses.

I don't think that it would be an 'option' in UST since the university strongly believes that evangelization through education is one of it's missions to uphold Catholic Christianity.

In UST, everyone is required to take up theology... Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Satanists if there are any. As I've posted previosly... these non-Catholics or non-Christians are not prejudiced. They are encouraged but not required or pressured to be Christians. It is but enough that they respect the Catholic Doctrine... and that includes taking up in 15 credit units of Theology as part of the curriculum.

If I'm not mistaken, theology is an elective in other schools... and the number of units are not very demanding time-wise.

mikagiyasuo02

Jul 15, 2007, 12:36 AM

College Theology aims to equip students of all disciplines of the fundamentals of Christian Doctrines their sufficient knowledge and maturity of faith.(based on our discussion in THY1)

just a thought, its a requirement of a student of a Catholic university to take up units in theology, right? and so, these universities also accepts those who have other beliefs with a requirement that every student should take units in Theology. Students take the fact that Catholic Universities offer these subjects just by enrolling in the university.

We have to take 15 units of theology, for the fact that we are in UST, a pontifical university. This isn't really a matter to convert faith or so, this is just for us to gain knowledge about the religion. This course is also a chance to ask about the faith, Doctrines and Traditions.

These courses are also relevant, for faith isn't just the matter, topics on Morality and Ethics are also discussed. A somewhat additional to one's knowledge and also a help on formation of one's self.

atenean_blooded

Jul 15, 2007, 01:27 AM

maybe what the catholic schools should do is that they should not require non-catholics to take theology courses.

Catholic schools don't require non-catholics to practice the Catholic faith. But students who apply to Catholic schools ought to know that Catholic schools are, well, Catholic, and that Theology's part of the deal.

Besides, if you want to get business-like about it, making the non-Catholics take Theology classes just might be a successful pitch.:)

math_techie

Jul 15, 2007, 12:08 PM

atenean_blooded

Jul 15, 2007, 03:20 PM

pero theology must be discussed under an assumption of faith diba. Ika ni atenean_blooded it is faith seeking understanding? So how can we expect understanding from non-catholics if they don't believe in the assumptions. Theology cannot be understood without practical faith. So for non-catholics, they will only go to class during theology class...knowing they would need to pass the course, pero would they learn? Maybe they will understand the catholic faith even more...pero will it convert them? Maybe not. It is just similar to a us studying Islam in our Asian History class, we learn it, pero we won't be converted.

Let's talk about the Christian faith. Most Christian doctrine is universal. The basic presupposition is summed up in three sentences: Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again. An extended version of these basic doctrinal points are summed up in the Apostles' or the Nicene Creed. I know of no major Christian movement (except, maybe, Iglesia Ni Cristo or other sects like the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints) that does not accept these points.

And the more practical approaches to the Christian faith are, and I don't think this is an accident, largely universal. What does Christ call people to do? Love one another. That's pretty simple, and pretty universal. It's a theme that is consistent in all world religions.

The teaching of theology, I'd like to think, offers a Roman Catholic perspective when it comes to these basic points and approaches. And because it is part of the current Roman Catholic principle to engage in religious dialogue, I think the perspectives of non-Catholics enriches the dialogue for the Catholics, and the Catholic perspective should be enriching for the non-Catholics.

Since the subject is largely universal and largely academic, I don't expect any of the schools teaching theology to go hard-line against non-Catholics, or to force conversions. And the subject matter can be taken and learned from without the necessity of conversion. Even in practice, just because you're doing something a Catholic would do, or something that Catholics preach, doesn't make one a lesser Muslim or whatever.

A Muslim in an Ateneo theology class is perfectly well within his rights to disagree with the professor about, say, the nature of Christ. But that won't excuse him from not knowing what the Catholic faith says about Christ, if only for passing the requirements, and it won't be bad for him to learn what Christ had to say.

I agree na those students would go to UST or Ateneo knowing that they will have to take those courses, pero deep inside them, do they really want to take those courses? Can't our catholic schools step backward and accomodate that request?

There's no reason for the Catholic schools to bend over backwards. As I said earlier, it's part of the deal. Nobody's forcing anyone to attend the Catholic schools.

fraytorquemada

Jul 15, 2007, 06:14 PM

math_techie

Jul 15, 2007, 09:19 PM

atenean_blooded

Jul 15, 2007, 10:39 PM

It seems, that non-catholics would just have to swallow that fact. I agree that they were not forced to study at catholic schools. Pero I was just looking kung posible kaya yung ganong proposal since I think now, eh medyo receptive naman ang simbahan sa ibang mga relihiyon...baka pwede naman silang magbigay konsiderasyon sa iba...hindi pa rin pala.

There's no compelling reason for Catholic schools to bend over backwards, in my opinion.

When I was in a catholic school and even up to now, I still believe in the notion of having a single God for all kinds of religion. Parang, ganito I believe that my God is just the same as a muslim's God, ang pinagkaiba lang ay, ibang paraan ang pagkakakilala ng sa Diyos nila. And I also believe na, theology classes are there not just to teach God or to teach religion, pero I think na the primary objectives of Theology is to improve a person's moral value. And since most non-catholics will just consider theology subjects as bitter facts that are needed to be swallowed, magiging academic lang ang treatment nila sa course, so pwedeng maging kabawasan yun sa mga matutunan nila. A non-catholic in a catholic institution will be in a disadvantage, since they will be taking useless courses (in their POV). Sayang naman...pero OK lang, kasi sila naman ang pumili nun.

Theology subjects are not values formation subjects. They are not just classes in morality and moral thinking (there are ethics classes in philosophy which can discuss these topics). Theology is a study of key points of doctrine and of social teaching.

And again, nobody is forcing non-Catholics to attend Catholic schools. They are both statistical and ideological minorities, and this is something clear when they decide to enroll.

Another possible alternative that I was thinking is if it is possible that teaching having different approaches to teaching Theology. Maybe catholics would go to a theology class taught by Catholic professors, while muslims would go to a theology class that is handled by Muslims...etc... I know that the proposal may seem silly. Why would a catholic school allow an Islamic course to be taught in it? pero if in teaching islamic theology, the schools would help their muslim students to be better persons. Hindi ba mas OK yun. Won't it be better instead of their muslim students wasting there time studying Catholic Theology?

There are certain problems here.

First, a Catholic institution is often one run by members of a religious order, whose mission is, first and foremost, evangelization.

Second, there seems to be little reason for Catholic schools to offer classes on Muslim theology. There's no "market," so to speak.

Third, there is a clear lack of faculty.

Your argument presupposes that a non-Catholic would find the study of Catholic theology a "waste of time." This is not necessarily so, especially considering the generally universal nature of Church social teaching.

Sayang eh, the Church has been quite open to peaceful co-existence with non-catholics since Vatican 2, I hope that these peaceful co-existence would be extended more if we help in the moral development of non-catholics.

The thread started asked about the relevance of theology courses. For catholics, theology courses are certainly relevant, but for non-catholics, they are not. Maybe our schools can do something about that by making it also relevant for non-catholics...how?

Again, there is an attempt to render this into something black and white when it is obviously not. There is nothing to show that a non-Catholic will be less trained or formed morally if he takes up Catholic theology classes.

Re Vatican II, the Church, while willing to engage in religious dialogue, is not bending over backwards. The willingness to engage in religious dialogue is a product of Church social teaching, which is discussed in theology classes.

cretinous00

Jul 16, 2007, 06:46 AM

So many modern subjects that can deal with problems and offer far more stimulating research than those two. They are subjects some universities forgot to STOP teaching.

la_flash

Jul 16, 2007, 08:24 AM

So many modern subjects that can deal with problems and offer far more stimulating research than those two. They are subjects some universities forgot to STOP teaching.

and what are those, sir?

don't tell me that it is science for even a christian school requires its students to take it up if needed.

besides, science can't provide all the answers... science can't even answer the question "Does a God exist?"...

i am waiting for your response.

bump

Jul 16, 2007, 10:39 AM

During my stay at DLSU-D, my curriculum includes 6 theo subject, 3 units each... Eng'g ako, nagtaka yung isang prof ko na bakit 18 units ang theo ko eh hindi naman namin major yun... ngayon, 4 theo subjects na lang sa bagong curriculum... may pros and cons din naman yung additional theo class... pros, mapapag-aralan mo mabuti yung life and history ng buhay ni Christ at foundations ng Church sa Phil pati sa ibang bansa... cons, as eng'g student, dagdag sa units/subjects, mahirap na nga ang course lalo pang hihirap dahil may dadagdag pang aaralin...

la_flash

Jul 16, 2007, 10:48 AM

^^ if you were interested with it, it would not be that hard.

how i wish that i had theology and more units in philosophy back in college. :D I took up engineering btw.

bump

Jul 16, 2007, 11:50 AM

^interesting naman yung subject pero sana hindi isinasabay doon sa mga subject na mahihirap, tulad ng Calculus (Diff. at Integral), mechanics, strenght of mat'l, etc... or bawasan ng no. of units...

la_flash

Jul 16, 2007, 11:57 AM

^interesting naman yung subject pero sana hindi isinasabay doon sa mga subject na mahihirap, tulad ng Calculus (Diff. at Integral), mechanics, strenght of mat'l, etc... or bawasan ng no. of units...

Well, iyong mga mahihirap na subjects na sinasabi mo ay maaring di mahirap para sa iba. Calculus and mechanics are not that hard. Agree ako na medyo mahirap ang strength. Bottomline is, if you're really interested with the subject and you anticipate to learn new things, that subject will not be too hard for you. It's all about paradigm shift. :D

vinta18

Jul 16, 2007, 12:26 PM

They're relevant the way all subjects are relevant. Even the silliest subject is useful as brain exercise, theology is no different. The only problem is when it is taught like extensions of high school "Christian Living" classes. When taught as real academic subjects by real professors, they're as much a mental challenge as any philo course. That said my 12 units of theo in DLSU was 50-50. It was cool when we had a smattering of hermeneutics but totally sucked when we had to dramatize the sacraments.

la_flash

Jul 16, 2007, 12:47 PM

^^ is usefullness the same as relevance?

marqueeyut

Jul 16, 2007, 02:49 PM

n3X

Jul 16, 2007, 08:44 PM

I respect religion, most have been the repositories of wisdom and knowledge over the centuries. I believe it is a valid source of inspiration and spiritualism. It is also a reasonable academic field of study. But considering centuries of thought, after the Greeks and Romans, the Renaissance in the 14th til the 17th century, and even in modern times of secular Humanism , most people are still kept down by dogma. People havent learned even though there are numerous works out there that are considered to be the greatest achievements of the human race that criticizes religion. Dante wrote the Divine Comedy and the Inferno. Nietzsche repudiated Christianity's compassion for the weak decades ago and wants us to realize the value of this world. Why dont we study Humanism instead as one of the pinnacles of philosophy? Let reason triumph! Why use shaky assumptions in building theories in the world? Why waste time and energy? Yes, Theology is still relevant, but 15 units? That constitutes a minor already. Why not use the 12 units in studying sociology, psychology, or economics to gain a deeper understanding of human nature? The time and resources could be better spent in MORE relevant domains. I would even go further in saying that studying religion within anthropology is more enlightening than in philosophy. A quote from a noted scholar and explorer: "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." - Sir Richard Francis Burton

PS. In the other thread someone posted that Harvard requires Theology subjects blah blah blah. This is not true. They have a Divinity school and an undergrad major and thats it. And theres no irony that its a secular institution while the founder was a member of the faith. No irony in that. In the first place, maybe it became secular because they were enlightened by the knowledge they produced.

atenean_blooded

Jul 16, 2007, 09:16 PM

bump

Jul 16, 2007, 09:19 PM

Well, iyong mga mahihirap na subjects na sinasabi mo ay maaring di mahirap para sa iba. Calculus and mechanics are not that hard. Agree ako na medyo mahirap ang strength. Bottomline is, if you're really interested with the subject and you anticipate to learn new things, that subject will not be too hard for you. It's all about paradigm shift. :D

pero ang sa akin, dapat yung theo class eh isang bagsakan na lang, ang ginawa sa amin, hiwa-hiwalay yung theo o kaya ginawa nilang first 2 yrs ng college, hanggang 3rd yr meron pa kami, yung time na para sa ibang subjects nahati pa para pag-aralan ang theo... pati nasa prof na rin kung paano ang approach nya sa pagtuturo... yung prof ko sa isang theo class napakaboring magturo, yung subject na dapat interesting nagiging boring... Yung mechanics sa amin ubod ng hirap, ang exam namin pang board, pati yung way ng pagturo nya masyadong complicated ginagawa kaming ME, sa strength of mat'ls ako nadalian ...

bump

Jul 16, 2007, 09:21 PM

arki ka ba?

Nope... ECE...

boy_wonder

Jul 17, 2007, 05:29 AM

Relevant? Depende sa uri ng curriculum. Depende rin sa degree program. Depende sa trip ng tao. Depende sa career preference ng student. Say, gusto kong maging theologian o philosopher in the future.:D

On a personal note, after almost 12 years of being in a Catholic school for my elementary and high school education, attending religion classes and practicing "required" religious activities, hindi ba parang.. pwede ba, tama na? Parang wala na kasing katapusan ang paghahanap sa kabutihan at katotohanan and all that, complicated na masyado. Hehe..

I think it's time to put into action what I have learned in my classes. Minsan kasi ang dating ng ganitong mga subjects e masyadong theoretical, hindi na practicable sa buhay. At hindi rin maganda na basehan ito ng character judgment. Madalas kasi napreprejudged na morally inferior ang isang student who doesn't take up theology subjects, lalo na pag may nagawang mali.

I can go to a Catholic school yet again if I want, but I can never really shape my character through these subjects.. never, if I don't live out the values that I learn. So life experiences are more relevant.:)

n3X

Jul 17, 2007, 04:50 PM

n3x: As far as I remember, Dante criticized the Church of his time, and I heartily disagree with Nietzsche. But then again, the perspectives of philosophers vis-a-vis religion are points of view, which we can adopt or take with large grains of salt.

That said, I've talked to friends from different schools, and we sort of agree that philosophy and theology classes seem absolutely irrelevant or relevant depending on how they're taught. Lots of college students go through secondary sources or biographies of thinkers and philosophers and theologians, and are tested on things like that. I don't think a lot of college students (I am speaking for those who did not experience both philosophy and theology as I did) do philosophy or do theology. Treated as plain classes where students learn more by rote than anything, they can be pretty boring, and can seem pretty irrelevant.

Both subjects are at their best when there's a definite praxis component. Students should be made to philosophize or to reflect critically on theological points. And at the end of it all, there should be a proper call to action, to praxis, to literally making both a lifestyle of sorts.

The message of Dante is still relevant to the Church today, because nothing has changed about what Christianity essentially is founded upon (i.e. eternal life). That religion is still about the afterlife; Dante wrote on us valuing the life we have now. It was about us making the most out of "this" life, not preparing for the "afterlife"--which doesnt even exist! As an american comic put it, Christianity is about not enjoying the good things in life.

And for disagreeing with Nietzsche, then there lies the problem. His arguments are very reasonable and valid. He wouldn't be one of the greatest philosophers in the world if his cases were unfounded. Most of Europe, especially Germany where Nietzsche came from, has learned from his writings. The church would have a fit if more Filipinos would adopt Nietzsche because as an institution they wouldnt want their power to wane. These people, similar to the corrupt in the government, dont want their influence, their hold, on people to slip. If Filipinos learned what has been written during the past 4000 years then we would have better public accountability, an active citizenry, and a flourishing cultural, economic and social life, because they are emancipated and empowered. Power structures want to maintain control! And the church is just another one.

This is not a matter of differing points of view! In a debate/argument, the scale and scope of the issue are laid down. The points of Nietzsche and Dante and all the other philosophers, wouldnt make an impact if they had a different "point of view." What they wrote and said made a difference because they were sensible, well-reasoned. Saying that their rationalizations are mere perspectives is a great disrespect to their work. Philosophers have challenged and changed how we see and live in the world. And I again say: Let reason triumph!

I concur that praxis is the very culmination of learning. But the thing is, the basis of practice must be correct for it to be effective. The study of divinity is particularly pertinent in that it governs a lot of human actions (e.g. what one must do, think, say, eat, etc), which also makes religion a source of major conflicts in the world (e.g. Israel, Jihads). But the more important focus here is on the individual. This is how theology is made more relevant. In a conflict between dogma and reality, what would the person perceive as correct? For example, being gay is a big no-no for the church. But years of scientific study has placed that being gay is normal not only in humans but also in other animals. Oslo's National Museum of Natural History has exhibited photos of animals exhibiting gay homosexuality. This was meant to dispute the belief that homosexuality is a "crime against nature." A plethora of evidence awaits the open mind. But the faithful would utterly reject this. All of these would burn in hell (if hell exists), they would say. And thats how the cookie crumbles. Again, I'm not against spirituality, but bad, illogical theology is bad philosophy, and that makes a deplorable life not only for the individual but also for others.

la_flash

Jul 17, 2007, 05:09 PM

Sir, makasingit lang po.

The message of Dante is still relevant to the church of today, because nothing has changed about what Christianity essentially is founded on (i.e. eternal life). the religion is still about the afterlife, Dante wrote on us valuing the life we have now. It was about us making the most out of "this" life, not preparing for the "afterlife"--which doesnt even exist! As a comedian put it, Christianity is about not enjoying the good things in life.

First, the church was not "founded" on the concept of eternal life.

Second, you can't be certain that afterlife doesnt exist.

Third, anticipating what's in store for us after we died and valuing "this" life are not mutually exclusive. You can still give value to your life now, and give value to the life of others, but still able to prepare yourself for what's there in the afterlife.

Fourth, christianity is not about not enjoying the good things in life. However, if your idea of having good things in life is like that of the hedonists, then I must concur with you. What is good and what are its effects to your humanity and to other lives, that's what the christian should answer before he enjoys that "good thing in life". See the difference?

And for disagreeing with Nietzsche, then there lies the problem. His arguments are very reasonable and valid. He wouldn't be one of the greatest philosophers in the world if his cases were unfounded. Most of Europe, especially Germany where Nietzsche came from, has learned from his writings. The church would have a fit if more Filipinos would adopt Nietzsche because as an institution they wouldnt want their power to wane. These people, similar to the corrupt in the government, dont want their influence, their hold, on people to slip. If Filipinos learned what has been written during the past 4000 years then we would have better public accountability, an active citizenry, and a flourishing cultural, economic and social life, because they are emancipated and empowered. Power structures want to maintain control! And the church is just another one.

This is not a matter of differing points of view! In a debate/argument, the scale and scope of the issue are laid down. The points of Nietzsche and Dante and all the other philosophers, wouldnt make an impact if they had a different "point of view." What they wrote and said are made a difference because they were sensible, well-reasoned. Saying that their rationalizations are mere perspectives is a great disrespect to their work. Philosophers have challenged and changed how we see and live in the world. And I again say: Let reason triumph!

Theology is not against reason. Don't make it appear that it is.

I agree with atenean_blooded re philosophers and their works and how should we treat them. Let me remind you that not all great philosophers will agree on the same thing most of the times.

I concur that praxis is the very culmination of learning. But the thing is, the basis of practice must be correct for it to be effective. The study of divinity is particularly pertinent in that it governs a lot of human actions (e.g. what one must do, think, say, eat, etc), which also makes religion a source of major conflicts in the world (e.g. Israel, Jihads).

Was it religion alone that brought about the major conflicts that you are talking about?

But the more important focus here is on the individual. This is how theology is made more relevant. In a conflict between dogma and reality, what would the person perceive as correct? For example, being gay is a big no-no for the church. But years of scientific study has placed that being gay is normal not only in humans but also in other animals. Oslo's National Museum of Natural History has exhibited photos of animals exhibiting gay homosexuality. This was meant to dispute the belief that homosexuality is a "crime against nature." A plethora of evidence awaits the open mind. But the faithful would utterly reject this. All of these would burn in hell (if hell exists), they would say. And thats how the cookie crumbles. Again, I'm not against spirituality, but bad, illogical theology is bad philosophy, and that makes a deplorable life not only for the individual but also for others.

Hmmm, am not so sure, but I've heard that there are humanists who think that homosexuality is against nature. They are humanists my friend, and not necessarily religious.

Also, what can be observed on the subject animals does not necessarily prove that it could be a human nature. For if that's the case, then we should not penalize cannibals for spiders also eat their own kind. :lol:

ach_soo

Jul 17, 2007, 08:11 PM

I dabbled with philo while in college, with a little theo. Yes they're fun to study but I admit much of the knowledge and wisdom they give have been superceded by science, math, and several specific branches of study.

Proof: bible literalists are slowly retreating. Now even the Catholic Church (quietly) accepts evolution. Here on Earth, the only unanswered question is the origin of life itself.

On whether or not there really is a God, the battle is now with the mathematicians and physicists surrounding the big bang. Everything that followed after the big bang was/is governed by the laws of math and physics as taught in school.

quents

Jul 17, 2007, 08:45 PM

I dabbled with philo while in college, with a little theo. Yes they're fun to study but I admit much of the knowledge and wisdom they give have been superceded by science, math, and several specific branches of study.

Proof: bible literalists are slowly retreating. Now even the Catholic Church (quietly) accepts evolution. Here on Earth, the only unanswered question is the origin of life itself.

On whether or not there really is a God, the battle is now with the mathematicians and physicists surrounding the big bang. Everything that followed after the big bang was/is governed by the laws of math and physics as taught in school.

thats news to me. really?:p :p :p

atenean_blooded

Jul 17, 2007, 11:39 PM

The message of Dante is still relevant to the Church today, because nothing has changed about what Christianity essentially is founded upon (i.e. eternal life). That religion is still about the afterlife; Dante wrote on us valuing the life we have now. It was about us making the most out of "this" life, not preparing for the "afterlife"--which doesnt even exist! As an american comic put it, Christianity is about not enjoying the good things in life.

One of the most accepted readings of Dante's Divine Comedy was that it was, more than anything, a socio-political critique not of religion, but of a religious institution, the Catholic Church. In a nutshell, Dante placed people who didn't fit with his ideals in hell, people he sort of liked in purgatory, and those whom he thought lived upright lives in heaven.

Christianity is founded on, in a manner of speaking, two key points: First, that God has revealed himself to us, with the perfection and sum total of that revelation in Jesus Christ ("Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again," etc.), and that God continues to reveal himself to us today because God is with us and we are with God. The abstract notion of eternal life is a matter of faith.

And because God revealed himself to us through Christ, the idea of God's kingdom, of "heaven", may very well be something that we can aspire for in this life, not some abstract afterlife concept. This, however, does not discount the possibility of an afterlife, since nobody's ever been there and back.

And for disagreeing with Nietzsche, then there lies the problem. His arguments are very reasonable and valid. He wouldn't be one of the greatest philosophers in the world if his cases were unfounded. Most of Europe, especially Germany where Nietzsche came from, has learned from his writings. The church would have a fit if more Filipinos would adopt Nietzsche because as an institution they wouldnt want their power to wane. These people, similar to the corrupt in the government, dont want their influence, their hold, on people to slip. If Filipinos learned what has been written during the past 4000 years then we would have better public accountability, an active citizenry, and a flourishing cultural, economic and social life, because they are emancipated and empowered. Power structures want to maintain control! And the church is just another one.

Nietzsche's reasoning was, essentially, the part of a closed system of thought that, in the final analysis, calls for acceptance or rejection. He has some pretty interesting ideas about humanity and people.

But then again, Nietzsche's philosophy is pretty incompatible with the ideas of some other contemporary philosophers, like say, Marcel, Levinas, Ricoeur, and Arendt.

A lot of Europe learned from Nietzsche. But Nietzsche's ideas about the Church seem pretty irrational in the face of Vatican II. Nietzsche's presupposition can be summed up largely in his ideas about a will to power, about wanting to maintain control, about wanting to continually consume everything.

The question is, of course, whether or not this is an accurate picture of what humanity is about. And this is an even more interesting question if you want to talk about what humanity ought to be. And Marcel, Levinas, Ricoeur, and Arendt, who also made quite a stir in Europe (with less of Nietzsche's angst, which can seem quite juvenile), point us in another direction.

I can imagine the Church having a fit if Nietzsche became standard-issue thinking. That's because a lot of what he says is actually diametrically opposed to the Church's social teachings, which continue to be relevant in the world today.

This is not a matter of differing points of view! In a debate/argument, the scale and scope of the issue are laid down. The points of Nietzsche and Dante and all the other philosophers, wouldnt make an impact if they had a different "point of view." What they wrote and said made a difference because they were sensible, well-reasoned. Saying that their rationalizations are mere perspectives is a great disrespect to their work. Philosophers have challenged and changed how we see and live in the world. And I again say: Let reason triumph!

This is largely about differing points of view. The history of western thought demonstrates our tendency to want a particular point of view. The very statement, "Let reason triumph!", as unqualified as it is, is one such example.

And if you read some of the philosophers I listed above, you'll see that they think this tendency is problematic.

I concur that praxis is the very culmination of learning. But the thing is, the basis of practice must be correct for it to be effective.

And by "correct," we mean what?

Praxis is not just the culmination of learning. It is an integral part of it, which must be present at every stage.

The study of divinity is particularly pertinent in that it governs a lot of human actions (e.g. what one must do, think, say, eat, etc), which also makes religion a source of major conflicts in the world (e.g. Israel, Jihads).

This is a fundamentalist view. The subscription to extremes is problematic and inhuman and violent.

Religious conflict has been a source of major world conflict, but it's pretty apparent that most conflict springs more from economic and political differences twisted by giving them a religious flavor. Religion, on its own, is hardly the source of conflict, unless you can point at a particular religion which calls on its believers to harm other people.

But the more important focus here is on the individual. This is how theology is made more relevant. In a conflict between dogma and reality, what would the person perceive as correct?

The danger with simply limiting ourselves to perception is a tendency toward relativism.

And while I did point out earlier that a lot of stuff has to do with different points of view, there is usually a point of view which makes more sense when measured by certain tests, whether they be logical or moral or religious.

For example, being gay is a big no-no for the church. But years of scientific study has placed that being gay is normal not only in humans but also in other animals. Oslo's National Museum of Natural History has exhibited photos of animals exhibiting gay homosexuality. This was meant to dispute the belief that homosexuality is a "crime against nature." A plethora of evidence awaits the open mind. But the faithful would utterly reject this. All of these would burn in hell (if hell exists), they would say. And thats how the cookie crumbles. Again, I'm not against spirituality, but bad, illogical theology is bad philosophy, and that makes a deplorable life not only for the individual but also for others.

Quick comments:

1. Being gay is, as Church perspective puts it, something that is morally flawed. There may be possibilities of love, or very real affection, but the "love" isn't capable of perfection or consummation in a manner that is, say, procreative.

2. The natural museum exhibit shows that certain animals will attempt to procreate with animals of the same sex. But this exhibit does not discuss intention, morals, or even sexual preference.

3. So what makes for "bad" theology and philosophy?

la_flash

Jul 18, 2007, 07:30 AM

I dabbled with philo while in college, with a little theo. Yes they're fun to study but I admit much of the knowledge and wisdom they give have been superceded by science, math, and several specific branches of study.

There are areas that religion is not supposed to get into, and there are areas that science and math can not apprehend nor comprehend.

You see, religion/theology and science/math are two different disciplines that are not necessarily in conflict. That's the problem with some atheists like you who'd like to paint a picture that religion and science are in conflict therefore religion is false, God does not exist and Theology is for the idiots. You remind me of Dawkins and his company. They continue to claim things outside their area of expertise, attempt to claim truths which are blurred and contradicting. They disguise them as scientific when in fact these are philosophical in nature.

Proof: bible literalists are slowly retreating. Now even the Catholic Church (quietly) accepts evolution. Here on Earth, the only unanswered question is the origin of life itself.

WRONG! Nobody is getting an upper hand. Evolution does not necessarily contradict religion, the former may in fact strengthen the latter. Read Keith Ward.

On whether or not there really is a God, the battle is now with the mathematicians and physicists surrounding the big bang. Everything that followed after the big bang was/is governed by the laws of math and physics as taught in school.

That's fundamentally flawed. Science and mathematics can not answer whether there's a GOD or not. God is not something that can be put under a microscope and be studied. Science and mathematics are for material beings and not for supernatural ones. (I will not be surprised if somebody will come out and say that it is an easy escape route by theists like me, :lol:)

Besides, if science and mathematics can not explain what happens at t<=0, then how the hell it can surmise that there's a GOD or not?

Try harder. :D

ach_soo

Jul 18, 2007, 07:53 AM

There are areas that religion is not supposed to get into, and there are areas that science and math can not apprehend nor comprehend.
Crap. That sort of shield from logic and reason can no longer protect your crumbling faith.

WRONG! Nobody is getting an upper hand. Evolution does not necessarily contradict religion, the former may in fact strengthen the latter. Read Keith Ward.
No, I don't want to have to read something that's probably biased anyway. You tell me in your own words how evolution could strengthen belief that there's a God. I'll appreciate a short answer.

That's fundamentally flawed. Science and mathematics can not answer whether there's a GOD or not. God is not something that can be put under a microscope and be studied. Science and mathematics are for material beings and not for supernatural ones. (I will not be surprised if somebody will come out and say that it is an easy escape route by theists like me, :lol:)
So your supernatural is yours and yours alone and does not concern me in any way. you've just broken your own omnipotent and omniscience definition.

Besides, if science and mathematics can not explain what happens at t<=0, then how the hell it can surmise that there's a GOD or not?
Which also poves there was nothing intelligent about what happened at exactly t = 0. Nothing anyone or anything before that could have influenced what came next.

la_flash

Jul 18, 2007, 08:04 AM

Crap. That sort of shield from logic and reason can no longer protect your crumbling faith.

WRONG! Have you read what philosophers and scientists have to say about this? Have you heard about Huxley and why he became agnostic and not atheist?

It seems that our atheist friend here is not updated with what's the latest in world of philosophy.

No, I don't want to have to read something that's probably biased anyway. You tell me in your own words how evolution could strengthen belief that there's a God. I'll appreciate a short answer.

Sigh... and you think that what you read is not biased? :lol:

In a gist, evolution could have been directed by an intelligent being as part of His design.

So your supernatural is yours and yours alone and does not concern me in any way. you've just broken your own omnipotent and omniscience definition.

WRONG! What I've said in that part of my post that you quoted does not in any way broken down the omnipotence and omniscience of GOD.

Are you sure you're UPian? Such basic concepts should be understood by a bright student, you know?

Which also poves there was nothing intelligent about what happened at exactly t = 0. Nothing anyone or anything before that could have influenced what came next.

WRONG! The fact that science and math can not explain what was before t=0 does not in anyway prove the existence or non-existence of "intelligence".

TRY HARDER. :lol:

SUX2BÜ

Jul 18, 2007, 11:52 AM

It's really funny that when morality, philosophy, religion, theology, or God is brought up, you bet most upians will writhe in convulsions like the devil in holy water.

:shrug:

vinta18

Jul 18, 2007, 12:12 PM

^^ is usefullness the same as relevance?

I don't know. Can a subject be relevant yet useless? Or vice-versa?

Theology may be irrelevant in the sense that you don't need to take it to be an engineer or accountant. If one is Christian, then Theology subjects are probably relevant to one's personal life. Atheists probably won't find it so, unless they're ex-christians who want to understand more about the faith they left.

All subjects (when taught properly) are useful as brain exercise. Basic skills (reading, writing, research, critical thinking) which are useful anywhere can be honed using any subject, theology included.

ach_soo

Jul 18, 2007, 01:00 PM

WRONG! Have you read what philosophers and scientists have to say about this? Have you heard about Huxley and why he became agnostic and not atheist?

It seems that our atheist friend here is not updated with what's the latest in world of philosophy.
So like many creationists, all you can throw at me are names of authors who you think are correct and are backing you up. You just haven't read them (or worst don't understand them).

In a gist, evolution could have been directed by an intelligent being as part of His design.
That's neither a claim nor an argument. It's a gist of something :rolleyes: Sorry, evolution (as accepted by many religious leaders now), are guided by ordinary biological and physico-chemical processes. These in turn are founded on basic laws that, while they contain an element of randomness, certainly do not produce species by random means.

WRONG! The fact that science and math can not explain what was before t=0 does not in anyway prove the existence or non-existence of "intelligence".

TRY HARDER. :lol:
Dumb@ss, it's precisely the law of math that dictates what happens during and after a singularity. The argument is stronger that the big bang occurred with no intelligent cause, and even if there was, could not have influenced anything after, like the origin of life and evolution.

Nope. You haven't so much as dented the atheist cause. Suggest you ask for help from 272 Thomasians. :lol:

la_flash

Jul 18, 2007, 01:28 PM

So like many creationists, all you can throw at me are names of authors who you think are correct and are backing you up. You just haven't read them (or worst don't understand them).

We are not talking about creationism just yet. There are christians who are creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc. etc. etc. I suggest that you read some more, it's good for the brain. :lol:

Moreover, Huxley is no creationist. He was one staunch agnostic. :glee:

Also, the point which you failed to refute is that science and theology are two different disciplines, but not conflicting. Science can not make any pronouncements that are philosophical in nature. Science can not even claim that GOD does not exist.

That's neither a claim nor an argument. It's a gist of something :rolleyes: Sorry, evolution (as accepted by many religious leaders now), are guided by ordinary biological and physico-chemical processes. These in turn are founded on basic laws that, while they contain an element of randomness, certainly do not produce species by random means.

Haha... just like Dawkins, you failed to see that that does not contradict theistic views. Don't you find it funny that the church accepts ToE as a fact, but it's main proponents like Dawkins see it differently and claim that God does not exist. It is our selfish genes, he says, that determine us all. :glee:

Why would the church accepts something as a fact if it undermines its main tenet that GOD does exist? hmmm?

Dumb@ss, it's precisely the law of math that dictates what happens during and after a singularity. The argument is stronger that the big bang occurred with no intelligent cause, and even if there was, could not have influenced anything after, like the origin of life and evolution.

Nope. You haven't so much as dented the atheist cause. Suggest you ask for help from 272 Thomasians. :lol:

Dumb@ss, the law of math crumbles during singularity. I suggest that you read more on physics before you expose your ignorance here once again.

Now, tell me, how suppose math and science prove that GOD does not exist during or before singularity? eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

pumpysworld

Jul 18, 2007, 10:26 PM

Philosophy and theology (or at least the study of religions) are relevant subjects because they are part of the human condition. The fact that they may be useless for one's work does not make them irrelevant. In fact, it is even possible that one studies something useful so that he can make money and afford to do something useless.

Given that, we probably don't take a lot of these subjects not because they are irrelevant but because we can't afford to take them.

quents

Jul 18, 2007, 11:05 PM

It's really funny that when morality, philosophy, religion, theology, or God is brought up, you bet most upians will writhe in convulsions like the devil in holy water.

:shrug:

well at least we dont sexually abuse children/ let pedophile priests loose on an unwitting population...:grrr:

theology, clearly, did no good for these priests. taking them classes does not ensure morality. or in the case of ustians, intelligence. :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

n3X

Jul 19, 2007, 05:50 AM

Sir, makasingit lang po.

First, the church was not "founded" on the concept of eternal life.

Yes it is. And when I said founded on/upon, it doesnt mean it was established on that but that eternal life as a concept is the construct/base.

Second, you can't be certain that afterlife doesnt exist.

And you're certain? Your statement is correct, I am not certain. But what I know is that it hasnt been proven. And as far as I know, it doesnt exist unless proven.

Third, anticipating what's in store for us after we died and valuing "this" life are not mutually exclusive. You can still give value to your life now, and give value to the life of others, but still able to prepare yourself for what's there in the afterlife.

Hmmm at some point yes, but there's a big overlapping area. The thing is building your lifestance over this afterlife is problematic because the reality of an afterlife is unproven. To illustrate, following Pascal's wager, the hypothetical values would reward the person who prepared for the afterlife if there was an afterlife. But in reality, using true values, the opposite would be more favorable. So snap out of it.

Fourth, christianity is not about not enjoying the good things in life. However, if your idea of having good things in life is like that of the hedonists, then I must concur with you. What is good and what are its effects to your humanity and to other lives, that's what the christian should answer before he enjoys that "good thing in life". See the difference?

Ugh that was just a comedic line, so its exaggerated. See the difference? Hehe In any case, I dont understand your point. Sorry, maybe you could expound. :D

Theology is not against reason. Don't make it appear that it is.

Where did I say this? When I said, Let reason triumph, the point was that not all opinions are created equal. Some have more weight than others. Theology, being a field of study, is ofcourse bound by reason.

I agree with atenean_blooded re philosophers and their works and how should we treat them. Let me remind you that not all great philosophers will agree on the same thing most of the times.

We accept some, we reject some. Thats natural. And ofcourse they dont agree. They dont publish to concur! That would only be redundant! You are being redundant! Either they contradict or extend (dialectics).

Was it religion alone that brought about the major conflicts that you are talking about?

Obviously no, but for the most part, yes. Religion gave them their value systems and rules through which they based their actions. For example, a suicide bomber would not push through if the consideration of innocent people led to the conclusion that human life has more worth than creating more violence. Even in our normal lives, in what we value, there is a constant struggle between faith and reason.

Hmmm, am not so sure, but I've heard that there are humanists who think that homosexuality is against nature. They are humanists my friend, and not necessarily religious.

Ugh Humanists? Then theyre not humanists at all, its a contradiction. Baka chismis lang yan na narinig mo.

Also, what can be observed on the subject animals does not necessarily prove that it could be a human nature. For if that's the case, then we should not penalize cannibals for spiders also eat their own kind. :lol:

Ugh I didnt understand your first statement. But the point was it was a naturally occurring phenomenon in many species. With your second statement, yes thats true. Of course, its appalling in modern society given the presence of many substitutes. But in the context of a, lets say, an ethnic tribe with a cannibalism tradition then it would be alright. Its kind of like, in other societies eating dogs is considered as disgusting, but for some ethno-linguistic groups in the Philippines, its a delicacy. Also in some circumstances, like in South America when a plane crashed and the survivors were trying to walk and find help, they agreed consensually that they would eat one of themselves and they did. Was it reasonable? Well yes if you're trying to survive.

One of the most accepted readings of Dante's Divine Comedy was that it was, more than anything, a socio-political critique not of religion, but of a religious institution, the Catholic Church. In a nutshell, Dante placed people who didn't fit with his ideals in hell, people he sort of liked in purgatory, and those whom he thought lived upright lives in heaven.

Hehe Not of religion but of a religious institution? I see the distinction you're trying to make, but it is really the same thing (and what Dante criticizes). The Catholic church is the religion. And I disagree that that was the most accepted reading of Divine comedy. Thats incorrect and very simplistic. An allegory from la langue de Dante, it protested the political feuds of Tuscany while glorifying God's ways. The Divine Comedy contains Dante's personal struggles and the whole world as its subject. Representing humankind, Dante travels through the 9 circles of Inferno (Hell), purgatorio (Purgatory) and ultimately to Paradiso (Heaven), symbolizing human development to its fullest [Virgil representing reason hands Dante over to Beatrice, representing even the limits of human reason]. Dante placed equal priority on preparing for the afterlife but stressed that it was "inconceivable to him that he and mankind in general should not have been intended to develop to the fullest their specifically human potential." I further quote from the same Inferno introduction by Archibald T. MacAllister, "...typically medieval view, which saw the earthly life as a 'vale of tears,' a period of trial and suffering, an unpleasant but necessary preparation for the after-life where alone man could expect to enjoy happiness. To Dante such an idea was totally repugnant."

Christianity is founded on, in a manner of speaking, two key points: First, that God has revealed himself to us, with the perfection and sum total of that revelation in Jesus Christ ("Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again," etc.), and that God continues to reveal himself to us today because God is with us and we are with God. The abstract notion of eternal life is a matter of faith.

And that being with God will permit you to have a good afterlife, in a nutshell. Hehe In a very basic psychological set-up, the reward is this Heaven-Afterlife and this, specifically, has been the lasting appeal and mechanism of the religion. Thus, getting "SAVED" as the battle cry. Which reminds me, have you guys seen the movie Saved!. Quite entertaining.

And because God revealed himself to us through Christ, the idea of God's kingdom, of "heaven", may very well be something that we can aspire for in this life, not some abstract afterlife concept. This, however, does not discount the possibility of an afterlife, since nobody's ever been there and back.

See! Faith serves as the basis! Why cant we see that the lack of evidence totally discounts the possibility. I understand that its hard to see this because it totally revises your worldview.

Nietzsche's reasoning was, essentially, the part of a closed system of thought that, in the final analysis, calls for acceptance or rejection. He has some pretty interesting ideas about humanity and people.

But then again, Nietzsche's philosophy is pretty incompatible with the ideas of some other contemporary philosophers, like say, Marcel, Levinas, Ricoeur, and Arendt.

A lot of Europe learned from Nietzsche. But Nietzsche's ideas about the Church seem pretty irrational in the face of Vatican II. Nietzsche's presupposition can be summed up largely in his ideas about a will to power, about wanting to maintain control, about wanting to continually consume everything.

The question is, of course, whether or not this is an accurate picture of what humanity is about. And this is an even more interesting question if you want to talk about what humanity ought to be. And Marcel, Levinas, Ricoeur, and Arendt, who also made quite a stir in Europe (with less of Nietzsche's angst, which can seem quite juvenile), point us in another direction.

I can imagine the Church having a fit if Nietzsche became standard-issue thinking. That's because a lot of what he says is actually diametrically opposed to the Church's social teachings, which continue to be relevant in the world today.

I couldnt really comment extensively for I am not a student of Philosophy, maybe you could explain more and illustrate how these are relevant to theology. Going back to the debate, how do they refute Nietzsche and his work on repudiating Christianity's compassion? What is the impact of their work on what we're talking about?

This is largely about differing points of view. The history of western thought demonstrates our tendency to want a particular point of view. The very statement, "Let reason triumph!", as unqualified as it is, is one such example.

And if you read some of the philosophers I listed above, you'll see that they think this tendency is problematic.

Its not wanting a particular point of view, but the appropriate point of view or taking the most reasoned argument. And the statement doesnt need qualification, but maybe an explanation for those who dont get it. What is problematic is people believing in false beliefs and not submitting to reason but blind faith.

And by "correct," we mean what?

Praxis is not just the culmination of learning. It is an integral part of it, which must be present at every stage.

Correct in that it holds true and it is the best there is, which is the most effective and efficient. And wow, just saying that its present at every stage adds tremendous value.

This is a fundamentalist view. The subscription to extremes is problematic and inhuman and violent.

Religious conflict has been a source of major world conflict, but it's pretty apparent that most conflict springs more from economic and political differences twisted by giving them a religious flavor. Religion, on its own, is hardly the source of conflict, unless you can point at a particular religion which calls on its believers to harm other people.

Why cant we admit that it differentiates people significantly, that ways of life are largely based on religion--not a flavor, a superficial layer. Its not about intent or directives! Its quite natural that conflicts arise from the simple friction of differences and experiences. And its not only between religions, its between us. Old, traditional women looking down on a single-mother, society placing a taboo on sexually-liberated people, the hypocrisy of some people who go to mass constantly but dont have the compassion for the dirty vagrant who approaches them. Most of the stuff on the news spring from the major economic/political clashes but in the micro view, there is a lot of tension in the social sphere of normal life. Not to mention the internal conflicts, for example, years of psychological studies have proven the deep, destructive antagonisms inside gay people who subscribe to disapproving religions.

The danger with simply limiting ourselves to perception is a tendency toward relativism.

And while I did point out earlier that a lot of stuff has to do with different points of view, there is usually a point of view which makes more sense when measured by certain tests, whether they be logical or moral or religious.

And then? And whats the problem with relativism? We already live in a postmodern world.

Quick comments:

1. Being gay is, as Church perspective puts it, something that is morally flawed. There may be possibilities of love, or very real affection, but the "love" isn't capable of perfection or consummation in a manner that is, say, procreative.

2. The natural museum exhibit shows that certain animals will attempt to procreate with animals of the same sex. But this exhibit does not discuss intention, morals, or even sexual preference.

3. So what makes for "bad" theology and philosophy?

What is moral? What is love? What is perfection? So a couple that couldnt make children, lets say the girl is infertile, has a relationship that is morally flawed? Then you'll say its different because its between a girl and guy although I refuted the logic of your statement. There was an article about gay pink flamingoes, research about it, which presents a function of gay couples in the natural world.

That was the point of the exhibit! There was no intention, morals or sexual preference (gender as a social construct is limited in animals)--perfectly illustrating that it naturally occurs, nothing wrong with it. Most people think homosexuality goes against nature because its not capable of procreation, but it happens everywhere and doesnt deserve our rejection. It could even be said that it is immoral to repudiate something that is quite natural. But people refuse to see that logic. Why? Because of dogma. Unjustified beliefs.

Well bad theology and philosophy is just plain illogical reasoning. Like assumptions of unjustified beliefs and opinions. Or basing life on faith. Im not saying that we dont need spirituality, I believe its an essential component of human nature. But like all things, we must examine it in a logical manner that makes it more relevant, effective and more attached to reality.

la_flash

Jul 19, 2007, 08:00 AM

Yes it is. And when I said founded on/upon, it doesnt mean it was established on that but that eternal life as a concept is the construct/base.

Yes.

And you're certain? Your statement is correct, I am not certain. But what I know is that it hasnt been proven. And as far as I know, it doesnt exist unless proven.

I believe that it exists through faith...

It doesn't exist until proven? A thing exists (granting that it really does exist) independent of whether it is proved or not proved to exist. The most that you can say about having it proved to exist is that you acquire additional information... not that it exists because you have proved it. That's the problem with your line of thought.

Hmmm at some point yes, but there's a big overlapping area. The thing is building your lifestance over this afterlife is problematic because the reality of an afterlife is unproven. To illustrate, following Pascal's wager, the hypothetical values would reward the person who prepared for the afterlife if there was an afterlife. But in reality, using true values, the opposite would be more favorable. So snap out of it.

Wrong. Using Pascal's wager, it is more favorable to believe in a GOD and to prepare for afterlife than not to... that is, if we're talking about christian GOD which Pascal was obviously referring to.

Building your life over this afterlife is not problematic. Christians don't find it so...

Ugh that was just a comedic line, so its exaggerated. See the difference? Hehe In any case, I dont understand your point. Sorry, maybe you could expound. :D

Basically, christians can still enjoy this life even with the moral code that they should adhere too.

Where did I say this? When I said, Let reason triumph, the point was that not all opinions are created equal. Some have more weight than others. Theology, being a field of study, is ofcourse bound by reason.

Noted.

We accept some, we reject some. Thats natural. And ofcourse they dont agree. They dont publish to concur! That would only be redundant! You are being redundant! Either they contradict or extend (dialectics).

Right! However, it's evident that you favored Nietzsche more than the others when you said "for disagreeing with Nietzche, there lies the problem". As we've said, these are all points of views. And you have said, we can accept or reject it. He may be a great philosopher, but not necessarily right.

Obviously no, but for the most part, yes. Religion gave them their value systems and rules through which they based their actions. For example, a suicide bomber would not push through if the consideration of innocent people led to the conclusion that human life has more worth than creating more violence. Even in our normal lives, in what we value, there is a constant struggle between faith and reason.

That may be so... I think you're referring to muslim extremists. I should say that their actions were driven more by political struggle than religious one. They are hiding behind the mask of their religion.

Ugh Humanists? Then theyre not humanists at all, its a contradiction. Baka chismis lang yan na narinig mo.

Hmmm... di yata... try kong i-research ulit. I didn't pay attention to it when I encountered the said humanist.

Hmmm... ALL humanists agree that homosexuals are not against nature?

Ugh I didnt understand your first statement. But the point was it was a naturally occurring phenomenon in many species. With your second statement, yes thats true. Of course, its appalling in modern society given the presence of many substitutes. But in the context of a, lets say, an ethnic tribe with a cannibalism tradition then it would be alright. Its kind of like, in other societies eating dogs is considered as disgusting, but for some ethno-linguistic groups in the Philippines, its a delicacy. Also in some circumstances, like in South America when a plane crashed and the survivors were trying to walk and find help, they agreed consensually that they would eat one of themselves and they did. Was it reasonable? Well yes if you're trying to survive.

As to cannibalism, the end does not justify the means.

As to nature of animals, what we can observed with them cannot be necessarily attributed to humans as human nature. When you said that you can observe homosexual acts among animals, and surmise that it is not against nature for humans to do the same, I said that is quite problematic and quite not right. You can't just select one animal behavior and turn it into a human nature. So I gave an example about spiders, using your line of thought, we should not penalize cannibals for spiders also eat their own kind.

n3X

Jul 19, 2007, 09:12 PM

I believe that it exists through faith...

It doesn't exist until proven? A thing exists (granting that it really does exist) independent of whether it is proved or not proved to exist. The most that you can say about having it proved to exist is that you acquire additional information... not that it exists because you have proved it. That's the problem with your line of thought.

Haha You're funny. So following your 'I believe that it exists through faith,' if I strongly believe with a bunch of followers that there's a spaceship in a passing comet, it exists through our faith. Then you'll tell me that its different. I hope what you're saying is true though, I strongly believe in the mental capacities of human beings, but then again sometimes they dont exist! Or a billion dollars in my account! Hay, kung puede lang manalig at magkaroon. Thats the problem with your line of thinking.

Yeah thats true, GRANTING it REALLY EXISTS, a thing independently exists whether it is proved to exist or not. I think thats what you're trying to say right? Cuz you also wrote A thing exists... whether it is proved OR NOT PROVED to exist. Quite contradictory. Thats the problem with your line of thinking. Myy point still stands, the thing is someone COULD prove it exists. A thing exists because we could prove it. Gets? That is why human experience is considered as the ONLY valid source of knowledge.

Wrong. Using Pascal's wager, it is more favorable to believe in a GOD and to prepare for afterlife than not to... that is, if we're talking about christian GOD which Pascal was obviously referring to.

Building your life over this afterlife is not problematic. Christians don't find it so...

Ugh I think you didnt understand the thing with the hypothetical and real values. Read again. And what places your Christian God over the Pantheon or Allah or Buddha or the Dalai Lama?

Well Christians ofcourse dont find it so, because of faith. Duh! But from an objective point of view, this is problematic, which was the point of Dante! Building one's lifestance over this non-existent afterlife wastes the real life people got (and their development) on earth. The basis for acting, doing is flawed. By following blind faith, people miss out on the truth and subsequently, right decisions. You Sir need to qualify your statements.

Basically, christians can still enjoy this life even with the moral code that they should adhere too.

Ugh not really as I've illustrated. A Gay Christian doesnt enjoy life. Or a sexually-liberated Christian. Or Christians that are in conflict with an imposed moral code.

Kahit sa macro view. The Christian moral code states, go forth and multiply. So bawal daw condoms and sex education. So population boom, the resources of the earth and government are strained, economic growth is not felt by millions, poverty increases, hunger is felt by millions, crime increases, diseases increase and so on and so forth. Do people enjoy this? I dont think so. Can you see now the ramifications of the code, the policies of the Catholic church?

Right! However, it's evident that you favored Nietzsche more than the others when you said "for disagreeing with Nietzche, there lies the problem". As we've said, these are all points of views. And you have said, we can accept or reject it. He may be a great philosopher, but not necessarily right.

How simplistic. Again its not about points of view, e di wala ring basis for refuting arguments. Kasi you could just hold on to your point of view, and me with mine. Ano to, the Buzz? It starts with, what is the truth? What is true? Are your beliefs even attached to reality?

That may be so... I think you're referring to muslim extremists. I should say that their actions were driven more by political struggle than religious one. They are hiding behind the mask of their religion.

Haha Sorry to say this, but its pretty obvious you know little of the situation with muslim extremists. How can you say it was driven more by political struggle? In any case, I'm not only talking about muslim extremists, thats just fundamentalist, I'm talking about EVERYONE.

Hmmm... di yata... try kong i-research ulit. I didn't pay attention to it when I encountered the said humanist.

Hmmm... ALL humanists agree that homosexuals are not against nature?

And again, you dont know enough about what you're talking about Sir. This is the problem: people just base their opinions on what they believe in. Guys these must be justified, true! So go ahead, RESEARCH PLEASE. Go to www.iheu.org

As to cannibalism, the end does not justify the means.

As to nature of animals, what we can observed with them cannot be necessarily attributed to humans as human nature. When you said that you can observe homosexual acts among animals, and surmise that it is not against nature for humans to do the same, I said that is quite problematic and quite not right. You can't just select one animal behavior and turn it into a human nature. So I gave an example about spiders, using your line of thought, we should not penalize cannibals for spiders also eat their own kind.

Hmmm well their end justified the means. You just cant see why or you refuse to see why. But again baka sabihin mo pa, its not always that the end justifies the means, it should be that the total utility that can be derived from the decisions must be justified. Thats why I qualified my statement that they consensually did it.

Your arguments are out of the debate. We are not placing animal behavior on humans. First, the argument was that homosexual behavior, whether human or animal, is natural, it occurs naturally in nature. We can see it occurs with humans. We can see it occurs in A LOT of species. Now do you see the logic and how you thought it wrong? And those conclusions were NOT SURMISED, mind you, there were a lot of concrete evidence (human and in animals), hence the exhibit. And guys, humans are still animals. Yes we are quite advanced but its not like we are non-corporeal beings. If you used my line of thinking, then we should not penalize homosexuals for being their natural selves.

I hope someone could adjudicate, debate people?

atenean_blooded

Jul 19, 2007, 11:44 PM

Hehe Not of religion but of a religious institution? I see the distinction you're trying to make, but it is really the same thing (and what Dante criticizes). The Catholic church is the religion.

Inaccurate. The Catholic Church is largely a human organization. It subscribes to a particular faith.

And I disagree that that was the most accepted reading of Divine comedy. Thats incorrect and very simplistic. An allegory from la langue de Dante, it protested the political feuds of Tuscany while glorifying God's ways. The Divine Comedy contains Dante's personal struggles and the whole world as its subject. Representing humankind, Dante travels through the 9 circles of Inferno (Hell), purgatorio (Purgatory) and ultimately to Paradiso (Heaven), symbolizing human development to its fullest [Virgil representing reason hands Dante over to Beatrice, representing even the limits of human reason]. Dante placed equal priority on preparing for the afterlife but stressed that it was "inconceivable to him that he and mankind in general should not have been intended to develop to the fullest their specifically human potential." I further quote from the same Inferno introduction by Archibald T. MacAllister, "...typically medieval view, which saw the earthly life as a 'vale of tears,' a period of trial and suffering, an unpleasant but necessary preparation for the after-life where alone man could expect to enjoy happiness. To Dante such an idea was totally repugnant."

I've read several different translations and annotated versions of the Divine Comedy. I'm familiar with the text and the intended representations. Suffice it to say that Dante works with lots allegorical references. But any reader will simply be able to point out that what Dante rejected was not the idea of Christianity, not the Catholic faith, but rather, the institution that was the Church of his time. Even a cursory reading of the Paradiso shows that Dante places a lot of emphasis on positive imagery that is largely Roman Catholic, even using the expanded Graeco-Roman philosophical bases which the Church refers to.

And it is correct to point out that lots of Dante's criticisms were directed at a medieval Church, one that is quite different from the Church today.

And that being with God will permit you to have a good afterlife, in a nutshell. Hehe In a very basic psychological set-up, the reward is this Heaven-Afterlife and this, specifically, has been the lasting appeal and mechanism of the religion. Thus, getting "SAVED" as the battle cry. Which reminds me, have you guys seen the movie Saved!. Quite entertaining.

The fact of the matter is, Christian faith posits that even in this life, we have been saved. And the Church's mission of spreading the Good News is precisely to spread the good news of our salvation, through an evangelization that addresses both spiritual and temporal needs.

See! Faith serves as the basis! Why cant we see that the lack of evidence totally discounts the possibility. I understand that its hard to see this because it totally revises your worldview.

What world-view are you talking about?

You can list a whole lot of "rational" systems which rely strictly on empirical evidence. It goes without saying that practically all of them will eventually end, and find no answer to, the so-called first questions.

Interestingly enough, one of the most interesting pieces of modern philosophy, that of Kant, spoke a lot about reliance on strict reasoning and scientific proof. But in the end, even Kant's system admits of a need for a leap of faith, otherwise the system becomes absurd.

I couldnt really comment extensively for I am not a student of Philosophy, maybe you could explain more and illustrate how these are relevant to theology. Going back to the debate, how do they refute Nietzsche and his work on repudiating Christianity's compassion? What is the impact of their work on what we're talking about?

None of them directly refute Nietzsche. Few philosophers actually go so far as to try and directly refute a particular thinker's point of view. Instead, an alternative is presented.

A common theme among those whom I mentioned is that there is much more to humanity than a relentless drive to consume and reduce the world to an abstraction. Marcel, for example, points at the obvious fact that we cannot reduce other people to mere abstractions. Buber and Ricoeur talk largely about interhuman relationships. Levinas talks about a person's infinite responsibility for the other. Arendt calls on people to think.

None of these people talk about God directly. None of them challenge (directly) any of the Church's social teachings. In fact, most of what they say, as a humane alternative to Nietzsche perhaps, is actually very consistent with Christianity's own world view.

Most of them are Jewish, by the way.

Its not wanting a particular point of view, but the appropriate point of view or taking the most reasoned argument. And the statement doesnt need qualification, but maybe an explanation for those who dont get it. What is problematic is people believing in false beliefs and not submitting to reason but blind faith.

Yes, and how do we define what is most "appropriate" and what is "most reasoned?"

Reason runs smack into limits. A particular line of reason will justify even violence, or courses of action which are inhuman.

The presupposition you are making is that the beliefs are false, and that the faith is blind. There has been nothing in your arguments which properly establishes these two points. And there is empirical evidence to show that most faith is actually the subject of much thought and reason: as I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, theology and philosophy, for example, work very well together.

Correct in that it holds true and it is the best there is, which is the most effective and efficient. And wow, just saying that its present at every stage adds tremendous value.

There's a problem with the statement "holds true... and it is the best there is." Truth is an objective matter. Being the best there is, is not. To speak of effectivity and efficiency is to speak of something fleeting, because inevitably, what is effective and efficient now will not necessarily work later or tomorrow.

Why cant we admit that it differentiates people significantly, that ways of life are largely based on religion--not a flavor, a superficial layer. Its not about intent or directives! Its quite natural that conflicts arise from the simple friction of differences and experiences. And its not only between religions, its between us. Old, traditional women looking down on a single-mother, society placing a taboo on sexually-liberated people, the hypocrisy of some people who go to mass constantly but dont have the compassion for the dirty vagrant who approaches them. Most of the stuff on the news spring from the major economic/political clashes but in the micro view, there is a lot of tension in the social sphere of normal life. Not to mention the internal conflicts, for example, years of psychological studies have proven the deep, destructive antagonisms inside gay people who subscribe to disapproving religions.

You've pointed out nice examples of conflicts of tradition and economics, etc. You've failed to show how that's the fault of religion.

And then? And whats the problem with relativism? We already live in a postmodern world.

The illogic of relativism is best summed up in this statement:

"There is no objective truth."

That's a performative contradiction.

Not even postmodernism will justify relativism's self-contradiction, nor will it justify atrocities that happen every day as a result of simply subscribing to largely differing theories of socio-politico-economic approach to the way things work in the world today.

What is moral? What is love? What is perfection? So a couple that couldnt make children, lets say the girl is infertile, has a relationship that is morally flawed? Then you'll say its different because its between a girl and guy although I refuted the logic of your statement. There was an article about gay pink flamingoes, research about it, which presents a function of gay couples in the natural world.

I am going to set aside my personal views on the subject matter and refer to the stand of the Church, as reflected on by some of the more liberal theologians.

In the example, you failed to refute the logic. Because clearly, there was lack of appreciation to the intent behind particular acts. In the view of the Church, the idea of human love, expressed through the sexual act, through the bodies designed the way they were designed, reaches physical perfection through the sexual act, the direction of which lends itself to a tendency for procreation. Procreation remains possible. The intention to procreate remains.

In homosexual sexual relationships, there is an absolute awareness between the homosexual partners that their having sex won't get them anywhere. So why remain trapped in an obviously irresolute relationship when the person can contribute to the race through procreation?

Flamingoes aren't capable of reason the way people are. Whatever unusual behavior they may exhibit is obviously driven by instinct, rather than the expected rational take humans have. Otherwise, you'll have to also say that a dog humping a broom is actively fantasizing, and that therefore masturbation occurs normally in nature and should not be condemned, when there is obviously no empirical proof to support such a conclusion.

That was the point of the exhibit! There was no intention, morals or sexual preference (gender as a social construct is limited in animals)--perfectly illustrating that it naturally occurs, nothing wrong with it. Most people think homosexuality goes against nature because its not capable of procreation, but it happens everywhere and doesnt deserve our rejection. It could even be said that it is immoral to repudiate something that is quite natural. But people refuse to see that logic. Why? Because of dogma. Unjustified beliefs.

Homosexual behavior occurs among non-human animals because of genetics and instinct.

We are obviously beyond that, with the powers of our reason and intellect. Unless, of course, you think that we're all just animals.

Well bad theology and philosophy is just plain illogical reasoning. Like assumptions of unjustified beliefs and opinions. Or basing life on faith. Im not saying that we dont need spirituality, I believe its an essential component of human nature. But like all things, we must examine it in a logical manner that makes it more relevant, effective and more attached to reality.

You have still failed to define what bad philosophy and bad theology are, and have failed to establish why logic, which is supposed to be superior, fails when it comes to things which are obviously beyond the scope of the antiseptic, closed systems that you want to emphasize.

Since antiquity, humanity has turned to spirituality to provide possible answers to first questions. And even in the face of large advances in science and technology, many of the first questions remain unanswered. And spirituality still directs us to possible answers.

Spirituality is something humans possess that animals don't (or at least if you ask an empiricist, we have no empirical proof of). It is part of our nature.

la_flash

Jul 20, 2007, 09:29 AM

Haha You're funny. So following your 'I believe that it exists through faith,' if I strongly believe with a bunch of followers that there's a spaceship in a passing comet, it exists through our faith. Then you'll tell me that its different. I hope what you're saying is true though, I strongly believe in the mental capacities of human beings, but then again sometimes they dont exist! Or a billion dollars in my account! Hay, kung puede lang manalig at magkaroon. Thats the problem with your line of thinking.

Hmmm... you're twisitng my arguments and then attack it... please spare the strawman.

You asked me, "And you're certain?"

I answered, "I believe it exists through faith".

I did not say that just by mere believing that something exists, that something will exist. That's one absurd line of thought.

What I meant, and that you failed to see, was that we believe that GOD exists through our faith and not on empirical evidence.

Science provides no answers and can not provide answers to questions like "Does a GOD exist?". To ask and wait for answers from science and to search for empirical evidence is absurd.

We believe by faith, despite the lack of evidence... that we do. But that is not necessarily against reason, nevertheless not illogical.

You asked am I certain... I didn't answer you directly... With yor measure, "No, I am not that certain to the point that I can point you the answers to your questions".

Yeah thats true, GRANTING it REALLY EXISTS, a thing independently exists whether it is proved to exist or not. I think thats what you're trying to say right? Cuz you also wrote A thing exists... whether it is proved OR NOT PROVED to exist. Quite contradictory.

Where is the contradiction in that?

Let me simplify it for you:

1. Thing A exists but not yet proven to exist at t=0.
2. Thing A still exists at point t=X, eventhough NOBODY is trying to prove that it exists. It is NOT PROVED to exist, but still it exists.
3. At t=Y, a person M tried to prove that A exists, but unsuccesful... yet is still exists.

Now, don't you get it?

Thats the problem with your line of thinking. Myy point still stands, the thing is someone COULD prove it exists. A thing exists because we could prove it. Gets? That is why human experience is considered as the ONLY valid source of knowledge.

That is the problem with your line of thinking too. That's the problem with the MATERIALISTs point of view. No, I am not saying that you subscribe it, but your point of view is coincident with what they have.

How about those beyond our observable universe? Do they exist or not? They are beyond our scope, and we could not possibly prove it... Do they exist?

Is HUMAN EXPERIENCE the ONLY valid source of knowledge?

Ugh I think you didnt understand the thing with the hypothetical and real values. Read again. And what places your Christian God over the Pantheon or Allah or Buddha or the Dalai Lama?

It's you who don't understand. As per Pascal's wager, it is beter to believe that there's a GOD than to suffer in hell when there is a GOD. Of course he was referring to a christian GOD.

And I also know that you were talking about the different GODs aside from the christian GOD... but, the existence of such GODs are not equiprobable. Some are more probable to exist than the others. It is all due to our limited information.

Yes, the wager still stands.

Well Christians ofcourse dont find it so, because of faith. Duh! But from an objective point of view, this is problematic, which was the point of Dante! Building one's lifestance over this non-existent afterlife wastes the real life people got (and their development) on earth. The basis for acting, doing is flawed. By following blind faith, people miss out on the truth and subsequently, right decisions. You Sir need to qualify your statements.

What is blind and what is faith? and is it necessarily detrimental to one's development and progress?

What about the scientists such as Newton?

What about the christian philosophers?

What about the contemporary scientists now who work towards for the common good?

What about the christian teachers, engineers, and others?

Are we not wasting our time on weekdays and wasting our time on sundays? :lol:

Ugh not really as I've illustrated. A Gay Christian doesnt enjoy life. Or a sexually-liberated Christian. Or Christians that are in conflict with an imposed moral code.

Because christians must follow a strict moral code.

It is a bitter pill that you must swallow.

The moral code will not change just to suit everyone.

Christianity condemns homosexual acts since it began. There's no way that the church will give in.

If that gay christian cannot live with it, too bad. We're praying for him. If he's happy outside the church, then we can do anything about it. But that won't affect the stature of the church, the moral code it teaches and the existence of a GOD.

Kahit sa macro view. The Christian moral code states, go forth and multiply. So bawal daw condoms and sex education. So population boom, the resources of the earth and government are strained, economic growth is not felt by millions, poverty increases, hunger is felt by millions, crime increases, diseases increase and so on and so forth. Do people enjoy this? I dont think so. Can you see now the ramifications of the code, the policies of the Catholic church?

So simplistic. Christianity is against having pleasure during sex but refusing the consequence of such act... thus preventing procreation. The church is not against sex education per se. The church is more after the responsible parenthood.

How simplistic. Again its not about points of view, e di wala ring basis for refuting arguments. Kasi you could just hold on to your point of view, and me with mine. Ano to, the Buzz? It starts with, what is the truth? What is true? Are your beliefs even attached to reality?

So, if it wasn't a case of points of view, why different answers among philosophers?

Haha Sorry to say this, but its pretty obvious you know little of the situation with muslim extremists. How can you say it was driven more by political struggle? In any case, I'm not only talking about muslim extremists, thats just fundamentalist, I'm talking about EVERYONE.

Really now, prove it then that it is not more about political struggle.

You said suicide bomber, do all religious people qualify as such? you said anyone eh.

or when you said everyone, you're referring to "constant struggle on faith and reason"? Hmmm, that assumes that every christian or person of faith have a struggle within him for such.

counter-example : I don't. Faith is not necessarily against reason... so why the struggle? There's no struggle.

Hmmm well their end justified the means. You just cant see why or you refuse to see why. But again baka sabihin mo pa, its not always that the end justifies the means, it should be that the total utility that can be derived from the decisions must be justified. Thats why I qualified my statement that they consensually did it.

So the robbers robbing a bank justified their means.

Or the criminals murdering others justified their means.

Aren't you sounding a little bit absurd here, sir?

Your arguments are out of the debate. We are not placing animal behavior on humans. First, the argument was that homosexual behavior, whether human or animal, is natural, it occurs naturally in nature. We can see it occurs with humans. We can see it occurs in A LOT of species. Now do you see the logic and how you thought it wrong? And those conclusions were NOT SURMISED, mind you, there were a lot of concrete evidence (human and in animals), hence the exhibit. And guys, humans are still animals. Yes we are quite advanced but its not like we are non-corporeal beings. If you used my line of thinking, then we should not penalize homosexuals for being their natural selves.

I hope someone could adjudicate, debate people?

I see it quite clearly sir, but you can't see mine.

If it is natural for human, why use animals as example? If it is natural for human, then it should be self-evident. You used animals exhibiting the same behavior as an example, but you're quite selective with it. I asked if cannibalism is then natural...

jeune_fille

Jul 20, 2007, 04:07 PM

Makikisingit lang

Hmmm... you're twisitng my arguments and then attack it... please spare the strawman.

You asked me, "And you're certain?"

I answered, "I believe it exists through faith".

I did not say that just by mere believing that something exists, that something will exist. That's one absurd line of thought.

What I meant, and that you failed to see, was that we believe that GOD exists through our faith and not on empirical evidence.

Science provides no answers and can not provide answers to questions like "Does a GOD exist?". To ask and wait for answers from science and to search for empirical evidence is absurd.

We believe by faith, despite the lack of evidence... that we do. But that is not necessarily against reason, nevertheless not illogical.

You asked am I certain... I didn't answer you directly... With yor measure, "No, I am not that certain to the point that I can point you the answers to your questions".

The statement in bold is fallacy. The statements "Cannot provide" and "is trying to provide" are of course have different meanings. From the latest that I've read, the Big Bang Theory is a theoretical explanation that something can exists out of nothing. By direct implication, it is trying to explain that there is no Creator (GOD). In addition, I would just like to clarify Mr. la_flash that although you said that you believe despite that there's lack of evidence does not mean that you are correct right?

Where is the contradiction in that?

Let me simplify it for you:

1. Thing A exists but not yet proven to exist at t=0.
2. Thing A still exists at point t=X, eventhough NOBODY is trying to prove that it exists. It is NOT PROVED to exist, but still it exists.
3. At t=Y, a person M tried to prove that A exists, but unsuccesful... yet is still exists.

Now, don't you get it?

The first argument (#1) is antithetical, How can you say that thing A exists if it is not yet proven? Based from argument #1 you are only hypothesizing that thing A exists, but again you still have to prove your hypothesis. Otherwise, your whole argument is non sense

How about those beyond our observable universe? Do they exist or not? They are beyond our scope, and we could not possibly prove it... Do they exist?

Is HUMAN EXPERIENCE the ONLY valid source of knowledge?

As Kant pointed out, Human experience is of course not the only valid source of knowledge. The other one is analytic apriori.

I see it quite clearly sir, but you can't see mine.

If it is natural for human, why use animals as example? If it is natural for human, then it should be self-evident. You used animals exhibiting the same behavior as an example, but you're quite selective with it. I asked if cannibalism is then natural...

I think mr n3x is not being selective, the only thing that he wants to point out is that those things that were mentioned do exist in nature (homosexualism, hermaphrodites). Also Mr. la_flash, cannibalism is natural among animals, well humans have done it, cockroaches exhibits cannibalism when there don't have anything to eat.

la_flash

Jul 20, 2007, 04:44 PM

Makikisingit lang

Long time no see.

The statement in bold is fallacy. The statements "Cannot provide" and "is trying to provide" are of course have different meanings.

Of course they have different meanings... but it ain't no fallacy.

Science cannot provide answers to questions such "Does a GOD exist?", for it is beyond the realm of science. Hence the word "cannot"... meaning, is not capable of. As some have put it, science doesn't concern itself much on that question.

From the latest that I've read, the Big Bang Theory is a theoretical explanation that something can exists out of nothing. By direct implication, it is trying to explain that there is no Creator (GOD).

Not necessarily. Big Bang has been used by philosophers like Dr. Craig to demonstrate that there's a First Cause and that is a GOD.

How can something exists from nothing? Isn't it better to a "nothing" rather than "something"?

In addition, I would just like to clarify Mr. la_flash that although you said that you believe despite that there's lack of evidence does not mean that you are correct right?

Yes... and it also doesn't mean that I am wrong.

The first argument (#1) is antithetical, How can you say that thing A exists if it is not yet proven? Based from argument #1 you are only hypothesizing that thing A exists, but again you still have to prove your hypothesis. Otherwise, your whole argument is non sense

A thing exists independent of whether you were able to prove it or not, granted that it really does exist.

Example:
1. There are species of animals that were not yet discovered until lately.
2. Those species of animals exist independent of whether the biologists or the denizens discover them and prove that they exist.

You cannot say that hey those species NOW exist because we found them. That will sound absurd.

As Kant pointed out, Human experience is of course not the only valid source of knowledge. The other one is analytic apriori.

Thank you.

I think mr n3x is not being selective, the only thing that he wants to point out is that those things that were mentioned do exist in nature (homosexualism, hermaphrodites). Also Mr. la_flash, cannibalism is natural among animals, well humans have done it, cockroaches exhibits cannibalism when there don't have anything to eat.

Is it really within the nature of man to exhibit cannibalism? Are we then reduced to animals? What happens to our logic, reason, ethics, value? Are they reduced to something that our genes and our nature can be accounted for?

That is too simplistic for me.

jeune_fille

Jul 20, 2007, 05:54 PM

Long time no see.

Of course they have different meanings... but it ain't no fallacy.

Science cannot provide answers to questions such "Does a GOD exist?", for it is beyond the realm of science. Hence the word "cannot"... meaning, is not capable of. As some have put it, science doesn't concern itself much on that question.

Not necessarily. Big Bang has been used by philosophers like Dr. Craig to demonstrate that there's a First Cause and that is a GOD.

How can something exists from nothing? Isn't it better to a "nothing" rather than "something"?

Let me consolidate my arguments.
1. You are correct that science doesn't concern itself on that question for it belongs to the realm of theology.
2. Big Bang Theory is an example of synthetic apriori knowledge, That is we try to revolve around a subject and choose the BEST explanation of that subject. Eventhough, Dr Craig uses that as an explanation of the first cause, it still offers a plausible explanation that something can arise from nothing.
3. Based on argument #1 and #2, and by direct implication, that if something can arise from nothing it still was able to provide an explanation that GOD does not exist (hitting two birds with one stone)

*A thing exists independent of whether you were able to prove it or not, granted that it really does exist.

Example:
1. There are species of animals that were not yet discovered until lately.
2. Those species of animals exist independent of whether the biologists or the denizens discover them and prove that they exist.

You cannot say that hey those species NOW exist because we found them. That will sound absurd.

The statement in bold is still a condition that if true, will make the statement in * to be true. However, the statement in bold is still a hypothesis which would need a further proof or evidence. My point still remains.

Is it really within the nature of man to exhibit cannibalism? Are we then reduced to animals? What happens to our logic, reason, ethics, value? Are they reduced to something that our genes and our nature can be accounted for?

That is too simplistic for me.

Yes it is within the nature of humans to exhibit cannibalism, in expediency (worst case lack of food). That is still something quite natural. And taxonomically, we are still considered animals though sensient, with the highest form of intellect. Even though logic and reason are universal together with ethics and values are dependent on each person using them. What is considered more logical, more reasonable, more ethical, and more valued is contrained by environment, event, time, etc.

Jernat

Jul 20, 2007, 06:46 PM

Hindi ba't may Realm of Thought thread? Parang napakalalayo ninyo na sa original question sa thread na ito. :D

Juntrix

Jul 20, 2007, 07:57 PM

well at least we dont sexually abuse children/ let pedophile priests loose on an unwitting population...:grrr:

theology, clearly, did no good for these priests. taking them classes does not ensure morality. or in the case of ustians, intelligence. :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

A lot of angst.... scary... I wonder why... were you a victim of child abuse when you were an infant? Or were you publicly ridiculed by a clergyman?

Juntrix

Jul 20, 2007, 08:19 PM

well at least we dont sexually abuse children/ let pedophile priests loose on an unwitting population...:grrr:

Why of course. How could you guys possiby do that when you don't produce priests in the first place? Kudos to you and your superior logical thinking skills.

Pedophile priests? From UST? Really?... Kindly post a report/news on a victim of child abuse that was perpetrated by a Thomasian Priest. (Pasensya na ah... wala na kasi akong balita sa USTe lately eh.:) )

You are more likely to find news regarding corrupt officials and/or fraternity killers who are graduates of an epitome-of-brilliance-no-one-can-contest-ever-so-omnipotent-forever-will-not-succumb-to-admitting-thier-own-mistakes school for the godless.

theology, clearly, did no good for these priests. taking them classes does not ensure morality. or in the case of ustians, intelligence. :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

Taking Theology does not ensure morality. ---> True.

This is based on the premise that no one in this world is perfect. Atheists and non-atheists alike are prone to committing sins. But as long as you accept God as your Lord and savior, repent, and do your best to avoid committing sin, you will be awarded Salvation by the forgiving Holy Father.

Sorry, but all atheists and non-believers (including the godless students from a godless university) who have heard the the call of God but ignored His invitation to His kingdom will never receive Salvation.

Taking Theology does not ensure intelligence. ---> True.

To produce intelligent learners was never the aim of Theology. Do you know why? It's because intelligance alone will never bring you Salvation. Again, intelligance alone will never bring you Salvation. I know you have not taken theology classes so I repeated the statement to amplify the point. Students of theology may or may not be intelligent, but if they do accept Him as the God and the sole savior, they will be enjoined with the Creator in life everlasting.

.... or in the case of ustians, intelligence.

^ INCORRECT.

Unlike the students/graduates from the university of the Philippines who can only be formally addressed in a generic term "up student/up graduate", students and graduates of the Potifica et Regalis Sancti Thomae are appropriately called Thomasians.

^A piece of fact to be added to your knowledge-thirsty/neuron-packed/logic-endowed mental database.

Intelligence is not everything, Mr./Ms. quents.

^Another piece of fact to be added to your knowledge-thirsty/neuron-packed/logic-endowed mental database.

atenean_blooded

Jul 20, 2007, 09:20 PM

Ganito lang naman yan e.

Jesus loves even the atheists and everybody who thinks he's a joke. :D

Altwegg

Jul 20, 2007, 09:35 PM

Why of course. How could you guys possiby do that when you don't produce priests in the first place? Kudos to you and your superior logical thinking skills.

Baka si quents iyong nagmomolestiya. Hindi kaya?

:glee:

quents

Jul 20, 2007, 10:22 PM

Baka si quents iyong nagmomolestiya. Hindi kaya?

:glee:

a joke in very bad taste.

sexual abuse is not a matter for humor.

sorry. try again.

n3X

Jul 21, 2007, 04:32 AM

Inaccurate. The Catholic Church is largely a human organization. It subscribes to a particular faith.

Yeah thats true. Pero its a major part of the religion, if not an integral part of it. The bishop of Rome, the Pope, issues directives that are followed and BELIEVED. Lets not pretend they could be separated in a complete sense.

I've read several different translations and annotated versions of the Divine Comedy. I'm familiar with the text and the intended representations. Suffice it to say that Dante works with lots allegorical references. But any reader will simply be able to point out that what Dante rejected was not the idea of Christianity, not the Catholic faith, but rather, the institution that was the Church of his time. Even a cursory reading of the Paradiso shows that Dante places a lot of emphasis on positive imagery that is largely Roman Catholic, even using the expanded Graeco-Roman philosophical bases which the Church refers to.

And it is correct to point out that lots of Dante's criticisms were directed at a medieval Church, one that is quite different from the Church today.

Yes, I've already stated that the text in many ways glorified the Christian God. What I've been emphasizing here is that what Dante criticized remains today. The issue of the Church limiting human development is still quite true today. Many changes maybe have been made but the fight that Dante started 600 years ago has not yet triumphed.

The fact of the matter is, Christian faith posits that even in this life, we have been saved. And the Church's mission of spreading the Good News is precisely to spread the good news of our salvation, through an evangelization that addresses both spiritual and temporal needs.

Ugh okay, whatever.

What world-view are you talking about?

You can list a whole lot of "rational" systems which rely strictly on empirical evidence. It goes without saying that practically all of them will eventually end, and find no answer to, the so-called first questions.

Interestingly enough, one of the most interesting pieces of modern philosophy, that of Kant, spoke a lot about reliance on strict reasoning and scientific proof. But in the end, even Kant's system admits of a need for a leap of faith, otherwise the system becomes absurd.

Oh please, in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason the God or Supreme Being he was talking about is far from the object (Christianity as a religion). The concept of a Supreme being as the sum total of all reality as the Ideal of Pure Reason, as Kant argued, started with the Ontological proof, then the cosmological proof (inverse) then the physico-theological proof (which all can be reduced to the first one that tries to make an objective reality out of a subjective concept). All is fine. But the physico-theological proof of God's existence ("Watch maker") DOESNT prove with certainty the existence of God. Jesus, who I believe was an activist of love (with the Church corrupting his history), may have accessed this God (Ideal of Pure Reason) in his preaching, but the realistic existence of the tri-part God (Holy spirit, etc.) doesn't exist!

What, maybe, wasnt mentioned here is the human component of the religion (the organizational structure i.e. the Church) that produces much error.

And to jeune_fille, I concede that human experience is NOT the ONLY source of knowledge. I failed to quality that statement further. As Kant argued against Hume's empiricism in the same book, it was proven that a priori is also a valid source. Merci de me corriger mademoiselle.

None of them directly refute Nietzsche. Few philosophers actually go so far as to try and directly refute a particular thinker's point of view. Instead, an alternative is presented.

A common theme among those whom I mentioned is that there is much more to humanity than a relentless drive to consume and reduce the world to an abstraction. Marcel, for example, points at the obvious fact that we cannot reduce other people to mere abstractions. Buber and Ricoeur talk largely about interhuman relationships. Levinas talks about a person's infinite responsibility for the other. Arendt calls on people to think.

None of these people talk about God directly. None of them challenge (directly) any of the Church's social teachings. In fact, most of what they say, as a humane alternative to Nietzsche perhaps, is actually very consistent with Christianity's own world view.

Most of them are Jewish, by the way.

So why were they mentioned if they are not relevant to the debate? Is this an ostentatious display of intellect? How how how?

Yes, and how do we define what is most "appropriate" and what is "most reasoned?"

Reason runs smack into limits. A particular line of reason will justify even violence, or courses of action which are inhuman.

The presupposition you are making is that the beliefs are false, and that the faith is blind. There has been nothing in your arguments which properly establishes these two points. And there is empirical evidence to show that most faith is actually the subject of much thought and reason: as I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, theology and philosophy, for example, work very well together.

There's a lot of ways to assess what is the most appropriate or whatever. From utilitarian to justice theories. But in this case, I would take the Humanist view. What would maximize human development?

What presuppositions? I have illustrated several times through a lot of examples how these beliefs are false. The pronouncements of the Vatican or the Philippine church from homosexuality to sexual policies are not attached to reality! I have never disputed that faith was a result of thought and reason. I have been stressing that when this comes into conflict with reality, most people follow their faith BLINDLY. It is not my job to connect all of the dots, use your head.

There's a problem with the statement "holds true... and it is the best there is." Truth is an objective matter. Being the best there is, is not. To speak of effectivity and efficiency is to speak of something fleeting, because inevitably, what is effective and efficient now will not necessarily work later or tomorrow.

And? You Sir are straying far from the argument. I have appropriately answered the question. And between the two of us, objectivity is not a problem with me. Please review the train of the debate.

You've pointed out nice examples of conflicts of tradition and economics, etc. You've failed to show how that's the fault of religion.

As I've illustrated, the values and priorities that the church imposes on people filter their judgement. Thats the fault of religion. If you cant see the connections now, that is not my fault. Please read the entries again.

The illogic of relativism is best summed up in this statement:

"There is no objective truth."

That's a performative contradiction.

Not even postmodernism will justify relativism's self-contradiction, nor will it justify atrocities that happen every day as a result of simply subscribing to largely differing theories of socio-politico-economic approach to the way things work in the world today.

Nope. "There are multiple truths." Relativism holds that there is no absolute truth, not objective as you've stated, in that all of us wouldnt perceive one thing as the same. We all could perceive one thing differently but that doesnt mean how we perceive it is false, thus different people with different views could all have valid views. Like in History. That is one of the foundations of postmodernism. But as with a lot of things, not all views are created equal.

I am going to set aside my personal views on the subject matter and refer to the stand of the Church, as reflected on by some of the more liberal theologians.

In the example, you failed to refute the logic. Because clearly, there was lack of appreciation to the intent behind particular acts. In the view of the Church, the idea of human love, expressed through the sexual act, through the bodies designed the way they were designed, reaches physical perfection through the sexual act, the direction of which lends itself to a tendency for procreation. Procreation remains possible. The intention to procreate remains.

In homosexual sexual relationships, there is an absolute awareness between the homosexual partners that their having sex won't get them anywhere. So why remain trapped in an obviously irresolute relationship when the person can contribute to the race through procreation?

Haha I believe I refuted the logic. And Intent? Intent is not a reasonable basis for evaluating validity. And people dont engage in relationships just to procreate! So you're saying that infertile women and impotent men who have absolute awareness of their condition dont deserve to have meaningful relationships because they cant procreate? In that case, it is sad to note that the Church has a very superficial conception of human love. There are other functions that relationships have.

Flamingoes aren't capable of reason the way people are. Whatever unusual behavior they may exhibit is obviously driven by instinct, rather than the expected rational take humans have. Otherwise, you'll have to also say that a dog humping a broom is actively fantasizing, and that therefore masturbation occurs normally in nature and should not be condemned, when there is obviously no empirical proof to support such a conclusion.

Yeah masturbation occurs normally in nature. Research about it. Haha There has been proof actually in Anthropology, through the study of monkeys. Yes, its under that field.

Homosexual behavior occurs among non-human animals because of genetics and instinct.

We are obviously beyond that, with the powers of our reason and intellect. Unless, of course, you think that we're all just animals.

Ugh actually we're animals with advanced intellect. Thats a fact. And no, we are not beyond genetics and instinct. Ask any biologist or psychologist. :rotflmao: The mere fact that homosexuality is perfectly normal makes it no subject for rejection.

You have still failed to define what bad philosophy and bad theology are, and have failed to establish why logic, which is supposed to be superior, fails when it comes to things which are obviously beyond the scope of the antiseptic, closed systems that you want to emphasize.

Since antiquity, humanity has turned to spirituality to provide possible answers to first questions. And even in the face of large advances in science and technology, many of the first questions remain unanswered. And spirituality still directs us to possible answers.

Spirituality is something humans possess that animals don't (or at least if you ask an empiricist, we have no empirical proof of). It is part of our nature.

Well please illustrate how I have failed to do so through arguments instead of nominatively stating such a conclusion.

That is what Ive been pointing out, are these answers even valid? Could we depend on these answers? O linoloko lang natin mga sarili natin? Ano ba ang totoong spirituality na healthy or useful sa ating lahat?

n3X

Jul 21, 2007, 04:02 PM

Hmmm... you're twisitng my arguments and then attack it... please spare the strawman.

You asked me, "And you're certain?"

I answered, "I believe it exists through faith".

I did not say that just by mere believing that something exists, that something will exist. That's one absurd line of thought.

What I meant, and that you failed to see, was that we believe that GOD exists through our faith and not on empirical evidence.

Haha Twisting your arguments? Im not twisting your arguments. You just need to be exact with what you say. You need to communicate meaning through properly stating your thought. E kahit maganda at tama yung sasabihin mo pero di tama pagkasabi mo, sa tingin mo maiintindihan namin? If you read what you wrote down, you would see that it could mean many things.

Science provides no answers and can not provide answers to questions like "Does a GOD exist?". To ask and wait for answers from science and to search for empirical evidence is absurd.

We believe by faith, despite the lack of evidence... that we do. But that is not necessarily against reason, nevertheless not illogical.

You asked am I certain... I didn't answer you directly... With yor measure, "No, I am not that certain to the point that I can point you the answers to your questions".

Well Science can actually. And it says that God does not exist empirically. As far as civilization goes, the human race has advanced greatly through the answers research has provided.

Where is the contradiction in that?

Let me simplify it for you:

1. Thing A exists but not yet proven to exist at t=0.
2. Thing A still exists at point t=X, eventhough NOBODY is trying to prove that it exists. It is NOT PROVED to exist, but still it exists.
3. At t=Y, a person M tried to prove that A exists, but unsuccesful... yet is still exists.

Now, don't you get it?

I got it noon pa, kahit mali pagkasulat mo. And kahit i-simplify mo pa, mali pa rin.

That is the problem with your line of thinking too. That's the problem with the MATERIALISTs point of view. No, I am not saying that you subscribe it, but your point of view is coincident with what they have.

How about those beyond our observable universe? Do they exist or not? They are beyond our scope, and we could not possibly prove it... Do they exist?

Is HUMAN EXPERIENCE the ONLY valid source of knowledge?

Materialist? Baka positivist. Critique of consumerism na ba pinag uusapan natin? Hehe

Well actually no, as the girl (a.k.a. jeune_fille) has stated. I concede to her that a priori, as proven by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason against the empiricism of Hume, is also a source of knowledge. However, I would like to state that it was also pointed out in the piece that yes, not all emerges from experience, but ALL knowledge STARTS with experience--bridging the ga. So my main point still stands.

It's you who don't understand. As per Pascal's wager, it is beter to believe that there's a GOD than to suffer in hell when there is a GOD. Of course he was referring to a christian GOD.

And I also know that you were talking about the different GODs aside from the christian GOD... but, the existence of such GODs are not equiprobable. Some are more probable to exist than the others. It is all due to our limited information.

Yes, the wager still stands.

"Its you who dont understand." Haha Whatever. Hindi ko na uulitin dito yung hypothetical and real values na qualification dun sa Pascal's wager which constitutes my point. Its not my fault if other people fail to understand what I'm saying.

Some are more probable to exist than others? Akala ko ba there is only one, true God? Ewan.

What is blind and what is faith? and is it necessarily detrimental to one's development and progress?

What about the scientists such as Newton?

What about the christian philosophers?

What about the contemporary scientists now who work towards for the common good?

What about the christian teachers, engineers, and others?

Are we not wasting our time on weekdays and wasting our time on sundays? :lol:

And what is your point? And am I just wasting my energy on you? Haha Ewan ko sa iyo.

What is blind? Love is blind. What is faith? Siya yung pu*a sa kanto. What kind of useless rhetorical questions are those? They dont point out anything! What is blind and what is faith?! Wtf?! Are you kidding around?

And as Ive illustrated several times already how by following blind faith, it could be detrimental not only to the development and progress of a person but also to people in the macro level. It doesnt mean that they have achieved something that they are completely free to develop. Its like saying that they already have freedom of the press so its okay that they dont have the right to freedom of assembly.

Because christians must follow a strict moral code.

It is a bitter pill that you must swallow.

The moral code will not change just to suit everyone.

Christianity condemns homosexual acts since it began. There's no way that the church will give in.

If that gay christian cannot live with it, too bad. We're praying for him. If he's happy outside the church, then we can do anything about it. But that won't affect the stature of the church, the moral code it teaches and the existence of a GOD.

Haha The stature of the church? Puh-lease. You talk as if the institution were infallible. What is considered moral even changes.

So simplistic. Christianity is against having pleasure during sex but refusing the consequence of such act... thus preventing procreation. The church is not against sex education per se. The church is more after the responsible parenthood.

Ano? "Christianity is against having pleasure during sex..." okay gets, then "but refusing the consequence of such act... thus preventing procreation." Ugh ano? Ako lang ba hindi nakakaintindi sa statement na ito?

Anyway if God was so against having pleasure during sex, why did he or she make it so pleasurable? And dont you read the news? The church is against sex education. That is contradictory because sex education is an essential component of responsible parenthood. If that were true, the Church is a big moron.

So, if it wasn't a case of points of view, why different answers among philosophers?

Points of view frame the issue. People have different assumptions and different arguments, but they must fall under the same frame, more or less, so that they could have sufficient ground for refuting and/or extending each other. It could also be the case that by knowing the point of view of the other person, one could refute or extend. However, this requires that one must also take/see that particular point of view. Umiikot lang tayo dito, you've already essentially asked that entries ago!

Really now, prove it then that it is not more about political struggle.

You said suicide bomber, do all religious people qualify as such? you said anyone eh.

or when you said everyone, you're referring to "constant struggle on faith and reason"? Hmmm, that assumes that every christian or person of faith have a struggle within him for such.

counter-example : I don't. Faith is not necessarily against reason... so why the struggle? There's no struggle.

So the robbers robbing a bank justified their means.

Or the criminals murdering others justified their means.

Aren't you sounding a little bit absurd here, sir?

Ugh Sorry to say but you're the one who's really absurd. Labo mo dude. Sorry po pero seryosong usapan. It seems you just argue without sufficient reason. Do you even take the time to digest the debate here? Umiikot ka lang e.

I just stated that if the total utility derived from making that decision is optimal or alright, then the action is justified. So criminals murdering others (murder having malicious intent) is not justified on the grounds that there is even negative utility. Is it clear now who's absurd?

And dont command people to state everything for you, do your own research first before making statements that are false din naman.

I see it quite clearly sir, but you can't see mine.

If it is natural for human, why use animals as example? If it is natural for human, then it should be self-evident. You used animals exhibiting the same behavior as an example, but you're quite selective with it. I asked if cannibalism is then natural...

Obviously you fail to see the point after my numerous attempts. I end our exchange as this is my last reply to your ramblings.

ach_soo

Jul 21, 2007, 04:05 PM

I told you guys these two subjects are useless. :lol:

Altwegg

Jul 21, 2007, 08:01 PM

a joke in very bad taste.

sexual abuse is not a matter for humor.

sorry. try again.
I wasn't kidding. I was asking.

:glee:

atenean_blooded

Jul 22, 2007, 05:15 AM

Yeah thats true. Pero its a major part of the religion, if not an integral part of it. The bishop of Rome, the Pope, issues directives that are followed and BELIEVED. Lets not pretend they could be separated in a complete sense.

That faith is an integral part of the life of the Church is beside the point.

The Pope, while empowered to "issue directives" may not do so arbitrarily.

Yes, I've already stated that the text in many ways glorified the Christian God. What I've been emphasizing here is that what Dante criticized remains today. The issue of the Church limiting human development is still quite true today. Many changes maybe have been made but the fight that Dante started 600 years ago has not yet triumphed.

Precisely what points of Dante are you talking about?

The Church, limiting human development? This is a careless statement. If you want to get empirical about it, even a cursory examination of Church initiatives reveals that Church is ABOUT human development.

Ugh okay, whatever.

An illogical response.

Oh please, in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason the God or Supreme Being he was talking about is far from the object (Christianity as a religion). The concept of a Supreme being as the sum total of all reality as the Ideal of Pure Reason, as Kant argued, started with the Ontological proof, then the cosmological proof (inverse) then the physico-theological proof (which all can be reduced to the first one that tries to make an objective reality out of a subjective concept). All is fine. But the physico-theological proof of God's existence ("Watch maker") DOESNT prove with certainty the existence of God. Jesus, who I believe was an activist of love (with the Church corrupting his history), may have accessed this God (Ideal of Pure Reason) in his preaching, but the realistic existence of the tri-part God (Holy spirit, etc.) doesn't exist!

What, maybe, wasnt mentioned here is the human component of the religion (the organizational structure i.e. the Church) that produces much error.

No closed scientific system can directly prove that God exists, or that God does not exist. A close reading of Kant's system clearly shows that even Kant admitted the need of to admit of a leap of faith in order to reconcile his whole idea of a "kingdom of ends."

Again, throwaway statements: "Church corrupting [Christ's] history," "realistic existence of the tri-part God doesn't exist." Again, a clear lack of accurate appreciation. These are matters of faith, beyond the reach of so called "reasonable," "scientific," and "empirical" proof. There is absolutely no way that God's existence, whether in the manner of the Triune God or not, can be directly proved or refuted.

With regard to the second paragraph, the same holds true for practically all human endeavors.

And to jeune_fille, I concede that human experience is NOT the ONLY source of knowledge. I failed to quality that statement further. As Kant argued against Hume's empiricism in the same book, it was proven that a priori is also a valid source. Merci de me corriger mademoiselle.

"a priori is also a valid source."

This appears to be erroneous, considering the English equivalent of "a priori."

So why were they mentioned if they are not relevant to the debate? Is this an ostentatious display of intellect? How how how?

The subject of relevance is irrelevant. That wasn't the subject of those paragraphs. Read again.

There's a lot of ways to assess what is the most appropriate or whatever. From utilitarian to justice theories. But in this case, I would take the Humanist view. What would maximize human development?

You may wish to define the parameters of what you mean by the maximization of human development. Utilitarian theories and theories of justice can largely differ based on that definition.

What presuppositions? I have illustrated several times through a lot of examples how these beliefs are false. The pronouncements of the Vatican or the Philippine church from homosexuality to sexual policies are not attached to reality! I have never disputed that faith was a result of thought and reason. I have been stressing that when this comes into conflict with reality, most people follow their faith BLINDLY. It is not my job to connect all of the dots, use your head.

Re-read.

The presuppositions upon which the majority of your arguments rest are that the beliefs are false, and that the faith is blind/followed blindly. And as stated, there is nothing in your arguments which provides incontrovertible justification.

The terms of the Church pronouncements on homosexuality and "sexual policies" have been clearly made in an earlier post. They deal with an objective reality: that homosexual relationships can never be directed toward procreation. The sexual act as committed by two individuals of the same biological gender cannot hope to produce offspring.

And? You Sir are straying far from the argument. I have appropriately answered the question. And between the two of us, objectivity is not a problem with me. Please review the train of the debate.

Another throwaway comment. The statement you made is problematic. Re-read.

As I've illustrated, the values and priorities that the church imposes on people filter their judgement. Thats the fault of religion. If you cant see the connections now, that is not my fault. Please read the entries again.

This is an illogical generalization. There is nothing in this statement or in the statements referred to that shows how socio-economic conflict is necessarily the fault of religion.

A church cannot impose its beliefs on those who do not wish to believe. Acceptance of certain points of belief is an a priori presumption of faith and religion.

Nope. "There are multiple truths." Relativism holds that there is no absolute truth, not objective as you've stated, in that all of us wouldnt perceive one thing as the same. We all could perceive one thing differently but that doesnt mean how we perceive it is false, thus different people with different views could all have valid views. Like in History. That is one of the foundations of postmodernism. But as with a lot of things, not all views are created equal.

You just said that

"Relativism holds that there is no absolute truth."

This is still self-contradiction.

Even if there are many ways of perceiving things which can be broken down into matters of statistics or plain recitations of sequences of events (like in history, to use your example), the number of perspectives necessarily pertains to a particular and definite set of facts, all of which are simply interpreted or seen differently.

Haha I believe I refuted the logic. And Intent? Intent is not a reasonable basis for evaluating validity. And people dont engage in relationships just to procreate! So you're saying that infertile women and impotent men who have absolute awareness of their condition dont deserve to have meaningful relationships because they cant procreate? In that case, it is sad to note that the Church has a very superficial conception of human love. There are other functions that relationships have.

Validity is hardly the subject matter. The Church's concern pointed out in an earlier post is a moral one.

Infertile women and impotent men, as far as the Church is concerned, are capable of engaging in a procreative (sexual) act (in the case of men with an erectile dysfunction, largely thanks to advances in science). The Church's idea of human love between man and woman talks about perfection in such a procreative act. This capacity is absent in homosexual relationships.

Yeah masturbation occurs normally in nature. Research about it. Haha There has been proof actually in Anthropology, through the study of monkeys. Yes, its under that field.

Anthropology is a study of people, not monkeys.

The idea of masturbation discussed in my previous post had quite a lot to do with intent and morality. Rational acts which monkeys have not been proven capable of.

Ugh actually we're animals with advanced intellect. Thats a fact. And no, we are not beyond genetics and instinct. Ask any biologist or psychologist. :rotflmao: The mere fact that homosexuality is perfectly normal makes it no subject for rejection.

You bring up the idea of advanced intellect. This is what separates us, especially in the Church's point of view, from the rest of the animals. A characteristic of this "advanced intellect" is the capacity for reason, for intent.

And it is by this standard, and in light of the above, that the Church sees homosexuality as a morally abnormal thing.

If you don't want to talk about the Church view, you will see that in most civilizations, homosexuality is frowned upon. In modern law, this is especially true, especially in light of ideas of marriage and of the family as a fundamental social unit.

Well please illustrate how I have failed to do so through arguments instead of nominatively stating such a conclusion.

You brought up the idea of "illogical reasoning." But that does not qualify how a particular philosophy or theology can be "bad."

That is what Ive been pointing out, are these answers even valid? Could we depend on these answers? O linoloko lang natin mga sarili natin? Ano ba ang totoong spirituality na healthy or useful sa ating lahat?

The validity of these concepts escapes human reason. Faith, taken as such, is a leap: you take it or you don't.

It is probably within the scope of human nature to continually think and reflect on the meaning of these things.

SUX2BÜ

Jul 22, 2007, 01:04 PM

Terseness is the soul of wit.

:)

student_dos

Jul 22, 2007, 01:06 PM

cogito ergo sum?

i think therefore i am :)

n3X

Jul 22, 2007, 05:34 PM

That faith is an integral part of the life of the Church is beside the point.

The Pope, while empowered to "issue directives" may not do so arbitrarily.

And? You still havent proven the distinction you're trying to make. Even by saying that the Pope may not arbitrarily "issue directives" changes nothing because the head of the Church is the Pope who has the title Vicarius Christi (Vicar [substitute] of Christ). Arbitrariness has nothing to do in this argument and brushing off my argument before this post has no impact on the debate. No distinction stands: the Church constitutes the religion because, as a human institution, it sets the details/system of the belief and worship in the Roman Catholic God.

Precisely what points of Dante are you talking about?

The Church, limiting human development? This is a careless statement. If you want to get empirical about it, even a cursory examination of Church initiatives reveals that Church is ABOUT human development.

Precisely what points? Read the past posts. Cant you keep track Sir? And what careless statement, I have set a number of examples already of how the Church limits human development in the personal and macro levels. I state again that I am not against spirituality. This could be achieved not only in the Roman Catholic church as a matter of fact, but also in a lot of ways. History is abound in examples of how the Church has abused its position and power, and this continues until now! Yes, the Church has also done a lot of kindness, but the larger part of how the religion affects the personal lives and development is not known and understood.

An illogical response.

Hehe As if your post that this response answers to is logical.

No closed scientific system can directly prove that God exists, or that God does not exist. A close reading of Kant's system clearly shows that even Kant admitted the need of to admit of a leap of faith in order to reconcile his whole idea of a "kingdom of ends."

Again, throwaway statements: "Church corrupting [Christ's] history," "realistic existence of the tri-part God doesn't exist." Again, a clear lack of accurate appreciation. These are matters of faith, beyond the reach of so called "reasonable," "scientific," and "empirical" proof. There is absolutely no way that God's existence, whether in the manner of the Triune God or not, can be directly proved or refuted.

With regard to the second paragraph, the same holds true for practically all human endeavors.

Again, Kant was talking about a Supreme Being that is the subject of all predicates, the Ideal of Pure Reason, not exactly of a God-God. Its a personified object!!!

And what of matters of faith? The point here is that we accord our complete trust and confidence (i.e. FAITH) to things that are true and valid! If not, then that is blind faith--unattached to reality! Its like choosing public officials. Electing these persons, giving them authority and public trust, must be done within reason. We couldnt prove scientifically or empirically that they would do their job well, but we must at least make sure that they are the right persons for the task. People are free to believe in whatever they want to, whether it be a God, a Persona, or Scientology, whatever. That is everybody's right. But as with all decisions, the best ones are made by thinking it through. People dont blindly follow a preaching that says homosexuals are abnormal people. Right-minded people research and discover the truth, then they are empowered with correct answers to make the right decisions and policies.

"a priori is also a valid source."

This appears to be erroneous, considering the English equivalent of "a priori."

And so? The point still stands. We can have synthetic a priori truths!

The subject of relevance is irrelevant. That wasn't the subject of those paragraphs. Read again.

Uhuh, I even went a couple of posts back. Relevance must be proven because you explicitly mentioned them, but it was unclear how they relate to your arguments. You just mentioned them. Sir, please dont waste our time with stuff if they wont make a meaningful impact on the discussion.

You may wish to define the parameters of what you mean by the maximization of human development. Utilitarian theories and theories of justice can largely differ based on that definition.

Huh? Bakit nagkaroon ng "differ based on that definition?" Utilitarian, justice theories are other theories. What I chose was Humanism to assess what is most appropriate or most reasoned. Keep track of the discussion Sir. Sinasagot na nga mga tanong mo e.

Re-read.

The presuppositions upon which the majority of your arguments rest are that the beliefs are false, and that the faith is blind/followed blindly. And as stated, there is nothing in your arguments which provides incontrovertible justification.

The terms of the Church pronouncements on homosexuality and "sexual policies" have been clearly made in an earlier post. They deal with an objective reality: that homosexual relationships can never be directed toward procreation. The sexual act as committed by two individuals of the same biological gender cannot hope to produce offspring.

So much for you objective reality! I have cited several studies already, the flamingoes, the exhibit, theres even this ram article in newsweek! Objective reality # 1: homosexual relationships are normal in nature. Objective reality #2: relationships could have different goals, procreation is only one of them. Objective reality #3: actually even though two men or two women by themselves cannot reproduce, a lot of gay couples want to have children, thus some of these relationships are clearly directed toward procreation. The sexual act cannot produce offspring but the relationship could have a goal of reproducing. Studies have also shown that children raised by homosexuals are normal and that they are also normal parents who love and carefully raise children. Objective reality #4: People have natural sexual urges that like all psychological stuff could be a problem if suppressed. Objective reality #5: Psychologists have realized that it was a mistake to classify homosexuality as abnormal behavior. Objective reality # 6: Homosexuals have functions in society and biological systems. Objective reality #7: Ignorant and bigoted people cannot accept these truths.

And reality has also illustrated, as given in my examples, that beliefs are false and following the policies of the Church blindly has led to wrong decisions (e.g. Population control). Talk about faith and incontrovertible justification. Haha I have stated a lot of things already, if you still fail to see, not my problem. This is already irritating.

Another throwaway comment. The statement you made is problematic. Re-read.

Whatever you say. I leave these here for the world to see. How then is it problematic? Another unjustified statement--nominatively expressed, but not proven.

This is an illogical generalization. There is nothing in this statement or in the statements referred to that shows how socio-economic conflict is necessarily the fault of religion.

A church cannot impose its beliefs on those who do not wish to believe. Acceptance of certain points of belief is an a priori presumption of faith and religion.

Illogical generalization? Haha Ang kulet niyo din ano, kahit ang rami ng examples. Is it hard to see how the policies of the church (doctrines, etc.) affect people? Population control & sex education, gay marriage and human rights, prostitution and protection of women, divorce and the family, etc. These are issues that the Church says a lot about in the country. In the area of population control, there are a lot of ramifications in the economic, environmental, and social spheres. Why dont you research about this Sir, then get back to me. I-private message mo pa ako at sasagutin kita. The Church is not helping us all if it pressures the government to remove sex education modules! Without teaching young people the consequences of having sex, there won't be empowered to make the right decisions. Its perfectly natural for teenagers to be horny! That's NATURE! Pero dahil di nila alam kung san ipuputok, maraming mabubuntis. Then these people will have a lot of problems in their lives. Some of them will get unsafe abortions that may kill them. Most of them will lead miserable lives with social stigma and economic problems. The growth in population will erase the benefits of economic growth. More people who demand more resources which strain the environment. Poverty and hunger then will increase. Crime rates will soar because there are no jobs and people are desperate for food. Dahil di rin alam gumamit ng condom, sexually transmitted diseases will also be rampant. The culprit? The powerful Catholic Church. Illogical generalization? Or deep understanding of the objective reality of the interconnectivity of the dynamic system we call society.

And why did the very magaling na Philippine government pull out sex ed courses? Because of the citizenry who, though their beliefs were not force-fed on them, were born into believing the pulpit, BLINDLY following their doom, without knowing the repercussions of their actions. Hay a sad reality. The belief? That God said, Go f**k and multiply. The instigator? A system of faith and worship (i.e. RELIGION). Ano? Kailangan mo pa ba ng more incontrovertible justifications? And I dare to challenge you to check on the connections. Please go ahead. And I hope in the process, you'd understand more. Welcome to the real world baby!

You just said that

"Relativism holds that there is no absolute truth."

This is still self-contradiction.

Even if there are many ways of perceiving things which can be broken down into matters of statistics or plain recitations of sequences of events (like in history, to use your example), the number of perspectives necessarily pertains to a particular and definite set of facts, all of which are simply interpreted or seen differently.

Still a self-contradiction? E thats the very essence/definition of relativism. I-research niyo po muna relativism. Ano ba sa tingin mo ginagawa ko dito? Chismis?

Validity is hardly the subject matter. The Church's concern pointed out in an earlier post is a moral one.

Infertile women and impotent men, as far as the Church is concerned, are capable of engaging in a procreative (sexual) act (in the case of men with an erectile dysfunction, largely thanks to advances in science). The Church's idea of human love between man and woman talks about perfection in such a procreative act. This capacity is absent in homosexual relationships.

Ugh. As far as the Church is concerned? Goodluck. Ikaw ba naiintindihan mo sinasabi mo? They cant nga e. Ano to mga miraculo? You're twisting logic.

Anthropology is a study of people, not monkeys.

The idea of masturbation discussed in my previous post had quite a lot to do with intent and morality. Rational acts which monkeys have not been proven capable of.

Kailangan ba i-rationalize ang isang bagay na natural? Kawawa naman mga taong dinedeny nila mga sarili nila.

Anyway if you look up primatology, malaking area of interest siya ng anthropologists. Halos nag-minor ako sa Anthro sa UP. Branch pa nga ng primatology ang physical anthropology.

You bring up the idea of advanced intellect. This is what separates us, especially in the Church's point of view, from the rest of the animals. A characteristic of this "advanced intellect" is the capacity for reason, for intent.

And it is by this standard, and in light of the above, that the Church sees homosexuality as a morally abnormal thing.

If you don't want to talk about the Church view, you will see that in most civilizations, homosexuality is frowned upon. In modern law, this is especially true, especially in light of ideas of marriage and of the family as a fundamental social unit.

Hmmm And what if most civilizations frowns upon homosexuality? That doesnt mean they're right to do so. That is why a lot of recent evidence and thought has shed light on this matter. And also in history, homosexuals have existed throughout mankind. Sa Pilipinas nga diba merong mga Babaylan. And when you want to talk about civilizations, the Greek and Roman ones (which are considered to be the greatest of all ancient ones) were very much open with it. Can you say pederasty? Hehe

And law is also much affected by human factors, most of the time governed by what is "moral" at the time. Hello! So yung Human Security Act whatever ng government ngayon is okay just because its law? E pano human rights? Anyway going back. For example the concept of marriage is a dynamic concept, 100 years ago, it was just an ownership contract. When a person is married, the woman belongs to the man. Ngayon lang talaga nagsisimula yung equality between the sexes. See how it evolves.

And sa family, what is considered as one really? Non-traditional ones are emerging such as single-parents, multiple ones, same-sex, etc. but are still filled with "love." There's this TV series in the states that tackles polygamy. What is a family really diba? Dugo lang ba yan o turingan? Are we not all part of the human family? A friend with a degree in Socio even told me that there's this trend that what you consider as family are your friends na rin, nag iiba na yung basic social unit. Hindi lang family lang.

You brought up the idea of "illogical reasoning." But that does not qualify how a particular philosophy or theology can be "bad."

The validity of these concepts escapes human reason. Faith, taken as such, is a leap: you take it or you don't.

It is probably within the scope of human nature to continually think and reflect on the meaning of these things.

Okay. Let's leap to our doom! Hehe

Anyway this is my last post on this. I'm backpacking in Europe in the coming months, so you guys argue about this. It was nice debating with you guys! Kahit pa-ikot ikot ikot and nakakapagod.

Last ish:

Theology classes must be done under rigorous scrutiny. It is not surprising that philosophy has been the major takeoff point of the study of God, though I would favor Anthropology as more suitable. Nevertheless, the discourse of this very important construct which permeates our everyday lives is quite relevant not only to those in religiously-affiliated schools but to everybody. The impact of religion is astounding. While believers are free to practice, they must realize the consequences of their actions within the greater picture of society. May theology grant the wisdom that we all need.

And I would also say the units in Theology could be better spent studying other fields.

atenean_blooded

Jul 23, 2007, 12:21 AM

And? You still havent proven the distinction you're trying to make. Even by saying that the Pope may not arbitrarily "issue directives" changes nothing because the head of the Church is the Pope who has the title Vicarius Christi (Vicar [substitute] of Christ). Arbitrariness has nothing to do in this argument and brushing off my argument before this post has no impact on the debate. No distinction stands: the Church constitutes the religion because, as a human institution, it sets the details/system of the belief and worship in the Roman Catholic God.

Inaccurate.

The distinction between the Church as a human organization and the Christian faith is not subject to proof: it is an incontrovertible fact.

That the Pope is the Vicar of Christ precisely means that the Pope cannot arbitrarily issue the directives you're talking about. You're talking about who sets the agenda.

The Church does not set the agenda. It acts on the agenda it believes was set by God through Jesus Christ. What its human leaders are essentially charged with are the task of interpreting God's agenda in today's world.

Precisely what points? Read the past posts. Cant you keep track Sir? And what careless statement, I have set a number of examples already of how the Church limits human development in the personal and macro levels. I state again that I am not against spirituality. This could be achieved not only in the Roman Catholic church as a matter of fact, but also in a lot of ways. History is abound in examples of how the Church has abused its position and power, and this continues until now! Yes, the Church has also done a lot of kindness, but the larger part of how the religion affects the personal lives and development is not known and understood.

These are your statements on Dante:

"The message of Dante is still relevant to the Church today, because nothing has changed about what Christianity essentially is founded upon (i.e. eternal life). That religion is still about the afterlife; Dante wrote on us valuing the life we have now. It was about us making the most out of "this" life, not preparing for the "afterlife"--which doesnt even exist! As an american comic put it, Christianity is about not enjoying the good things in life."

"Hehe Not of religion but of a religious institution? I see the distinction you're trying to make, but it is really the same thing (and what Dante criticizes). The Catholic church is the religion. And I disagree that that was the most accepted reading of Divine comedy. Thats incorrect and very simplistic. An allegory from la langue de Dante, it protested the political feuds of Tuscany while glorifying God's ways. The Divine Comedy contains Dante's personal struggles and the whole world as its subject. Representing humankind, Dante travels through the 9 circles of Inferno (Hell), purgatorio (Purgatory) and ultimately to Paradiso (Heaven), symbolizing human development to its fullest [Virgil representing reason hands Dante over to Beatrice, representing even the limits of human reason]. Dante placed equal priority on preparing for the afterlife but stressed that it was "inconceivable to him that he and mankind in general should not have been intended to develop to the fullest their specifically human potential." I further quote from the same Inferno introduction by Archibald T. MacAllister, "...typically medieval view, which saw the earthly life as a 'vale of tears,' a period of trial and suffering, an unpleasant but necessary preparation for the after-life where alone man could expect to enjoy happiness. To Dante such an idea was totally repugnant."

These speak nothing about how Dante says the Church is impeding human development. They are not responsive to the question posed.

Your arguments are inconsistent.

That human development can be achieved outside the Church is not the question here.

Hehe As if your post that this response answers to is logical.

Another illogical response.

Again, Kant was talking about a Supreme Being that is the subject of all predicates, the Ideal of Pure Reason, not exactly of a God-God. Its a personified object!!!

Have you even read what Kant says about the phenomenal and numenal, and how it works in the context of the moral system he wrote about?

These can be found in the latter parts of his essay on the Categorical Imperative.

And what of matters of faith? The point here is that we accord our complete trust and confidence (i.e. FAITH) to things that are true and valid! If not, then that is blind faith--unattached to reality! Its like choosing public officials. Electing these persons, giving them authority and public trust, must be done within reason. We couldnt prove scientifically or empirically that they would do their job well, but we must at least make sure that they are the right persons for the task. People are free to believe in whatever they want to, whether it be a God, a Persona, or Scientology, whatever. That is everybody's right. But as with all decisions, the best ones are made by thinking it through. People dont blindly follow a preaching that says homosexuals are abnormal people. Right-minded people research and discover the truth, then they are empowered with correct answers to make the right decisions and policies.

This is a problematic appreciation of the idea of "faith."

Faith is based upon the interpretation of the intangible instead of the physically tangible and is primarily associated with religion in modern times. It is part of the human endeavor to give meaning to things we do not understand, which are beyond our science and rational proofs.

Faith also means a belief in a relationship with a deity. In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity." In terms of the Christian faith, the idea of faith is one of hope for things which are not seen, but which are believed to be true (Heb. 11: 1), and must be centered in Jesus Christ.

Matters of faith, because of faith, are held to be true and valid.

It is correct to say that there must be some thinking through, some discernment. But at the end of that rational process, when a person is faced with a question of faith, he either merely believes or not. It really is that simple.

And so? The point still stands. We can have synthetic a priori truths!

Define "a priori," define "truth." Then reread your original message.

Uhuh, I even went a couple of posts back. Relevance must be proven because you explicitly mentioned them, but it was unclear how they relate to your arguments. You just mentioned them. Sir, please dont waste our time with stuff if they wont make a meaningful impact on the discussion.

You asked what they had to say about Nietzsche. I told you in a nutshell what they said. Then you asked me how that was "relevant to the debate."

The relevance is unimportant, since that question itself was irrelevant.

But so it's easier for you to understand, let's go back to Nietzsche and differences of opinion. You talked about what Nietzsche said. In response, I said I disagreed. You then said:

"And for disagreeing with Nietzsche, then there lies the problem. His arguments are very reasonable and valid. He wouldn't be one of the greatest philosophers in the world if his cases were unfounded. Most of Europe, especially Germany where Nietzsche came from, has learned from his writings."

To which, I replied:

"Nietzsche's reasoning was, essentially, the part of a closed system of thought that, in the final analysis, calls for acceptance or rejection. He has some pretty interesting ideas about humanity and people.

But then again, Nietzsche's philosophy is pretty incompatible with the ideas of some other contemporary philosophers, like say, Marcel, Levinas, Ricoeur, and Arendt.

A lot of Europe learned from Nietzsche. But Nietzsche's ideas about the Church seem pretty irrational in the face of Vatican II. Nietzsche's presupposition can be summed up largely in his ideas about a will to power, about wanting to maintain control, about wanting to continually consume everything.

The question is, of course, whether or not this is an accurate picture of what humanity is about. And this is an even more interesting question if you want to talk about what humanity ought to be. And Marcel, Levinas, Ricoeur, and Arendt, who also made quite a stir in Europe (with less of Nietzsche's angst, which can seem quite juvenile), point us in another direction.

I can imagine the Church having a fit if Nietzsche became standard-issue thinking. That's because a lot of what he says is actually diametrically opposed to the Church's social teachings, which continue to be relevant in the world today."

You then said:

"I couldnt (sic) really comment extensively for I am not a student of Philosophy, maybe you could explain more and illustrate how these are relevant to theology. Going back to the debate, how do they refute Nietzsche and his work on repudiating Christianity's compassion? What is the impact of their work on what we're talking about? "

To which I said:

"None of them directly refute Nietzsche. Few philosophers actually go so far as to try and directly refute a particular thinker's point of view. Instead, an alternative is presented.

A common theme among those whom I mentioned is that there is much more to humanity than a relentless drive to consume and reduce the world to an abstraction. Marcel, for example, points at the obvious fact that we cannot reduce other people to mere abstractions. Buber and Ricoeur talk largely about interhuman relationships. Levinas talks about a person's infinite responsibility for the other. Arendt calls on people to think.

None of these people talk about God directly. None of them challenge (directly) any of the Church's social teachings. In fact, most of what they say, as a humane alternative to Nietzsche perhaps, is actually very consistent with Christianity's own world view.

Most of them are Jewish, by the way."

You then asked about relevance.

That question about relevance was in itself irrelevant, since the previous questions and points have obviously been answered. Unless, of course, you require a more elementary exposition to better suit your comprehension.

Huh? Bakit nagkaroon ng "differ based on that definition?" Utilitarian, justice theories are other theories. What I chose was Humanism to assess what is most appropriate or most reasoned. Keep track of the discussion Sir. Sinasagot na nga mga tanong mo e.

I will quote what I said:

"You may wish to define the parameters of what you mean by the maximization of human development. Utilitarian theories and theories of justice can largely differ based on that definition."

The first sentence asked you to define what you meant by the maximization of human development. The reason for that is found in sentence #2, because the theories you use will differ based on how you define that.

In fact, the application of the humanistic theory will largely depend on how you define "maximization of human development."

Until you are able to come up with a definition, you will be wasting our time insisting on something that you have not defined.

So much for you objective reality! I have cited several studies already, the flamingoes, the exhibit, theres even this ram article in newsweek! Objective reality # 1: homosexual relationships are normal in nature. Objective reality #2: relationships could have different goals, procreation is only one of them. Objective reality #3: actually even though two men or two women by themselves cannot reproduce, a lot of gay couples want to have children, thus some of these relationships are clearly directed toward procreation. The sexual act cannot produce offspring but the relationship could have a goal of reproducing. Studies have also shown that children raised by homosexuals are normal and that they are also normal parents who love and carefully raise children. Objective reality #4: People have natural sexual urges that like all psychological stuff could be a problem if suppressed. Objective reality #5: Psychologists have realized that it was a mistake to classify homosexuality as abnormal behavior. Objective reality # 6: Homosexuals have functions in society and biological systems. Objective reality #7: Ignorant and bigoted people cannot accept these truths.

Several points of "objective reality" stated are matters of opinion, not incontrovertible fact. They are also problematic.

Thus:

"Objective reality # 1: homosexual relationships are normal in nature."

Assuming that what you mean by "homosexual relations" is "same-sex relationships," you will have to define what "normal is." You may use statistics if you wish. And you will have to reconcile this with the idea of Church doctrine, which governs human relations, not relations among non-human animals.

"Objective reality #2: relationships could have different goals, procreation is only one of them."

This is a failure of appreciation of context. The context of the discussion is relationships between people, in light of Church position on homosexuality and homosexual relations. It is a given that there are many different kinds of human relationships (i.e. professional, marital, etc.), each with different goals, of which procreation may not be a part. But that's beside the point. The point is about homosexual relationships.

"Objective reality #3: actually even though two men or two women by themselves cannot reproduce, a lot of gay couples want to have children, thus some of these relationships are clearly directed toward procreation. The sexual act cannot produce offspring but the relationship could have a goal of reproducing. Studies have also shown that children raised by homosexuals are normal and that they are also normal parents who love and carefully raise children."

This is self-defeating. Since homosexual couples cannot reproduce, they cannot procreate. They can want to have children, but no sexual act of theirs can produce children. Adoption, if you wish to bring it up, is not procreation, because the children adopted are already the fruit of the procreative act of a heterosexual couple. Raising children is an entirely different act from producing them from a sexual act.

"Objective reality #4: People have natural sexual urges that like all psychological stuff could be a problem if suppressed."

Define "natural sexual urge," placing a particular emphasis of what you mean by "natural." And provide appropriate basis to say that "natural sexual urges" include homosexual urges, considering the fact that individuals have a genetically predetermined sex.

Once that is done, you may wish to provide appropriate basis to talk about suppression of homosexual urges, in light of the above.

"Objective reality #5: Psychologists have realized that it was a mistake to classify homosexuality as abnormal behavior."

Basis?

"Objective reality # 6: Homosexuals have functions in society and biological systems."

Which are?

In any which case, the Church concern is not whether or not homosexuals can perform functions in society, but rather the morality of human relationships.

"Objective reality #7: Ignorant and bigoted people cannot accept these truths."

Opinion, not incontrovertible fact.

And reality has also illustrated, as given in my examples, that beliefs are false and following the policies of the Church blindly has led to wrong decisions (e.g. Population control). Talk about faith and incontrovertible justification. Haha I have stated a lot of things already, if you still fail to see, not my problem. This is already irritating.

Your irritation is irrelevant.

You have still failed to provide incontrovertible proof that social problems are necessarily caused by religion, or the Church. You may wish to explain, for example, how it is the Church's fault that China and India are countries with some of the largest populations today, given, say, Beijing's weak ties with the Vatican and the small Christian presence in India.

Whatever you say. I leave these here for the world to see. How then is it problematic? Another unjustified statement--nominatively expressed, but not proven.

Re-read, then.

Illogical generalization? Haha Ang kulet niyo din ano, kahit ang rami ng examples. Is it hard to see how the policies of the church (doctrines, etc.) affect people? Population control & sex education, gay marriage and human rights, prostitution and protection of women, divorce and the family, etc. These are issues that the Church says a lot about in the country. In the area of population control, there are a lot of ramifications in the economic, environmental, and social spheres. Why dont you research about this Sir, then get back to me. I-private message mo pa ako at sasagutin kita. The Church is not helping us all if it pressures the government to remove sex education modules! Without teaching young people the consequences of having sex, there won't be empowered to make the right decisions. Its perfectly natural for teenagers to be horny! That's NATURE! Pero dahil di nila alam kung san ipuputok, maraming mabubuntis. Then these people will have a lot of problems in their lives. Some of them will get unsafe abortions that may kill them. Most of them will lead miserable lives with social stigma and economic problems. The growth in population will erase the benefits of economic growth. More people who demand more resources which strain the environment. Poverty and hunger then will increase. Crime rates will soar because there are no jobs and people are desperate for food. Dahil di rin alam gumamit ng condom, sexually transmitted diseases will also be rampant. The culprit? The powerful Catholic Church. Illogical generalization? Or deep understanding of the objective reality of the interconnectivity of the dynamic system we call society.

Illogical generalization.

The Church's position affects its believers, who are free to accept it or not.

That said, there's nothing in the above which proves that the (global) population boom is the Church's fault.

And why did the very magaling na Philippine government pull out sex ed courses? Because of the citizenry who, though their beliefs were not force-fed on them, were born into believing the pulpit, BLINDLY following their doom, without knowing the repercussions of their actions. Hay a sad reality. The belief? That God said, Go f**k and multiply. The instigator? A system of faith and worship (i.e. RELIGION). Ano? Kailangan mo pa ba ng more incontrovertible justifications? And I dare to challenge you to check on the connections. Please go ahead. And I hope in the process, you'd understand more. Welcome to the real world baby!

See above. There's no logical connection, except perhaps an opinionated set of conjectures designed to suit a conclusion you've already determined.

Besides, the government does not necessarily follow what the Church says. Unless, of course, you can prove with some incontrovertible proof that the government's policy was dictated by the Church.

Still a self-contradiction? E thats the very essence/definition of relativism. I-research niyo po muna relativism. Ano ba sa tingin mo ginagawa ko dito? Chismis?

Any proper research about relativism shows that one of the principal criticisms of relativism is that it is self-contradicting.

I have no idea what you're doing here, aside from being irritated.

Ugh. As far as the Church is concerned? Goodluck. Ikaw ba naiintindihan mo sinasabi mo? They cant nga e. Ano to mga miraculo? You're twisting logic.

Yes, as far as the Church is concerned. Didn't I make that clear?

Kailangan ba i-rationalize ang isang bagay na natural? Kawawa naman mga taong dinedeny nila mga sarili nila.

Again, what's "natural?"

Anyway if you look up primatology, malaking area of interest siya ng anthropologists. Halos nag-minor ako sa Anthro sa UP. Branch pa nga ng primatology ang physical anthropology.

Relevance?

Hmmm And what if most civilizations frowns upon homosexuality? That doesnt mean they're right to do so. That is why a lot of recent evidence and thought has shed light on this matter. And also in history, homosexuals have existed throughout mankind. Sa Pilipinas nga diba merong mga Babaylan. And when you want to talk about civilizations, the Greek and Roman ones (which are considered to be the greatest of all ancient ones) were very much open with it. Can you say pederasty? Hehe

The pederastia? Since you brought it up, maybe you can refer to a number of sources (there are several primary sources) by the Greeks talking about how it was a function of transferring knowledge. Of course, Greek and Roman men still had their wives. And that never stopped civilizations from viewing the behavior as abnormal.

Also, since you can't say that they're right, you also can't say that they're wrong. :)

And law is also much affected by human factors, most of the time governed by what is "moral" at the time. Hello! So yung Human Security Act whatever ng government ngayon is okay just because its law? E pano human rights? Anyway going back. For example the concept of marriage is a dynamic concept, 100 years ago, it was just an ownership contract. When a person is married, the woman belongs to the man. Ngayon lang talaga nagsisimula yung equality between the sexes. See how it evolves.

Which particular jurisdiction are you referring to talking about the law on marriage? Because in the Spanish civil law, upon which our own civil law is largely based, marriage and the family were not treated as ownership contracts.

And sa family, what is considered as one really? Non-traditional ones are emerging such as single-parents, multiple ones, same-sex, etc. but are still filled with "love." There's this TV series in the states that tackles polygamy. What is a family really diba? Dugo lang ba yan o turingan? Are we not all part of the human family? A friend with a degree in Socio even told me that there's this trend that what you consider as family are your friends na rin, nag iiba na yung basic social unit. Hindi lang family lang.

The basic contemplation of family law is one consisting of a unit of parent(s) and child(ren). The ideas of the "human family" and what your friend with a degree in socio are irrelevant in the context which I brought the idea up.

Okay. Let's leap to our doom! Hehe

Yes. Let's. We're redeemed by Christ anyway. :D

Anyway this is my last post on this. I'm backpacking in Europe in the coming months, so you guys argue about this. It was nice debating with you guys! Kahit pa-ikot ikot ikot and nakakapagod.

Hehehehe. Enjoy Europe, and pay a visit to the nice churches and universities and other nice places.

And remember, Jesus loves you too. :D

Last ish:

Theology classes must be done under rigorous scrutiny. It is not surprising that philosophy has been the major takeoff point of the study of God, though I would favor Anthropology as more suitable. Nevertheless, the discourse of this very important construct which permeates our everyday lives is quite relevant not only to those in religiously-affiliated schools but to everybody. The impact of religion is astounding. While believers are free to practice, they must realize the consequences of their actions within the greater picture of society. May theology grant the wisdom that we all need.

And I would also say the units in Theology could be better spent studying other fields.

Noted. Although anthropology talks more about humans than about God, and the treatment is largely different. :)

Okay everyone. Now we can get back to topic.:)

Ischaramoochie

Jul 23, 2007, 04:05 PM

hmm... philosophy was relevant for me, but not theology.

iRebirth

Jul 23, 2007, 05:37 PM

it's relevance is relative.

pumpysworld

Jul 24, 2007, 03:11 PM

On whether we've had enough of such subjects, if they do look at issues concerning what is good and what is true, and given the fact that we live in a country like the Philippines, then that makes them more than relevant.

With regards to putting ideas into action, I think one can do that without even going to school. And if the primary purpose of school is to prepare people for work, then the less schooling the better: probably only around five years of learning reading, writing, and arithmetic will do (and one doesn't even need schools for that). From there, the child can start working part-time right away.

Finally, the claim that "life experiences are more relevant" isn't that helpful because that takes by default and without the need for schooling. And from what I know, formal schooling is meant to supplement that, not replace it.

Relevant? Depende sa uri ng curriculum. Depende rin sa degree program. Depende sa trip ng tao. Depende sa career preference ng student. Say, gusto kong maging theologian o philosopher in the future.:D

On a personal note, after almost 12 years of being in a Catholic school for my elementary and high school education, attending religion classes and practicing "required" religious activities, hindi ba parang.. pwede ba, tama na? Parang wala na kasing katapusan ang paghahanap sa kabutihan at katotohanan and all that, complicated na masyado. Hehe..

I think it's time to put into action what I have learned in my classes. Minsan kasi ang dating ng ganitong mga subjects e masyadong theoretical, hindi na practicable sa buhay. At hindi rin maganda na basehan ito ng character judgment. Madalas kasi napreprejudged na morally inferior ang isang student who doesn't take up theology subjects, lalo na pag may nagawang mali.

I can go to a Catholic school yet again if I want, but I can never really shape my character through these subjects.. never, if I don't live out the values that I learn. So life experiences are more relevant.:)

pumpysworld

Jul 24, 2007, 03:32 PM

If you think about it, we take "useful" subjects in order to earn and spend them on "useless" subjects. It might not be theology or philosophy but tennis lessons, painting, or music.

In the end, these subjects become irrelevant only for those who cannot afford to spend time or money on them.

cretinous00

Jul 24, 2007, 07:32 PM

"Spending" good money on subjects you don't need is surely a foolish thing to do, especially when people in good Asian schools like UP ;) view education as an investment.

la_flash

Jul 25, 2007, 08:06 AM

^^ of course, but that begs the question. Are those subjects really useless?

n3X

Jul 25, 2007, 09:38 AM

"Unless, of course, you require a more elementary exposition to better suit your comprehension."

OMG. You're so funny! what. an. idiot. :rotflmao: Okay that does it.

babalikan ko entry mo and your "incontrovertible" proofs. why dont you go RESEARCH about these muna? matters of opinion? and incontrovertible proof that the government policy on sex education was influenced by the church? You insult me Sir by saying that my statements are unfounded? You make me laugh.

To start off, could anyone type the words: church sex education philippines, in google and tingnan nyo mga "incontrovertible proofs." And maybe you could do that with all of the things I've said here. And when I get back from here, I'll do the same to your posts. And nowhere in my posts did I say that the global population boom was caused by the Church, you made that connection. Ang galing mo kasi e. Ask psychologists whats their bases for reclassifying homosexuality. Et cetera...

Someone please adjudicate.

Elementary exposition pala e. Tingnan natin kung sino may kailangan sa ating dalawa. And can you even read? Ito nga o:

"Dante placed equal priority on preparing for the afterlife but stressed that it was "inconceivable to him that he and mankind in general should not have been intended to develop to the fullest their specifically human potential." I further quote from the same Inferno introduction by Archibald T. MacAllister,"

I encourage everyone to know the TRUTH. Research, research, research. Wag kayo manalig at maniwala ng basta basta.

For something this big, papatulan ko talaga to. *peace* Hehe Later.

PS. Yeah I'll visit those Churches as relics of an abusive power and anachronism. Too bad a grand institution ruined Jesus's work.

karagözler

Jul 25, 2007, 08:35 PM

i'm a thomasian. i viewed theology more as a "ok, good to know those things" subject, kind of like history -- rather than a subject whose teachings i had to imbibe and know by heart. philosophy is more relevant in the sense that it teaches critical thinking as opposed to theology's blind faith. right now, i'm taking st. thomas on critical thinking, and i have to admit that it can be a bit of an oxymoron sometimes.

atenean_blooded

Jul 25, 2007, 09:49 PM

n3X

Jul 26, 2007, 05:34 AM

First you lied about that being your last post.

Here is a solid example of your poor comprehension and thinking.

At that point in time, I thought that that was my last post and that was my intention. But your insults prompted me to respond. If before I was planning to post again, then I lied. To lie is to INTENTIONALLY deliver a FALSE statement. And before you tell me you need "incontrovertible proof," that's a standard definition from the dictionary. When I said that, it was true, but when I posted again, the statement became false. So no, I didnt lie.

Sorry atenean but I'm going to expose you as an idiot. Just wait.

Second, you were the one who made those assertions. The burden of proof's on you. It's been that way since you've made assertions which you have failed to prove.

Ugh duh, we're all asserting here. And assertions I have failed to prove? I'm not the one here dropping unsupported statements. All of my assertions can be independently verified by anyone who will research on it. I dont drop statements that I cant defend nor without sufficient basis. I invite the world to research on the validity and strength of my statements. Lets see who needs elementary exposition between the two of us.

One quote from Archibald McAllister does not cure the obvious defects in reasoning in your posts, particularly the unsupported assertions about how economic problems, etc. are necessarily the fault of religion/the Church. Nor does quipping that there's an article here and there that supposedly proves your point.

Hahaha How funny. What is obvious is that you cant accept the truth and the strength of my arguments. Your flaws are showing. Anybody can read the articles and verify the information, even read the comments on the news articles and see that people could make the connections between my "unsupported assertions." Its sad that you cant. There's research out there! I am only stating them here, if you dont want to believe me, you're free to see them for yourself. I am fully confident because I have the truth to back me up. And no words of yours that are trying to discredit me will matter because the world can see through your foolish remarks. Give it up atenean. Your arrogance will be your downfall. You just cant accept you're wrong no matter what proof I give.

I presume, of course, that higher education should have taught you that already.

Please let us know if we have to lower our expectations. :)

Actually my expectations of the education Ateneo gave you has been utterly disappointing. And sorry to say, but you dont have to lower your expectations, I'm from UP. I can take you head on.

atenean_blooded

Jul 27, 2007, 03:36 AM

Here is a solid example of your poor comprehension and thinking.

At that point in time, I thought that that was my last post and that was my intention. But your insults prompted me to respond. If before I was planning to post again, then I lied. To lie is to INTENTIONALLY deliver a FALSE statement. And before you tell me you need "incontrovertible proof," that's a standard definition from the dictionary. When I said that, it was true, but when I posted again, the statement became false. So no, I didnt lie.

Sorry atenean but I'm going to expose you as an idiot. Just wait.

Okay then. Then by posting again, after saying that that was your last, and by posting twice since then, you've just eaten your words. Not once, but twice.

Care to make a retraction now? :)

Ugh duh, we're all asserting here. And assertions I have failed to prove? I'm not the one here dropping unsupported statements. All of my assertions can be independently verified by anyone who will research on it. I dont drop statements that I cant defend nor without sufficient basis. I invite the world to research on the validity and strength of my statements. Lets see who needs elementary exposition between the two of us.

Since you insist on saying

"my assertions can be independently verified by anyone who will research on it(sic)"

it's quite curious that you simply haven't chosen to back your original statements with all the allegedly available material in the first place.

You see, when making an assertion, the burden of proof's on you. You're supposed to convince the other party, not just ask the other party to convince himself.:)

And if I can illustrate by way of analogy, if only to make it easier, when you accuse someone of a crime, your task in court is to prove his guilt. You can't ask the court to go and research. :)

Or, if to use an example that's a little more down-to-earth, you can't write an academic paper, and simply say, "there's research out there!" "I invite the world to research on the validity and strength of my statements." You actually have to cite your sources. :)

Is this clear enough for you now? :)

Hahaha How funny. What is obvious is that you cant accept the truth and the strength of my arguments. Your flaws are showing.

This is illogical. Next.

Anybody can read the articles and verify the information, even read the comments on the news articles and see that people could make the connections between my "unsupported assertions." Its sad that you cant. There's research out there! I am only stating them here, if you dont want to believe me, you're free to see them for yourself. I am fully confident because I have the truth to back me up. And no words of yours that are trying to discredit me will matter because the world can see through your foolish remarks. Give it up atenean. Your arrogance will be your downfall. You just cant accept you're wrong no matter what proof I give.

I suggest you actually try supporting your arguments using the material you claim is out there. :)

Actually my expectations of the education Ateneo gave you has been utterly disappointing. And sorry to say, but you dont have to lower your expectations, I'm from UP. I can take you head on.

That's the spirit!

In the meantime, I'll be patient and wait. :)

Juntrix

Jul 27, 2007, 03:57 AM

There's no point arguing with these GODLESS creatures... let them be and soon enough they will suffer the consequences... let them burn in hell come judgement day...

n3X

Jul 27, 2007, 06:06 AM

Okay then. Then by posting again, after saying that that was your last, and by posting twice since then, you've just eaten your words. Not once, but twice.

Care to make a retraction now? :)

You're trying to make an unnecessary issue out of it. There's nothing more to it. I did everything in good faith. Resorting to this tactic is clearly in bad taste. Please do better.

And here we go again. When someone "retracts" it is to "withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified." Again standard dictionary definition. My pronouncement was true at the time. I'm thinking you're upset cuz I'm back in business baby, in the business of bringing you down and showing the world, through you, how theology is irrelevant.

Since you insist on saying

"my assertions can be independently verified by anyone who will research on it(sic)"

it's quite curious that you simply haven't chosen to back your original statements with all the allegedly available material in the first place.

You see, when making an assertion, the burden of proof's on you. You're supposed to convince the other party, not just ask the other party to convince himself.:)

And if I can illustrate by way of analogy, if only to make it easier, when you accuse someone of a crime, your task in court is to prove his guilt. You can't ask the court to go and research. :)

Or, if to use an example that's a little more down-to-earth, you can't write an academic paper, and simply say, "there's research out there!" "I invite the world to research on the validity and strength of my statements." You actually have to cite your sources. :)

Is this clear enough for you now? :)

Everything is clear to me. Its just surprising that people constantly come up with defense mechanisms to escape admitting to their own faults. Forgive me for not footnoting my statements. I havent encountered anyone in online fora who cited their sources completely. It is against practicality to do so and there's this trust that what we stated here, we take it that we believe its true. If there was doubt, the person would look it up. Things are not spoonfed, because basically we're all in a rush. This is not a court or an academic paper, yes those were just analogies, but thats exactly the point, this is an online forum. Different media have varying practices. But its alright, I will cite those especially for you and this debate. Although some, like when I say there's this article on Newsweek on gay rams, I hope that people would look it up. But I will try to look for a web address if there is one.

Problem is, its pretty obvious that in this sensitive topic, some people have made up their minds, and no amount of proof will dismantle what they believe in. But I will do this because I believe that there are still people out there who think with an open mind, who are not blinded by dogma.

I suggest you actually try supporting your arguments using the material you claim is out there. :)

Haha Ive been doing just that. And the material will remain because its really out there.

ach_soo

Jul 27, 2007, 07:43 AM

Tuloy, 72% lang ang passing rate ng UST Architecture. :glee:

SUX2BÜ

Jul 27, 2007, 12:13 PM

Yehey, 26 lang!

:)

ach_soo

Jul 27, 2007, 01:45 PM

BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

http://s110.photobucket.com/albums/n95/ubelt//2007/07/008460_IMG_9948f.jpg

atenean_blooded

Jul 27, 2007, 01:55 PM

You're trying to make an unnecessary issue out of it. There's nothing more to it. I did everything in good faith. Resorting to this tactic is clearly in bad taste. Please do better.

And here we go again. When someone "retracts" it is to "withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified." Again standard dictionary definition. My pronouncement was true at the time.

True at the time, eh?

This makes three. :)

I'm thinking you're upset cuz I'm back in business baby, in the business of bringing you down and showing the world, through you, how theology is irrelevant.

Really?

Where?

Everything is clear to me. Its just surprising that people constantly come up with defense mechanisms to escape admitting to their own faults. Forgive me for not footnoting my statements. I havent encountered anyone in online fora who cited their sources completely. It is against practicality to do so and there's this trust that what we stated here, we take it that we believe its true. If there was doubt, the person would look it up. Things are not spoonfed, because basically we're all in a rush. This is not a court or an academic paper, yes those were just analogies, but thats exactly the point, this is an online forum. Different media have varying practices. But its alright, I will cite those especially for you and this debate. Although some, like when I say there's this article on Newsweek on gay rams, I hope that people would look it up. But I will try to look for a web address if there is one.

Let's have the supported arguments, then. You could have used the energy you expended writing this paragraph for actually getting to it, instead of defending your failure to do so.

Problem is, its pretty obvious that in this sensitive topic, some people have made up their minds, and no amount of proof will dismantle what they believe in. But I will do this because I believe that there are still people out there who think with an open mind, who are not blinded by dogma.

Some of us remain unconvinced because there was no proof. :)

Haha Ive been doing just that. And the material will remain because its really out there.

This is your attempt? This is taking me head on?

n3X

Jul 28, 2007, 01:19 AM

True at the time, eh?

This makes three. :)

Really?

Where?

Let's have the supported arguments, then. You could have used the energy you expended writing this paragraph for actually getting to it, instead of defending your failure to do so.

Some of us remain unconvinced because there was no proof. :)

This is your attempt? This is taking me head on?

Haha You just cant accept you're wrong no? Just act cocky atenean. :rotflmao: Puro yabang, wala namang content. Like your argument on the "lying" part, you refuse to admit your mistake. You keep on counting pa. Or maybe you really dont understand anything or readily dismiss opinions other than your own. After I present the evidence and some further arguments, I PROMISE to stop this exchange. There's no point in debating with an arrogant, pretentious and blinkered intellectual idiot. :rotflmao:

I'll return in a month's time.

atenean_blooded

Jul 28, 2007, 03:06 AM

Haha You just cant accept you're wrong no? Just act cocky atenean. :rotflmao: Puro yabang, wala namang content. Like your argument on the "lying" part, you refuse to admit your mistake. You keep on counting pa.

This is four times. Tsk tsk tsk.

Or maybe you really dont understand anything or readily dismiss opinions other than your own.

I've been waiting for you to make a qualified opinion. And you say I readily dismiss opinions? :D

After I present the evidence and some further arguments, I PROMISE to stop this exchange.

Quit being rhetorical and actually do it, then.

There's no point in debating with an arrogant, pretentious and blinkered intellectual idiot. :rotflmao:

Self-references won't win an argument.

But don't worry. Even if you just described yourself, we'll all be patient with you.:)

Juntrix

Jul 28, 2007, 07:47 AM

atenean_blooded,

He's well-done. Cooked tender with spices everywhere. Just leave him in peace, man. Who knows? Maybe when he returns he is already ordained because of your convincing argument.:D

atenean_blooded

Jul 29, 2007, 02:08 AM

atenean_blooded,

He's well-done. Cooked tender with spices everywhere. Just leave him in peace, man. Who knows? Maybe when he returns he is already ordained because of your convincing argument.:D

Whether or not he's convinced isn't what's important.

What's important is that Jesus loves him. :)

pumpysworld

Jul 30, 2007, 08:49 PM

Given your argument, the best type of schooling would involve two- to four-year programs involving vocational and technical work; definitely not UP.

Also, UP is a university, which means it is supposed to focus on research and not vocational work. Given that, the liberal arts would be very important since research and specialization involves interdisciplinary thinking.

"Spending" good money on subjects you don't need is surely a foolish thing to do, especially when people in good Asian schools like UP ;) view education as an investment.

n3X

Sep 26, 2007, 07:52 PM

Sorry double post.

n3X

Sep 26, 2007, 08:02 PM

I'm quite busy right now because I'm creating documents for two organizations. So next time ko na ulet babalikan yung string of arguments. For now, I'm posting these two pieces of text for you guys to read. I dont think people will appreciate the strength of my arguments if they don't SEE them with an OPEN MIND, so the first article is about that. Then the second one naman, I doubt if anyone, even atenean_blooded could refute the arguments. Be free people! Let reason triumph! THINK THINK THINK!

A FREE MIND
From the book Secular Nation by Thomas Vernon

There are many people who have, from time to time, been tempted to think for themselves -- who have found themselves questioning beliefs they inherited but really never examined. This is nowhere more apt to be the case than in the area of religious beliefs. Our religious beliefs came to us in a protective coating of age and respectability, like the invisible "force field" of science fiction.

It takes a degree of intellectual courage to penetrate this penumbra of sanctity and inspect a belief on its own merits. Still, many people have done so. They have found themselves asking such questions as, how do I know that this book called the Bible is the supernaturally revealed and infallible word of God? How do I know there is even such a being as God? How does anybody know there is such a thing as immorality? When people begin seriously to raise questions of this sort, they find that their "faith", that is, their accustomed belief-patterns, seem increasingly insubstantial.

To lose one's faith may seem, in prospect, like being turned out of a comfortable home and left to fend for oneself in a vast and trackless waste. Those with a persistent curiosity and adventurous spirit will never-the-less leave their cozy shelter and set out to learn for themselves what it is like "out there." Although their first steps may be taken "in fear and trembling," they begin to find that they are not alone. They discover stalwart companions. They learn, indeed that they are "compassed about" with a "cloud of witnesses." As their minds become strengthened by use, they begin to see what others have seen, that their "spiritual home" was in reality a prison; its walls were built of ignorance and fear, and reinforced by habit and custom.

No one is kept in this prison but by oneself; it is a prison where every inmate is his or her jailer. Everyone, aware of it or not, already has the key that will unlock the door: the freedom to seek the truth.

See http://www.atheistfellowship.com

>>>

Why Atheism? by Mark Thomas
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

History and Development of Science and Scientific Naturalism

Let’s start with a quick experiment. You can grab three coins and actually do the experiment, or just do a thought experiment.

Drop one coin and watch it fall. Do this again. Hold out the third coin.

If you were to do this again, what do you think would happen? If you could get ten good Christians to pray that this next coin wouldn’t fall, would it still fall? How about one thousand faithful Muslims? How about one billion people of any faith? I think that it would still fall. Drop the third coin.

Our understanding of the world around us, and our abilities to predict what will happen are based on naturalism — the basis of science. Naturalism is how all people live their lives most of the time.

OK, let’s just do a thought experiment. If you were to take two coins and glue them together, then drop them at the same time as you drop a single coin, would they fall twice as fast as the single coin? Aristotle thought so 2300 years ago, and for over 1900 years, his ideas were what was taught about this and many other subjects. Some of the other ancient Greeks had many ideas that are now a basis for modern science, engineering, math, philosophy, and democracy. Unfortunately for humankind, these ideas were largely forgotten for almost two thousand years while religion took control and Aristotle was revered as the source of supposedly scientific knowledge.

Galileo and Empirical Science
Around 1600, Galileo had a new idea for his culture. He decided to do something that now seems like common sense — to actually test the idea of what we now call gravity. He reasoned that two weights held together would fall at the same rate as one weight. Then he did experiments to test the idea — and, not surprisingly to us, it was true. This was the start of modern empirical science, and our collective understanding of the universe hasn’t been the same since.

“Empirical” is a word that I'll be using a lot. It refers to ideas that are capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. Empirical evidence is not simply one type of evidence, but rather it is the only evidence that we can rely on, because it is reproducible. Empirical evidence is the basis for physical science.

Galileo also took the new invention of the telescope, refined it, and used it to look at the night sky. He was astounded. On the moon he could see mountains and valleys. It wasn’t just some strange heavenly object; it was probably made out of the same stuff as Earth. In 1609 Galileo looked at Jupiter and discovered that he could see four moons. If moons orbited Jupiter then not everything orbited the Earth, as the Catholic Church taught. Astronomy made more sense if the theories of Copernicus were true, and the Earth and planets orbited the sun. This was what Galileo taught, and in 1616 he was subject to the Inquisition. They banned him from teaching this idea, which was opposed to the true faith and contrary to Holy Scripture. However, Galileo later got permission from the pope (a friend of his) to write a book, as long as the Church's ideas and Galileo's were given equal weight. Galileo's book did not treat the two ideas equally, of course, so he was called to Rome in 1632 by the Catholic Church’s Inquisition, and told to recant his heretical ideas.

This was no “simple request” by the Church. The Inquisition had already executed Galileo’s friend Giordano Bruno. Have you heard of him? In 1600, the Christian authorities in Rome took him out of the dungeon he had been in for eight years, drove a nail thru his tongue, tied him to a metal post, put wood and some of his books under his feet, and burned him to death. Bruno’s crime was writing ideas that the Catholic leaders didn’t like — the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Sun is a star, there might be other worlds with other intelligent beings on them, Jesus didn’t possess god-like power, and souls can’t go to heaven. For these heretical ideas, the Catholic Church punished this brilliant man with an agonizingly slow death.

Bruno was not the only man executed by the Christians for heretical ideas. Another was Italian freethinker Lucilio Vanini, who suggested that humans evolved from apes. In 1618 he was tried in France and found guilty of Atheism and witchcraft. He had his tongue cut out, he was hanged, and his body was burned — as was customary with all heretics. Six years later the French Parlement even decreed that criticism of Aristotle was punishable by death, and many heretics continued to be burned.

Galileo no doubt knew what he was up against. For the crime of heresy the Inquisition could put him in a dungeon, torture or even execute him. So, after a long trial, this proud 70 year-old man obediently got on his knees and dutifully recanted. But even after recanting, he was still sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Catholic Church officially condemned heliocentrism 31 years later, when Pope Alexander VII banned all books that affirmed the Earth’s motion. However, even as powerful as the Church was, they could not hold back the tidal wave of scientific discovery. The Church eventually lost its battle over our view of the universe, but it only took them over three hundred years to admit it. In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, they grudgingly noted that Galileo had been right in supporting the Copernican theories. Even then, they ascribed his genius to God, “who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.” But no such reprieve has been given for Bruno. His writings are still on the Vatican’s list of forbidden texts, and Pope John Paul II refused to even apologize for the Catholic Church's torture killing of Bruno.

Galileo and others started something big — empirical science. Thru science, we have come to a good understanding of the workings of the world and universe around us. The weather, lightning, thunder, the planets and stars, disease, and life itself all function based on fairly well understood principles. God doesn’t control them; the physical properties of matter and energy do. This principle is at the center of naturalism — the idea that only matter and energy exist, and they have properties that are repeatable, understandable, and quantifiable within the limits of quantum mechanics. We take this idea so for granted that we typically don’t realize that it is based on several articles of faith. This faith, however, is quite different from religious faith. This faith is based on past experience and results. It is the faith that:

# There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
# There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
# These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.

So far, this faith has been well founded, as shown by the amazing accomplishments of modern science, engineering and medicine.

God of the Gaps, or Argument From Ignorance
Until just a couple of hundred years ago, most people thought that a god or gods controlled everything. Why did the wind blow? Why was there lightning and thunder? Why did the sun, moon, and stars apparently go around the Earth? Why did someone get sick and die? Why did anything happen? Well, obviously, God did it. If a person doesn’t know how something works or why something happened, they can say, “God did it.” This is known as the “god of the gaps,” or the “argument from ignorance,” and it is at the heart of the conflict between science and religion. Science looks for natural causes, while religion looks for supernatural causes. Science is steadily winning, because as we understand more and more about the universe, the gap where God might function grows smaller and smaller. Every time we learn more, God has less room to operate. When we learned what caused the sun to apparently move across the sky, there was no need for the Greek god Helios and his chariot. When we understood what caused lightning, there was no need for the Greek god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, or the Norse god Thor.

In fact, the understanding of lightning was one of the first areas of battle between science and Christianity. When Ben Franklin discovered that lightning was just a big electric spark, he invented the lightning rod. It was enormously successful at preventing buildings from being struck by lightning. However, this caused a bit of a conundrum for the church leaders; should they trust in their god to prevent lightning strikes on their churches, or should they use these new lightning rods? Up until then, lightning hit churches much more frequently than other, more “deserving” buildings — such as taverns or houses of ill repute. “Why was that?” they might have wondered. Could it be that churches had spires and were taller, or was it SATAN and his WITCHES? …… Actually, that is what they often believed, and many a supposed witch was executed for having caused the destruction of a church. When they started putting lightning rods on churches, witch killings stopped soon thereafter. However, the obvious fact is that they were putting their trust in science and lightning rods, not religion and prayer.

Why God(s)? Why Not?

The idea of an all-controlling, caring supernatural god is a very attractive one. It can make our mortal lives seem less frightening, more comforting. Somebody’s in control and won’t let bad things happen to us. Many gods also promise that we can go to heaven after we die, to live forever in some sort of bliss.

The idea of a god is also an easy answer to questions about the world around us. Where did the universe come from? God created it. Where did life come from? God created it, too. Where did humans come from? God created us, and in his own image, to boot.

Religious philosophers have tried for thousands of years to prove that there is a god or many gods. They have come up with many arguments. We will look at these arguments. Because I live in a largely Judeo-Christian society, when I refer to God with a capital ‘G’ I will be referring to the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh (a.k.a. Jehovah) and probably the Muslim god Allah. This god is typically defined as having free will, and being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good), perfect, eternal, and unchanging. This god also created the universe and is separate from the physical world while still intervening in the physical world. After all, what good is a god that doesn’t do anything? Most of the arguments I use here will also apply to most of the other thousands gods created by humankind, and most of the thousands of religions. I certainly don’t know all of them, so I will deal with most of the major religions and their god(s). I will also closely link god(s) and religion. I do this advisedly because, for most people, one could not exist without the other. In addition, if there were a god I would think that this god would be able to appropriately guide the religions created for it.

There is at least one religion, essential Buddhism as taught by Buddha, which does not have a god or any supernatural component. To keep things a bit simpler here, the arguments I make regarding religion will probably not apply to essential Buddhism or any other religion without a supernatural component. However, almost all religions have grown from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created just for our benefit.

We need to define “Atheism.” Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. For many, Atheism is also the conclusion that no gods exist, based on the complete lack of evidence for any god. I take the strong Atheist position — depending on how we define “God” we can prove that it does not exist, and I will use the typical definition just given for the Christian god Yahweh.

Why am I doing this? Is it just because I want to poke holes in people’s beliefs so that we can take away what makes them happy? No, I’m doing this because I want to know what is true, be intellectually honest, and be open to reality. And, I hope that you have similar reasons.

In this article I will put forth some of the reasons why Atheism is true, so they can be examined and evaluated. I will also show why Atheism is important to the future of humankind.

The arguments for the existence of God fall into several areas. I have arranged them into these categories:

# Mysticism and Revelation
# “Scientific” Claims
# Love and Morality
# Appeals to Authority
# Prophesy and Miracles
# Appeals to Faith, Logic, and Emotion

What Tools Can We Use?
How can we examine these claims? What tools can we use to determine truth of external reality? We have (1) empirical, verifiable evidence; and we have (2) logic. Evidence and logic are the best tools we have to determine how the universe really works. These tools have been extraordinarily successful in science, engineering and medicine, and in our daily lives. This is the standard that most of us expect in dealing with the real world; we expect doctors to use the latest medicine, and engineers to use empirical data when building bridges. Why should we use anything else for examining external reality?

When people believe things without evidence, they are left with no way to accurately judge whether or not what they believe reflects how things really are. Their beliefs must then be based on feelings and emotion or the unquestioned authority of something or somebody else, not evidence.

Each of us can choose between a magical view of the universe (one or more invisible, immaterial gods did it), or the “what you see is what you get” scientific version. I think that science, using empirical evidence, has done a far better job in explaining how the universe works.

At the center of science is intellectual honesty. In order for ideas to be accepted in science, they must be supported by sufficient evidence and arguments. Anybody can change what is accepted in science, if they can put forth evidence and arguments sufficient to show that their new idea is better. In fact, the larger the change created by an individual, the more that individual is honored. This is why Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein are honored — because their ideas radically changed our views of the universe. With this process of change, science can grow and improve our understanding of the universe. Conversely, most religions are stuck with unchanging “holy” words from a book or founder.

Mysticism, Revelation and Experience
Some people claim that there are other ways of knowing, such as mysticism, revelation or direct experience. People claim that they can experience God, sometimes thinking that the Holy Spirit has come into them. How can we verify these claims? The “Holy Spirit” experience seems to be very similar to the well-documented experience of catharsis. People claiming knowledge thru mysticism or revelation often don’t even agree with each other. The only way that I know to verify any mystic’s abilities is for the supposed mystic to be able to accurately, repeatedly, and verifiably know things that are supposedly impossible to know — such as events of the future. I know of no one who can, or could. Of course, we have to be very careful in any testing of such claims, because a good magician can easily fool us. Even if there were somebody who could predict the future, that does not mean that there’s a god. It would only mean that this person has peculiar skills. I submit that mysticism and revelation result from internal, altered states of consciousness — with no basis in external reality. Mysticism, revelation, and any other religious experience can only count for those who experience them; for all other people, they are merely hearsay. Thus, we can’t depend on mysticism or religious revelation to give us reliable answers to any issues.

“Scientific” Arguments for God(s)
The biggest weakness in using God to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable, and thus not even testable. There is no way to create an experiment to show that it’s wrong. For every possible set of a test and a result, we could simply say, “God did it.” How did the Earth and universe begin, and why do they appear to be so old? God did it. How did life start, and why does nature seem so balanced? God did it. Once again, why does anything happen? If we say that God did it, there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works. If we had stayed with God as the cause of all events, our modern culture would have been impossible. We would have no real science, engineering, or medicine. We would still be living in the Dark Ages.

The “God did it” response is known as the “god of the gaps” argument, and it has probably been around since humans first started creating gods. It's the basic premise behind all the “scientific” arguments for the existence of a god. Here's what the logic looks like when applied to two common weather phenomena: Lightning and thunder are terrifying! They must be caused by something else (that we don’t really understand either). This something else must be a god because we can’t come up with a better explanation.

The obvious main fault of “god of the gaps” is its supposition that current lack of knowledge on a subject means that it can’t be known — that “unknown” means “unknowable.” If this applies to an individual, it’s the argument from personal incredulity — because a person doesn't understand something then he thinks that the subject must be unknown, unknowable, or false.

When faced with an unknown, let's first note that it's perfectly OK to say, “I don't know,” or, “We don't know,” — just as it would have been when people in the past asked, “What causes lightning or tornadoes?” or, “Why do things fall to the ground?” or countless other questions for which we now have straightforward scientific explanations. Obviously, just because we don't know how something happened does not mean that “God did it.” Relegating an explanation of something to a god is easy; a person doesn't have to think much. Finding an explanation with science often involves hard work and analysis.

For the fringe areas of knowledge that we don’t understand, we are using the tools of science to learn the secrets of nature. As we have all seen, science has made excellent advances in our understanding of the universe, and will, no doubt, continue to do so. There may also be things that are too difficult or impossible for us to understand, but that doesn't mean that some god is behind them.

There are three common “god of the gaps” types of arguments for the existence of God. We have (1) first cause, (2) Intelligent Design, which grew out of creationism, and (3) origin of consciousness.

First Cause, or Cosmological Argument
The first cause, or cosmological argument, says that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite series of causes stretching into the past, God must be the first cause — an uncaused cause. This argument was described by Aristotle, and has at least four problems.

The main problem of the first cause argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what is known as the Casimir Effect.

The beginning of the observable universe — of all the matter and energy in it and even of time itself — is called the Big Bang. The science of quantum mechanics is only a century old, and already we've been able to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the observable universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive data. The four most prominent facts are:

# The red shift of almost all galaxies — getting greater as their distance increases.
- This shows that the galaxies are flying away from each other — at greater speeds at greater distances.
# The cosmic microwave background radiation.
- This is a remnant of the radiation from the Big Bang, and has cooled over time to the exact temperature predicted.
# The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes.
- This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the Big Bang are correct.
# The changes in galaxies as we look further away (and thus back in time), with distant galaxies more primitive.
- This shows some of the changes in the observable universe since the Big Bang, and confirms the deep time of the universe.

The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. Even if Inflation Theory is eventually shown to be wrong or incomplete, that doesn’t mean that “God did it.”

The next problem of the first cause argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. This argument is made moot by the Big Bang, which negates the need for considering an infinite chain of events in our universe. Because time started with the Big Bang, any question of what happened before is nonsensical — much like asking what is north of the North Pole. Also, many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe; we certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events.

Another problem comes from the definition of God as perfect and unchanging. If these qualities were true, then why would God need a universe and how could God change from not needing a universe to needing one?

The last problem with the first cause argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused. Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the first cause argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Irreducible Complexity
The next scientific type of argument is called Intelligent Design (ID). It states that life on Earth is so complex that it must have had an intelligent designer. This argument has evolved from the creationism argument, and it’s gaining strength by masquerading as a science. It’s a belief structure and not science because there is no body of research to support its claims, and it makes no testable predictions. To get around legal restrictions on teaching religious dogma, proponents of ID often say that they don’t know what this designer was; it could have been an alien or a god. This is disingenuous. If it was an alien, then the obvious question is: where and how did the alien originate? If they really mean God, which is what some of them have admitted, then ID is basically creationism with a few new ideas. So, I will treat ID and creationism as basically the same.

Proponents of Intelligent Design make many claims:

# The apparent design of the universe design requires a designer, like a watch requires a watchmaker.
# The complexity of life and the universe require a cause that is not part of this natural universe.
# Irreducible complexity shows that the odds against natural causes for certain processes are too great, so a designer is necessary.
# The physical laws require a lawgiver.
# The laws of physics were fine-tuned for life.
# Science can’t explain all the features of life.
# Our system of life on Earth was designed.
# The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible.
# What they really claim is God did it!

Let's start with the apparent design of the universe, and use a story of Sir Isaac Newton as an example. A deeply religious man, Newton was struck by the order that he observed in the orbits of the planets, with all of them in the same plane. He could think of no reason for this, so he attributed it to God. Of course now, thru science, we understand the gravitational dynamics in the formation of solar systems fairly well, and no longer need to invoke a god. Science is similarly showing how the rest of the universe works and eliminating the need for theistic explanations.

Now let’s look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that any closed system will tend toward disorder. However, it does not apply to the Earth, because we live in an open system with energy constantly streaming in from our sun. This is the energy that powers almost all life on our planet. Thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution or any living being.

Next, let’s consider the laws of physics. They are quantified explanations of how matter and energy behave — not anything like man-made laws. We currently don’t know why the parameters of matter and energy have certain values, but that doesn’t mean that some god set them that way. The simple solution to the question of the source of the laws of physics is to accept them as brute fact, with no source. Besides, if it were true that a god set up the universe specifically for us, he certainly waited a long time for the result. The universe has been around for about 13 billion years. It took about nine billion years before Earth was formed from the remnants of supernova stars. Single celled bacteria were forming ecosystems about a billion years after that, as shown by the evidence for Earth’s history in its rocks and fossils. For about two and a half billion years life consisted of only single celled organisms. Life evolved and became more complex with multi-celled organisms. It then took another billion years for fish, reptiles and mammals to appear. Then humans, God’s supposed reason for the whole creation, finally came along within the last 150,000 years or so — on one planet orbiting one of the trillions of stars. This seems like a lengthy, complex, massive, and apparently natural process for an omnipotent being that could have simply snapped everything (or just one magic planet) into existence. Using God as the source of the laws of physics just doesn’t make sense. Once again, religionists are trying to explain one mystery with a bigger mystery.

It's also important to note that life is exceedingly rare in the universe — even if it exists on every planet and moon. All we do know is that life exists on one oasis — Earth. Most of the universe is nearly empty, and almost all of the matter is in stars or nebulae. Any sort of life that we can imagine only has a chance on planets or moons. The universe was not designed for life; in practically the entire universe conditions are extremely hostile to life. Saying that the universe is made just for us is like a frog looking at his pond and thinking that the whole world was made just for him.

The core argument in Intelligent Design is the fact that evolutionary biologists can’t yet fully explain all the features of life; therefore ID claims that life must have been designed by some intelligent being. This is the old “god of the gaps” argument, and it is scientifically, logically, and historically flawed.

ID is scientifically flawed because it violates the ground rules of science by allowing supernatural (meaning outside of nature) causation.

ID is logically flawed in two ways. The first logical flaw in ID is that it's based on a lack of knowledge — explaining gaps in knowledge by invoking the magic of an unknown (perhaps supernatural) being. Like all “god of the gaps” arguments, ID is not falsifiable, can’t even be tested, and says nothing about the moral qualities of this unknown being, god, or gods. The second logical flaw is in the assumption it makes that, because something is supposedly very highly unlikely, something else must have designed it. What ID proponents blatantly ignore, because they take the existence of their god as a given, is the fact that this unknown designer must be even more complex, and thus less probable, than what ID was invoked to explain.

ID is historically flawed because science has shown excellent progress in explaining the world around us, and there is nothing to show that evolutionary biology should be abandoned simply because it has not yet explained the origins of every single process of life. Because biochemical processes don’t leave behind fossils, it’s not as easy to explain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossilize. However, evolutionary biologists are making excellent progress in understanding the origins and processes of the biochemistry of life.

Proponents of ID have also created the idea of irreducible complexity, which is central to ID. It states that many processes of life are too complex and irreducible to have evolved; therefore a designer must have created them. This complexity comes from many interrelated parts or processes, which supposedly are useless without all the other parts or processes. This is just another “god of the gaps” and it also falls apart under close examination.

“What good is half an eye?” they ask. The answer is simple. Any amount of vision is better than none, and any change that improves vision probably improves survivability. Starting with a basic light-sensing cell, eyes have evolved thru natural selection — one small step at a time. Richard Dawkins has an excellent explanation of this (and much more) in his book Climbing Mount Improbable.

An icon of the irreducible complexity concept is the bacterial flagellum, with its many similarities to an electric motor — and about 30 protein components required to produce a working biological function. Unfortunately for the ID movement, research has demolished the flagellum's status as an example of irreducible complexity. Some bacteria use what is known as type III secretory system (TTSS) to allow them to inject proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell. TTSS has a strong likeness in structure to the flagellum, and uses about 15 to 20 of the same proteins. This shows that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, because a functioning structure (albeit with a different function) can be made with 10 to 15 fewer proteins. A detailed analysis can be found in The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity".

Intelligent Design is simply not science; it's religion dressed up to look like science to the uninformed. It is mystical pseudoscience.

I'd like to address a common statement made by creationists — that scientists have supposedly never actually witnessed evolution, so evolution either: a) isn't real science, or b) hasn't happened. First, this is a gross mischaracterization of science. There are many processes that scientists can understand without directly witnessing them, such as much of geology or fusion at the cores of stars. Second, this statement ignores the fact that evolution usually takes thousands or millions of years. It's like looking a tree and saying that it is not growing because you can't see any growth in a day. Third, scientists have actually witnessed the rapid evolution of new species — the apple moth from the hawthorn moth, a new species of polychaetes fish, and many more.

The Theory of Evolution
Life is a process — not a design. It requires an explanation — not an intelligent designer. This explanation is the fact and theory of evolution. “Evolution” simply means change over time. It’s a fact that enormous changes to life on Earth have occurred. The 3.5 billion year fossil record is clear and unambiguous on this. The Theory of Evolution explains the processes that caused these changes.

There are at least nine areas of study and empirical data supporting the Theory of Evolution. They are:

# Paleontology (fossils)
# Distribution of Animals and Plants
# Comparative Anatomy
# Embryology
# Vestigial Organs
# Natural Selection
# Sexual Selection
# Genetics
# Molecular Biology

I will only deal here with brief overviews of paleontology, vestigial organs, natural selection, and genetics.

The history of life on Earth is in its fossils, and we have extensive fossils showing how species have come and gone over the last several hundred million years. Here are just a few examples: Trilobites appeared over 500 million years ago and existed for 300 million years (with over 15,000 described species). About 375 million years ago, land animals were evolving from fish. [See Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals.] Dinosaurs (with an estimated 200,000 species) lived 251 to 65.5 million years ago. Horses are descended from the cat-sized Eohippus of 50 to 60 million years ago. Whales are descended from land animals of 52 million years ago. In fact, some whales still have vestigial legs and pelvic bones. Humans are descended from a long line of hominids, over at least 4.4 million years.

The dating methods for determining the ages of fossils and rocks are well established. They usually depend on the radioactive decay of different isotopes of elements, and can be used on objects that are hundreds to billions of years old. For an in-depth explanation, see Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods.

The evidence for evolution of life is overwhelming and conclusive. This evidence is not just in the fossils, but also in the body parts and genes of almost every living thing. If you have any doubts, take a little time to learn the concepts of evolution, then spend a few hours in any natural history museum or public library. If your mind is at all open, you will see the evidence. Remember, ignorance of how evolution works is no argument against it. The basic Theory of Evolution is completely solid, and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the complex history of life.

You don’t even need to go to a natural history museum or library to see evidence for evolution; our own bodies have many signs of our evolutionary heritage. When we get goose bumps, our bodies are trying to keep warm by raising hairs that are no longer dense enough to help. The muscles that allow us to wiggle our ears are of no use for us, but they did help some distant ancestors. Humans also have many other useless, vestigial organs such as nipples and mammary glands on males, the appendix and the tailbone, which is just a holdover from when our primate ancestors actually had tails millions of years ago.

Intelligent Design completely fails to explain vestigial organs, which are obviously suboptimal. The Theory of Evolution explains them perfectly. If some god designed us and all life, he/she/it certainly didn't do a perfect job. Stephen J. Gould stated it well; “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.”

Every cell in our bodies contains the evidence of our evolutionary origins. The basic process of life on Earth is so common that we share about 50% of our genes with carrots, and more than 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. If fact, humans are genetically closer to chimps than mice are to rats. Here are some useful biological facts:

# We get an exact copy of the mitochondria in each cell from our mother, almost every time.
# Every male gets an exact copy of his Y chromosome from his father, almost every time.
# Both mitochondria and Y chromosomes slowly mutate over time at known rates.

With this knowledge, geneticists can estimate how recently any two of us shared a common female ancestor, or any two males shared a common male ancestor. Using this information and other data, the evidence strongly points to the claim that most or all of us are descended from a group of Africans that started migrating about 100,000 years ago.

We may share 98% of our genes with chimps, but we have 23 chromosomes in our sperm and eggs while chimps and other great apes have 24. A close examination of the chromosomes shows that one of our chromosomes is made of two from the other primates. Our combined chromosome even shows the evidence of where the two chromosomes joined, with the ends of the old chromosomes in the middle of the joined chromosome. For more, see Evidence of Common Descent between Man and Chimp.

Let me address a common example that proponents of Intelligent Design use. [See general eye diagram.] “Look at the wonderful design of the human eye,” they say. “Surely this design could not have happened by chance. It must be that God did it.” Actually, it did happen by chance — countless little chance events of changes in the gene pool over generations, all controlled by the harsh realities of natural selection and survival of the fittest. While the initial changes in the gene pool (mutations) were chance events, survival of the fittest is obviously not random. This is the heart of the basic Theory of Evolution; individuals can pass their genes and characteristics on to their offspring. If a gene makes an individual more likely to have offspring that survive, its offspring (carrying that gene) will be more likely to have offspring that survive. In effect, species are designed to fit their environment. The designer is the blind process of evolution, however, not some god or gods. Evolution creates an illusion of human or supernatural design. This illusion is so powerful that it took until 1859 for us to discover it, when Charles Darwin put forth one of the greatest ideas in science — evolution by natural selection.

The faults in the design of the human eye, especially, show its evolutionary origins. [See eye diagram of retina.] When we study the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel thru seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back thru these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. A truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. Actually, evolution did a better job with the eyes of the octopus and squid, which have the light sensing cells on the surface, where they should be.

In fact, vision is so useful for survival that eyes have evolved independently at least twenty separate times, with at least a dozen different designs.

You’ve probably heard people say that evolution is “only a theory.” It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease. It's interesting to note that the idea that the Earth goes around the sun is also a scientific theory — albeit one with extensive evidence. Every day our eyes are deceived, when we see the sun rising and setting as it apparently goes around the Earth.

Evolution is thus both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that species have evolved. The Theory of Evolution explains our best understanding of the processes that cause evolution. It's a lot like gravity. Gravity is obviously a fact. The theory of gravity attempts to explain how gravity works. Actually, we know less about how gravity works than how evolution works. Some of the latest work in applied and theoretical physics (including String Theory) deals with gravity.

There is an underlying problem with the design argument, and most proponents of Intelligent Design probably aren’t aware of it. By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Purpose is an abstract human concept that exists only in our minds, much like beauty — with no physical reality. In the universe, I maintain, things have no intrinsic purpose; they just exist. Does an atom have any purpose? Does a rock? Does a star? Does an amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose? We could say that living things have the purpose of procreating to continue their species. However, we must realize that this is just our viewpoint, our interpretation. Rocks, trees, people, and the universe have no intrinsic purpose. We can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good because it's a useful concept; but it’s important to understand that purpose is a human construct. Remember, when proponents of ID begin their arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove. Don’t be fooled by this logic sleight of hand. No intelligent designer is needed for purpose to exist, because purpose exists only in our minds.

Even more basic than evolution is the field of science called abiogenesis, which deals with the origins of life from non-life. Simple experiments have shown that amino acids, the molecular units that make up proteins, can be made in lab conditions simulating Earth’s early atmosphere, and they are even found in outer space. Amino acids are not living, but abiogenesis scientists are learning many ways that life could have originated from amino acids.

A basis for the creationism idea is the concept that humans are at the center of the universe. The idea of God used to make some sense, when people thought that the Earth was the unmoving center of creation, and humans were the reason that there was an Earth and everything else. The biblical universe was much simpler then. The flat Earth was at the base, and above was the vast solid dome called the firmament. It contained the stars and held back the celestial waters. Above that were heaven and God.

We now know that the universe is almost unimaginably immense, complex, and ancient. It is the height of conceit for humans to believe that this whole universe was made just for us. Our perspective has changed. We are no longer at the center of the universe — not our planet, not our star, and not our galaxy. As people grow and mature, one of the big realizations is that they aren’t at the center. It is the same for our species; it is time for us to realize that we are not at the center either.

It is also necessary to note that in order for Intelligent Design to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history. These fields of science make predictions and get results. ID makes no verifiable predictions and gets no useful results, and thus cannot in any way be called a science. A simple example of this is the field of oil exploration, where you won’t find any geologists using creationism or ID — because they don’t get results. And, with large amounts of money at stake, the companies want results.

The most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the apparent good design of the world. I think that this is part of why proponents of ID are putting so much energy into promoting their view and attempting to refute evolution. They realize that if the design argument were to fall, people might rethink their belief in God.

The design argument is popular because it superficially appears to be true, just like it appears that the sun goes around the Earth. The only way we know that the reverse is true is thru the process and data of science. This is also how we know that evolution is true.

Many people say things like, “Isn't that baby cute?” or, “Isn't that sunset beautiful? There MUST be a god.” I think that, if they are going to give God credit for the good and beauty in the world, they should also give God credit for the evil and ugliness — such as natural disasters, babies with birth defects, and all the diseases. The morality of nature shows its evolutionary heritage. What loving, intelligent designer would have invented the diseases of the world, including a parasite that blinds millions of people and a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? This is part of the Problem of Evil, which I will cover later.

Origin of Consciousness
Some people claim that consciousness is too mysterious or complex to be explained scientifically, therefore a god is necessary. Consciousness certainly is complex, and we probably can't completely understand it — in part because it is so subjective; but that doesn't mean that some god is its source any more that we need a god to explain the weather. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex living brain. Anyone who has had a mammal as a pet knows that animals think and emote. They may not think as well as we do, because their brains aren’t as complex as ours, but they definitely think and even dream. Even simple animals such as worms show a very limited consciousness by responding to their environment. The more complex the brain, the more complex the consciousness. We also know that, when a person’s brain is damaged, the person can lose part of his consciousness. The sad cases where the brain is extremely damaged can result in a “persistent vegetative state” with no consciousness. God(s) aren’t necessary to explain consciousness; functioning complex brains are.

Argument from Love
Where does love come from? Many religionists say that evolution can't explain love, that we need a god as the source for love.

Evolution actually explains love very simply. In primitive hunter/gatherer societies it is strongly advantageous for a couple stay together to raise their children. It's advantageous even in modern societies, altho not as critically. Without love a couple is less likely to stay together. Without love they would be far less likely to keep raising their children when things are difficult. With love, children are more likely to be loving themselves — to others and eventually to their own children. Love also helps bind extended families and friends, who can help in raising the children. Any humans who didn't love were less likely to have descendents. Any humans who did love were more likely to have descendents. Evolution has programmed us for love.

Argument from Morality
How about morality? Some people say that we need an absolute morality, and that we all have a sense of morality. They say that the only possible source for this morality is God.

Many people have claimed that humans could not have created morality, that there is nothing in evolution or history that mandates it. This is wrong. In order for any social species to function, implicit or explicit rules of interaction are necessary. This is the basic function of morality — implicit rules of interaction that allow us to function cooperatively. Groups of our distant ancestors that had individuals who worked together were more likely to succeed. Groups that didn’t cooperate were less likely to succeed. Laws are the explicit rules of interaction. Morality and laws are human constructs that come from basic human empathy, kindness and compassion, a desire to treat others as we wish to be treated, and our need to work together — not from some ancient static scriptures. Morality and laws have evolved as humans have evolved our culture. We are social animals evolved by natural selection, so the great majority of us will naturally desire the health of our families and the peace of our communities. Evolution has also programmed us for morality.

Even other primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes exhibit empathy and morality. For more about this, see “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior.”

Of course, the natural world is not loving or moral, along with many humans. We thus have the continual dilemma of how to survive with this conflict, using our natural self-interest.

It has been claimed that humans could not have had the concept of morality. I don’t see why not. We’re fairly intelligent. Human minds have created many ideas that are far more complex than morality. Why should morality be different?

Let’s look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god. I say that such religious absolutists don’t have morality; what they have is a code of obedience, which is not the same. God sets what is supposedly moral, and they obey. If God were to say that murder and theft were moral, theists would have to kill and steal to act morally. Actually, this is exactly what is happening with the suicide bombers in the Middle East. This is also what was behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions and 9/11. The fact that we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. God fails the morality test.

Many religious people like to claim that non-believers have relative morality, while they have absolute morality. However, since no Christians or Jews are stoning those who work on the Sabbath, and no Muslims are slaying transgressors wherever they catch them, they are choosing which “holy” laws to follow and which to ignore. We all have relative morality.

A large philosophical problem that religious moralists face is where to get the word of their god or gods. They can get it from “divine” revelation or from supposedly “holy” books. Each of these sources faces a problem; how do we know that this is the true word of the god? I’ve already discussed revelation, so let’s look at the idea of a holy book. I am most familiar with the Christian Bible, so that’s what I’ll address.

The Bible is touted by many as a source of ultimate knowledge and morality. It is said to be God’s perfect words to humankind. Have you ever read it? It contradicts itself in many places, is often difficult or impossible to interpret, and is largely simply boring. Some of it looks to me like it was written under the influence of hallucinogens. It contains two very different sets of Ten Commandments and three sets of paternal ancestors for Jesus (with one lineage just being the Holy Ghost). The better-known set of Ten Commandments (given in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) even says that children can be punished for the sins of their great-grandfathers! The lesser-known set (in Exodus 34) tells us to not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. Are these the words of a perfect moral being? As I noted, the story of Jesus’ lineage is also confusing. If Joseph didn’t father Jesus, then why does the Bible show Joseph’s ancestors — with two different lists? (Matthew 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-38) The historical reason for the conflicting stories of Jesus' lineage lies in the fact that the idea of the virgin birth was added later. The original story had Jesus descended from David (thru Joseph), to fulfill prophesy.

The Christian Bible has the purported histories of many rapes, slaughters, and other mass killings, most of them apparently condoned by God. They even note how the pregnant women were sliced open (Hosea 13:16) — so much for God being against abortion. In one well-known story, God drowned almost everyone and everything on the planet merely because he didn’t like the activities of some of the people in his creation. In another story, 42 children were killed in the name of God, just for calling a man bald (2 Kings 2:23-24). In addition, the Bible has over 30 listings of death penalties — many for supposed “sins” that most of us don’t even consider to be wrong, such as working on the Sabbath. Do these tales and penalties show the actions of a loving god? The god of the Old Testament seems to be more of a capricious, petty, pathological, vindictive, schizophrenic, mass-murdering tyrant than a paragon of moral virtue, and Satan often comes off as the good guy. After all, how many people did Satan kill? The god of the New Testament is a little nicer, as described by the character Jesus. But this god also introduced eternal punishment — not a very kind or loving thing to do. This New Testament god also kept the idea of a blood sacrifice, even demanding it of his own son. If you still think that morality should come from the Christian Bible, I ask, what do you think about slavery and child abuse? Not once in the entire Bible is slavery or child abuse condemned, not even in the writings about Jesus. In fact both are condoned in many places; there are at least 18 verses on slavery and 21 on child abuse. Even Jesus had recommendations about beating and killing slaves (Luke 12:42-48). It's obvious that any kind person could do a better job of defining morals than what is in the Bible. The Christian Bible, its god, and its savior all fail the morality test.

What about the historical veracity of the Christian Bible? People say that archeological evidence shows that some places and people mentioned in the Bible really existed; therefore the Bible is true. This is like saying that Gone With the Wind is true because the Civil War actually occurred. Let’s first look at two biblical personages — King Herod the Great and Jesus. King Herod ruled from 39 - 4 BCE. His supposed slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned by any historian of the time, and is thus likely a complete fabrication. As for the historicity of Jesus, there is absolutely no reliable contemporary evidence that he ever even existed; he made no impression on any historian of the first few decades CE. If Jesus existed and if the spectacular events in the Gospels really happened, they would have been noted by several writers, including Philo, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, and Justus of Tiberius. None of these men referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events. The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus (or Christ) are in the writings attributed to the Jewish historian Josephus (about 95 CE) and the Roman historian, Tacitus (about 117 CE). However, the veracity of the text for these references is highly questionable; many Bible scholars are convinced that Christian transcribers added them much later. Even if they were true, at best they amount to second-hand testimony written more than 60 - 90 years later.

The earliest biblical references to Jesus are in the Epistles. Paul and the other Epistle writers don't seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus' life. To them, he appears to have been a sky god with no Earthly existence. Paul even admitted that all his ideas came from revelation (Galatians 1:11,12). In other words, he made it up. This is all complicated by the fact that half of the writings attributed to Paul are forgeries, and even his genuine letters have interpolations in them.

The main biblical references to Jesus are in the Gospels, which weren't written until at least 70 or 80 CE (and quite possibly decades later). In a semi-literate and superstitious society, that's a long time after Jesus' supposed life — a long time where myths could grow.

As David Fitzgerald, author of The Ten Thousand Christs and the Evaporating Jesus, noted, “In the earliest Christian writings, such as the seven genuine epistles of Paul, Christ is a spiritual being revealed in Jewish scripture, rather than a recent historical figure. Decades later the anonymous author of what we call The Gospel according to Mark wrote an allegorical story of this mythological Christ set in pre-war Judea, borrowing from many ancient religious and literary motifs. The idea of a Christ come to earth was irresistible; later Christians loved the story and couldn't help but make their own corrections and additions to ‘Mark's’ text, turning a purely literary creation into the basis of their own imagined biographies. Dozens of these Gospels were written, and centuries later four of them were eventually selected to form the beginning of our familiar New Testament.”

Christianity is largely an amalgam of several previous religions from Greece, Persia, Egypt and still other places, and is by no means unique. There were at least eight other deities (Osiris, Mithra, Hercules, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Hermes and Prometheus) who were resurrected after violent deaths. Many of these gods were born on December 25 (the winter solstice), had their births announced by stars, had a virgin mother and divine father (or other miraculous birth), or had tyrants try to kill them as infants. The two main Christian holidays were incorporated from earlier pagan rituals and festivals; Easter (with its fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs) comes near the spring equinox, and Christmas was formerly Saturnalia. The current celebrations of Christmas also ignore the biblical prohibition of decorating indoor trees (Jeremiah 10:2-8).

Jesus died for our sins. This is one of the primary moral points of Christianity, and it is formally known as atonement or substitutive sacrifice. Many religions have practiced it when they killed sacrificial animals or humans on altars. What kind of morality is this, where one animal or person has to die because of what others have done? When we look at cultures that sacrificed humans, we call them barbaric and primitive. It makes no difference if the person being sacrificed agrees; it is still blatantly, repugnantly immoral and abominable. The Christian ceremony of communion is based on this blood sacrifice, and is just ritualized cannibalism and vampirism. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation holds that during communion the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Using religion as a source for morality completely collapses when we look at religious positions now and in history. There are religious people with different positions on such moral issues as the death penalty, abortion, birth control, and gay and women’s rights. How can this be, if they all get the same divine words from the same god? Restrictions on birth control have added to the misery in the world by causing more disease and more births on a planet that already has too many people. Racism, misogyny, and slavery were once considered perfectly moral by large portions of humankind, and were seen as having a religious basis. Also, the killings done in the name of God, by most religions, are legendary. Our culture has changed, along with our laws, and these evils are no longer acceptable in modern society. Religion cannot give us the best answers to moral issues. Morality is a social and legal construct, not a religious one. Religion fails the morality test.

Argument from Authority
I think that most people begin their belief in God because something or someone said that God exists. This is called the “argument from authority.” We just discussed the Bible as one of these sources. There are other sources for other religions, such as the Koran for the Muslims.

What does it mean, when we believe something based on an authority? It means that we are taking something or someone else’s words as truth. We all do this for most subjects. Our first authorities are the people who raise us. This is because we are born with no innate knowledge of the world, and have to learn it from scratch. We soon start learning from other sources, such as friends, teachers, books and other written material. As we learn and experience our world, we develop a map in our minds of what the world is like. This map becomes a truth filter. When we look at a new idea, we typically compare it to the mental map that we have. If the idea fits well in the map, we can add it. If the idea doesn’t fit, we have a problem. We must either discard the idea, or make a change to the map. Change is difficult and often painful, so many people tend to discard ideas that don’t fit their mental maps.

When we use someone or something as an authority, we often bypass the comparison process and plug the new ideas directly into our maps. This can save us a lot of research time and mental work. However, it also opens us to believing in things and ideas that aren’t true. Since we can’t be experts on everything, we thus have a problem — what and whom can we implicitly believe? For me, since I want my mental map to be as accurate as possible, I have chosen the methods of science and reason as my ultimate authority. Science and reason have been shown to be the best predictors of how the world functions. Science and reason aren’t perfect, but they are self-correcting — using the scientific method. Other sources of authority are too prone to misinformation.

One large difference between science and religion is this: In science, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the theory is modified or tossed out. In religion, if the facts don’t fit the theory, the facts are often tossed out. All too often, people reject evidence and the findings of science because they conflict with their religious assumptions. With their minds thus unhinged from the real world, they can have problems distinguishing fantasy from reality.

Because many people's minds are infected with a “god belief,” they don't like to question their god's existence. “God belief” causes people to accept irrational ideas with little or no evidence. If I were to say that lemon snow cones could make people invisible, most people would likely ask for a little proof. But, a very old book says that 2000 years ago some guy was born with a ghost as his father and a virgin as his mother; this guy did miracles, was killed and came back to life — and billions of people accept the story seemingly without question.

Argument from Prophesy and Miracles
Now, let’s discuss prophesy and miracles. I am continually astounded at just how little evidence people are willing to accept for proof of these. Prophesies that did come true are often easy to explain, once you understand that it’s easy to predict something if it has already occurred, or that actions were done merely to fulfill prophesy, or that events or prophesies were fabricated. There are also many prophesies that haven’t come true. As for religious miracles, the evidence is so slim that they should be relegated to hearsay. I've found three excellent quotes that sum up the problem well:

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”
— David Hume, Of Miracles (1748)

“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
— Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)

“It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret, or wrongly remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when examining the claims of other religions.”
— Dan Barker, of ffrf.org

With these insights in mind, which is more likely: that true prophesies and miracles have actually occurred, or that they are just tall tales?

One ‘miracle’ that many people use is their own survival from a dangerous episode, or recovery from a disease or injury. They rarely seem to note that many others have not been so lucky. It's as if their god loves only them (and perhaps their family), and doesn't care about the others. Of course, we never hear from people who almost survived a car wreck, airplane crash, or disease; we only hear from those who survive. I call this the “survivor's fallacy.”

Even if truly inexplicable ‘prophesies’ or ‘miracles’ have occurred, that does not mean that there’s a god. It could just mean that a person has peculiar skills or technological help that we don’t understand. We all can imagine how easy it would be to go to a primitive tribe of humans and impress them with ‘god-like’ skills that are the result of our technology, medicine, or knowledge. It is reasonable to consider that we could be fooled by technology that is far in advance of our own. As famous science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Let’s consider one well-known ‘miracle,’ the resurrection of Jesus Christ. First, as I noted, there is no verifiable evidence that Jesus ever even lived. Second, even if he did exist, there is obviously no evidence that he actually died on the cross. If Jesus didn't die, his supposed ‘resurrection’ was much more possible in a purely natural sense. Some people think that the martyrdom of his followers proves the resurrection of Jesus. At best, it simply proves their bull-headed beliefs, not actual fact. At worst, they were deluded. A recent example of this is the Heaven's Gate mass suicides.

Argument from Religious Faith
Next, let’s look at religious faith. What is faith? It is the firm belief in something for which no proof exists — simply because you want it to be true. As Mark Twain once said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Religious faith proves nothing, except the bullheadedness of the believer. If you have faith, you don’t need proof. If you have proof, you don’t need faith. Therefore, any attempt to use faith as a basis for proof is intrinsically doomed to failure. Also, what good is faith if it has you believing in something that is not true? A recent example of absolute faith and its possible consequences can illustrate the objective failures of religious faith. I ask, on September 11, 2001, whose faith was the most effective? I say that it was the faith of the suicidal pilots of those three planes that crashed into the buildings. If you believe in the primacy of religious faith, there is no way to objectively differentiate between yours and theirs, for it is all purely subjective. Religious faith fails as a proof for God.

Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote, “If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.”

Faith is the antithesis of rational thought. This is why so many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education. They realize that rational thought and education can destroy religious faith and result in fewer followers for them.

Logical Arguments for God(s)
How about logical arguments for the existence of God? Let’s look at a proof for God that relies on reason alone. It is called the Ontological Argument, and it basically says that God exists because we can conceive of God. One of the characteristics of God is existence; therefore, God exists. This argument is so obtuse that it’s ridiculous. It is just confusion between the existence of ideas and the existence of real things. Simply saying that something like a god exists does not make it exist. All that exist are the ideas (in our minds) of Satan, Jesus, God, or an invisible pink unicorn.

There are some people who claim that God is the source of logic, therefore we can’t even use logic without presupposing the existence of God. They say that logic can’t be created from unformed matter; therefore God formed the matter and created logic. This argument is known as Presuppositionalist, or the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. The names are fancy, and my response is simple. Logic is a pattern of thinking, and patterns can emerge from simple rules. There are many examples of complex patterns coming out of simple rules, such as snowflakes and waves forming. There is nothing in our everyday experience that indicates that some higher power is necessary for these patterns, and there is nothing that proves that a god is necessary for the patterns we call logic. Additionally, the presuppositionalist argument gives little indication as to the qualities of the god it presupposes — much like the first cause argument. The argument is just another way of answering a supposedly difficult question with the simple response, “God did it.”

If anything is not logical, it is most religions. I am most familiar with Christianity, so let’s look at its basic claims:

# A supernatural god exists that created everything and intervenes in the natural world.
# This god had a son whose mother was a virgin who had been impregnated by the god in the form of a ghost.
# This son did many miracles, including making a dead person alive again.
# This son was killed, and came back to life one and a half (not three) days later.

There is not any empirical, verifiable evidence for any of this. There is also much experience from everyday life that virgins can’t get pregnant from ghosts, and that people who have been dead for a while can’t come back to life. Thus, belief in the above claims is illogical.

There is an argument for belief in God that is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it. The argument goes like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God, and God exists, then you win big time and go to heaven. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big time and go to hell. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet.

Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided.

Pascal’s Wager also assumes that God's mind is knowable. Perhaps God actually prefers independent thinkers such as Atheists, not obsequious followers.

Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar. Since the odds of the Christian god existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma.

The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores intellectual integrity and honesty. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god.

Comfort and Emotion
I think that many people continue to believe in a god because it gives them comfort; it’s an emotional response. It allows them to pray to their god and think that they’re actually accomplishing something. It gives them feelings of structure and meaning in their lives, and makes them feel connected. It helps remove the fear of death and nonexistence that most of us experience. Belief in the Christian god helps remove people’s fear of Christian hell that has been pounded into their minds. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with. But, is this any actual proof for the existence of a god? Is comfort a good indicator of the truth of external reality? I don’t think that it is. George Bernard Shaw said it best. “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”

Belief in God, and How it Affects Our World
This question about the existence of a god is not merely a philosophical exercise; it has pertinent applications to the world in which we live. I will talk about five areas — history, education, politics, medicine, and everyday life.

God and History
Millions of people have been killed in the name of some god, and most wars have had religion as a central cause. Religion was explicitly behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the mass killings of “witches” and heretics. Many of these heretics were only guilty of expressing ideas that the churches didn't like, but are commonly accepted now in science and social reform. With the threat of heresy, the churches effectively set back humankind's advancement by hundreds of years. More recently, the German leaders in WWII (like in many other warring countries) exhorted their people that God was on their side, and used religion to unite them. Religion is also at the root of most of today's international problems. Just imagine how much more peaceful the world would be without beliefs in gods causing so much strife.

God and Education
In education, at the same time that we have a rise of fundamentalist religions in the U.S., the youth of America are scoring lower on scholastic tests. Now, cause and effect are obviously difficult to establish for this; but it must be harder for many of them learn to think rationally when they are taught, by their parents or religious schools, such irrational concepts as creationism and invisible, immaterial beings. Also, as I already noted, many religious leaders actively preach against rational thought and even advanced education.

Here are some disturbing statistics, partly from a 2004 CBS News Poll, a 2004 Gallup poll, and a Gallup poll of U.S. teenagers.

# 81% of U.S. teenagers think that God controlled or influenced the origin of humans. (Gallup)
# 65% of Americans think that we should teach both creationism and evolution in schools. (CBS)
# 55% believe that “God created humans in present form.” (CBS)
# 45% believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. (Gallup)
# 37% think that we should teach just creationism in schools, including 60% of evangelical Christians. (CBS)
# 36% believe in telepathy.
# 35% say that evolution is well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
# 35% say that evolution is not well supported by the evidence. (Gallup)
# 25% believe in astrology.
# 25% think the sun goes around the Earth.
# 13% think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.
# Only 13% of Americans accept the standard scientific account of evolution, without a god’s involvement. (CBS)

Belief in an omnipotent deity allows people to use sloppy logic. If they are faced with a difficult question about why an event occurred, all they have to say is, “God did it.” Then the reason behind the event is a mystery. This is the old “god of the gaps” answer, and it's an intellectual cop-out. It answers nothing; it predicts nothing; and it teaches nothing. To counter this we must ensure that scientific naturalism and critical thinking skills are taught in our schools. As students understand better how the world works, their personal gods of the gaps will diminish. If we want to have a strong democracy, our students and future voters must understand the basic facts of the world around us, in order to make informed decisions. If we want to continue leading the world in science and engineering, we must make sure that our students learn real science — not religious pseudoscientific nonsense.

God, Politics, and Government
God bless America. We’ve all heard it countless times, especially from politicians. It is a very dangerous concept, for it can give leaders the arrogance and invulnerability of supposedly divine backing where they can do no wrong. It can also give them the idea that they have the responsibility to impose their religious and political beliefs on U.S. citizens and on other countries — whether wanted or not.

The Roman leaders used to require that every Roman citizen pray to the Roman gods, to ensure victory for their armies. There’s an old saying that goes like this:

To the Romans, all religions were equally true.
To the philosophers, all religions were equally false.
To the politicians, all religions were equally useful.

Does this sound familiar? Our politicians keep pulling God and religion into politics. President George W. Bush’s mangling of the wall separating state and church is well documented. In 1954, when President Eisenhower signed the bill adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, his words explicitly showed that the idea was to link religiosity and patriotism. In 1988 President Reagan established the National Day of Prayer. On March 27, 2003, House Resolution 153 passed by an overwhelming vote. It urges the President to issue a proclamation “designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States.” We are “to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings,” and “to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation.” The Senate unanimously passed a similar bill. These government actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I say that we are becoming a de facto theocracy. Do you agree?

Religion has entered policies of the U.S. federal government. Faith-based groups are receiving billions of federal dollars, with little or no oversight. Federally sponsored sex education courses often follow Christian ideas, and don't teach facts that would help our youth deal with their sexuality. The FDA has based rulings concerning contraception on religious grounds, despite contradicting findings from their science boards and even the will of a vast majority of the U.S. population. President George W. Bush used his first veto to block funding of stem cell research, because of his religious views.

Religion has even entered into laws of most of our states. Nine states discriminate against Atheists in their constitutions, with seven states prohibiting Atheists from holding office. One state even prohibits Atheists from testifying in court. Fortunately, these laws aren't followed. Many states prohibit same-sex marriage, based on religious ideas. Thirty-nine states allow religious exemptions from child abuse or neglect charges, while thirty-one states allow a religious defense to a criminal charge. Parents can beat their children or allow them to die without needed medical help, and then basically claim, “God said I could.”

A basic source of incompatibility between religion and democracy lies in how each deals with points of view that disagree. Religion is usually based on divisive absolutes like right and wrong, good and evil, God and Satan, us and them. Democracy needs to be based on compromise. This is why democracy functions best when religion and its divisiveness are kept out of government.

True freedom must give us the ability to do and say what many others may disagree with, or freedom means little. It’s always easy to allow people to do what you agree with. The real test of freedom comes when people say or do what you disagree with. This is another reason why religion must be kept out of a democratic government. Few religions grant other than mild disagreement — often branding critical or disliked ideas and people as heretical. Democracy, however, thrives best when people are willing to openly disagree.

Many religious and political leaders say that our freedoms and liberties come from God. I say that freedoms in a society do not exist without the ability to enforce them. In the U.S. this power originates in our Constitution and is implemented by our officials enforcing it. In many ways, we can say that our government created our freedoms. If God is the source of freedom, why was there so little of it before our nation was formed? And, why does it take a government to enforce that freedom?

Before the U.S. was founded, most governments and churches worked together to stay in power — limiting whatever rights and freedoms the common people might try to obtain. The concept of a church actually promoting the rights of the individual is a relatively recent development.

It’s important to remember that the U.S. was founded as the first country that derived its power from a purely secular, nonreligious basis. All nations before then had kings and queens who often used their supposed “God-given divine right” to rule. Instead of this top-down power structure, our founders wisely created a government that derived its powers from the consent of the governed. This is why our Constitution begins with “We the People...”

The United States was also founded in direct contradiction to the Christian concept of submission to the current government, as put forth in Romans 13:1-7. These verses are a biblical source of the “God-given divine right” of rulers, and state that God established the authorities — so rebelling against them is rebelling against God. Fortunately, our founding fathers were more interested in human rights than the rights of the Christian god and his minions.

Our nation’s founders also realized the inherent divisiveness of religion and the many bloody wars that had been fought over religion, and kept it specifically out of our Constitution and government. God is not even mentioned in our Constitution. Religion is only mentioned twice — both times to keep religion and government separate. The Treaty of Tripoli, written during the administration of President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and unanimously approved by the Senate, stated, “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” How could we as a nation have forgotten such an important fact?

Many Christians are still trying to make the United States a Christian nation. They will point out that many of our founding fathers were religious, and that “God” and “Creator” are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. What they don’t mention is the fact that the religion of some of the founding fathers was Deism — not Christianity, the fact that the Declaration of Independence refers to “Nature’s God” — a Deistic god, not the Christian god, and the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a basis of our government — the Constitution is. What these Christians also won't mention is that, altho the founders were largely religious, they saw the wisdom in separating government and religion.

It’s often said that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, when he wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” This was in a letter to a Baptist church, to reassure them that the U.S. would keep religion and government separate. The Baptists were painfully aware of that danger, because of their own recent experiences of not being the favored religion in some states and other countries. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said it best. “A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”

God, Medicine, and Science
Let’s look at religion and medicine. Religious leaders have consistently come out against medical advances. Hundreds of years ago, they were against autopsies and medical use of cadavers for research. In the 1800’s Christians fought the use of anesthetics on the ground that suffering is God’s will and therefore must be endured. This was particularly true for a woman’s pain during childbirth, because they could quote the Bible to support their position. Currently, some religious groups prohibit life-saving blood transfusions. Children die every year because their parents withhold medical treatment, trusting in God instead. Many religious leaders are preventing access to birth control, disease prevention, and information about sexuality. They act as though they would prefer to see people dying of disease or starvation, rather than allow the population to have forbidden products and information. Recently some have come out against very promising areas of medicine, such as fetal cell research, stem cell research, and therapeutic cloning. They have also convinced our government that these areas of research should be prohibited or severely limited. This has real implications for reducing the possible medical treatments available for each of us and for tens of millions of people in the U.S. who have spinal cord injuries and diseases such as Parkinson's. Not all religions want this research limited; but many do, and they fail the medical test.

One of the real evils that I see in both Islam and Christianity is that they take pre-hormonal kids and teach them that sex and even thinking about sex are wrong. Then the hormones hit, and the kids will think that they are sinful and evil. Unfortunately for them, their religion has the solution — prostration before their god and dedication to the religion. It's an effective and sick process.

Most religions base their beliefs on a “holy” book or interpretations of the holy book by their religious leaders. Because the holy book is fixed, it cannot change to account for advances in our understanding of the world. Religions thus have an intrinsic goal of resisting change or even returning to a supposedly better past. Science, however, has as its pre-eminent goal the improved knowledge of the world and universe. This conflict has been played out almost countless times. Galileo's problems with the Catholic Church are a classic example. More recently, all the resistance to the Theory of Evolution is religiously based. How far could humankind have advanced by now if not for the hindrance of religion?

God and Everyday Life
Let’s look at God and everyday life. If there really were a personal god, the existence of this god would be an obvious fact in the universe. God would be reaching into events in the world, and bypassing the laws of physics to influence the outcomes. People who lost limbs might have them re-appear. Babies killed in fires might come back to life. Other true miracles would happen. I’ve seen none of this, and I know of no one else who has either. In fact, there is no reliable evidence of any divine intervention, ever! God fails the reality test of everyday life.

We’ve looked at religion and history, education, politics, medicine, and everyday life. “What’s the harm in religion?” some people say. I think that I’ve shown some of the harm. Religion is divisive and poisonous to rational thought. Madalyn Murray O’Hair summarized it well when she said, “Religion has ever been anti-human, anti-woman, anti-life, anti-peace, anti-reason and anti-science. The god idea has been detrimental not only to humankind but to the earth. It is time now for reason, education and science to take over.”

God is Just an Idea
What could an invisible, immaterial god be like? This immaterial god would have an immaterial mind, and the only minds that we have any examples of result from physical brains. The only invisible, immaterial things that I know of are ideas, like mathematic, scientific and social concepts. Although ideas can be powerful in moving people to action, they are human creations and have no separate reality. If humankind were to disappear tomorrow, so would ideas — including the idea of God.

The English language even has a term for this — “reify” — which means “to regard something abstract as real or concrete.” The god idea is about as abstract as possible, with no real evidence for existence. However, people have been regarding some god or gods as real for thousands of years.

Where did this “god” idea come from? Humans are pattern-seeking animals. We see patterns everywhere, such as similarities between different types of plants, animals and people. To a great degree, this capability has served us well by helping us understand and adapt to our environment. It also causes us to see patterns where they don’t really exist — the man in the moon, clouds, Rorschach tests, and “intelligent” design in the universe. This is where the god idea comes from. Michael Shermer said it best. “The concept of God is generated by a brain designed by evolution to find design in nature (a very recursive idea).”

Because we are sentient, social beings, our brains are wired to interact with other such brains. This capability is easily subverted, and we often anthropomorphize animals and even objects — giving them “human” qualities. The god concept can be seen as simply the result of people anthropomorphizing the universe. Because God is just a projection of people's minds, he usually agrees with them.

Proofs and Qualities of God(s)
Ultimately though, it’s not necessary to prove that a god doesn’t exist. It is up to the god-believers to prove that their god or gods exist, for they are making the assertion of the existence of something that is not immediately visible. For example, if I were to claim that there's an invisible ten-foot tall pink unicorn standing next to you, and demand that you feed her, you could justifiably expect some sort of hard proof. The same concept of proof lies with those who claim that an invisible, immaterial god exists. Thus, even if all proofs of the nonexistence of gods were to fail, it would still be necessary for Theists to prove the actual existence of their god, if they expect us to take them seriously.

Some people say that we can’t prove that a god doesn’t exist; to do so we would have to have absolute knowledge. This is wrong. Depending on how we define a god, it's possible to prove that it is self-contradictory and can’t exist, just like it's possible to prove that square circles can’t exist. Let's first discuss the Christian god Yahweh, which is typically defined as having free will, and being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good), eternal, and unchanging.

Many Christian philosophers also add other attributes to Yahweh (a.k.a. God), such as unknowable, ineffable, incomprehensible, transcendent, and of course supernatural — because they don’t want to limit a supposedly infinite being. How can we conceive or even logically discuss these characteristics? Any in-depth analysis ends in confusion, contradictions, and irrational nonsense.

First, it’s important to note that humans concocted all of these qualities of Yahweh, and have they no examples in the real world — much like the capabilities of Superman. To get a better understanding of what Christians really mean, we can also substitute “magical” whenever we see “supernatural.”

Yahweh’s typical qualities sound pretty good. Unfortunately these attributes are mutually exclusive and can’t all exist in one being, no matter how supernatural it is. Yahweh can’t have free will and be omniscient and omnipotent. If Yahweh knows the future, Yahweh would be unable to change it, and thus could not be omnipotent. As a simple example, let’s say that Yahweh declares what tomorrow’s winning lottery numbers will be, and writes them down. However, now Yahweh can’t change those numbers. Yahweh can’t both know the future and change it. In fact, an omniscient god can’t actually decide to do anything!

The idea of omniscience also brings into serious question the concepts of human free will and morality. If Yahweh knows what we are going to do then we have no free will and are just characters in a play written by Yahweh. Without free will, morality for humans makes no sense. Without free will and morality, any sort of punishment or reward system loses any justification. Heaven and hell would be places where Yahweh could watch the souls he created, predestined just for eternal happiness or agony.

The Muslim god Allah also suffers from conflicting characteristics. The Qur'an describes Allah as the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Loving, and the Just. In order for Allah to be just, he has to punish those who transgress Allah's laws. In order for Allah to be compassionate, merciful, and loving, he can't punish without these terms losing their meaning. Thus Allah can't exist with these four qualities.

Some people say that their god really does love us, but occasionally punishes us to teach us something. Because this “punishment” often involves people dying (as in natural disasters) this supposed “godly” love has little correlation to human love and is obviously concocted.

The Problem of Evil, or Theodicy
Yahweh can’t be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, because terrible events really do occur, and this all-loving god hasn’t prevented them. This is known as the Problem of Evil (also known as theodicy), and I think that it is one of the biggest problems for those attempting to prove the existence of a loving, all-powerful god. How can anybody explain the existence of such a god, while also knowing the bad things that happen to all of us and the terrible things that happen to far too many?

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus summed it up well when he wrote these ideas:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can and does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

And yet the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good god with free will won’t go away. So, here we are discussing this subject again. It’s good to remember that there have been over 2500 gods created by humankind. Monotheists don’t believe in all but one of them. Atheists don’t believe in just one more.

In fact, the existence of honest and kind Atheists is another proof that the Christian god, who demands belief, doesn’t exist. If this all-good god existed, it would want everybody to be saved — even Atheists. If this all-knowing god existed, it would know that Atheists just want real proof of its existence. If this god were all-powerful it would be able to give unambiguous proof of its existence. It hasn’t. Therefore this god doesn’t exist.

As I have shown, the concept of God is also logically contradictory; God not only does not exist but cannot exist. In short, God is impossible.

Atheism, Agnosticism and Humanism
The Atheist position is that the universe is understandable and explainable in the naturalistic terms of science and mathematics. There is no need for a god in order to explain the universe, or reliable evidence to show that any god exists. Atheism is more than just a belief paradigm; it is a conclusion based on the lack of any empirical evidence for any gods. Reality rules.

Richard Dawkins expressed it well. “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” He also wrote why Atheism is useful for improving our world. “Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering.”

Some people claim that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than to be a believer. This is false. All it takes to be an educated Atheist is understanding rational logic and what scientific evidence is, not unquestioning faith or beliefs. For instance, Atheists (like most people) don’t simply believe or have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow; we conclude that it will — based on evidence and logic. We also know that no gods were causing lightning before it was understood. Atheists know that the same process of evidence and logic can also be applied to larger subjects such as evolution and the Big Bang. This may remove some of the ‘magic’ of the universe, but for many it can create deep feelings of amazement and wonder of the world around us.

Most people seem to assume that Atheism and Agnosticism are incompatible. This is false. Agnosticism deals with knowledge (or lack thereof). Theism and Atheism deal with beliefs. Theism is based on the belief that a god or gods exist. Basic Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. For many Atheists, it is also the conclusion that no gods exist.

Why Atheism and not Agnosticism? Many people say that there still could be a god, that we can’t totally disprove the existence of all types of gods. That is true, but most people's Agnosticism ends up splitting hairs and being intellectually lazy. I’ve shown that there is no reliable evidence that any god exists, especially a personal god of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim type. This typical personal god would show up in its interactions with the real, physical world. As I noted, there is no empirical evidence of this. Thus, in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This leaves only marginal gods that have little or no interaction with humans and the world. Do we think that the ancient Greek gods still exist? How about the Roman, Norse or Mayan gods? How about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? Of course not. There is no verifiable evidence for any supernatural guy in a red suit, magic rabbit, or gods. Just like it’s hypothetically possible for an undetectable teapot to be orbiting the sun (as noted by Bertrand Russell), some gods are also hypothetically possible, but ridiculously improbable. So, let’s be honest with ourselves and look at the world with open eyes, as it actually is.

Essentially, all the hypothetical arguments become rather pointless. Atheism is the simple conclusion that there are no gods, based on the evidence. Until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with the conclusion that no god exists. This is why I'm an Atheist.

Christians and Jews don't believe in Allah or Brahma. Hindus don't believe in Yahweh or Allah. Muslims don't believe in Brahma or Yahweh. Atheists agree with all of them.

The truth is that we are, each of us, all alone in our minds. Many people have imaginary friends called gods to make them feel less alone, and often more loved. Our desire for love is a powerful trait, and it's one of the reasons for the popularity of Christianity with its sayings “God loves you” and “Jesus loves you.” Some people learn to give up their imaginary friends. It’s sometimes not easy not believing, and it is intellectually honest. Atheists can derive strength from that. People have been struggling with mortality for thousands of years. Here are three quotes that I like:

# The first is again from the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus; “Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?”

# The scientist/philosopher Carl Sagan wrote, “For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

# Mark Twain wrote, “I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.”

All living things die. All planets and stars will eventually die. Even our universe will fade out over trillions of years.

I find this amazingly liberating, and realize that life is to be lived joyfully and fully in the present, which is all we really have — while remembering the past and projecting into the future to give us guidance as to how to live now.

Many religious people ask how Atheists can be happy without God. For me and for many Atheists I know, the realization of our Atheism has been extremely freeing and has opened us to our innate happiness.

# Atheism helps us to see reality as it actually is, without the mental filters of superstition preventing us from directly experiencing it.
# Atheism opens us to experience our selves, without the debasing idea that we are innately sinful.
# Atheism allows us to experience true interpersonal love, without any imaginary supernatural intervention.
# Atheism gives us the freedom to think for ourselves, to construct our own meanings. We each can choose what we think has value.
# Atheism shows us that we can gain meaning by seeking to make our world a better place, for ourselves and our posterity.
# Atheism teaches us to take responsibility for our behaviors in the here and now, not for a reward in an imaginary afterlife.
# Atheism lets us see that we have to make choices about our future. No big daddy god is going to protect us from bad decisions.
# Atheism teaches us to treasure this moment, this life, and this world — because we realize that it’s all we have.

Here are two more quotes that show the advantages of Atheist life and thought:

“When I became convinced that the Universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, of the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust.”
— Robert Ingersoll, 1896

“There is no evidence for a god, no coherent definition of a god, no good argument for a god, good positive arguments against a god, no agreement among believers about the nature or moral principles of a god, and no need for a god. We can live happy, moral, productive lives without such belief, and we can do it better.”
— Dan Barker, of Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheism also works well for free societies. Free nations with high levels of Atheism — such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland and Japan — are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on Earth.

Most Atheists are also Secular Humanists. The philosophy of Secular Humanism takes the Atheist position and adds another layer. It declares that humans are most important, not any imaginary gods. We have the power, thru love, reason, science, courage, and vision, to solve our problems. We shape our destiny. We are each capable of personal development and satisfaction. Humanism holds as its highest goal the happiness, fulfillment, and freedom of all humankind.

This has been a long and involved article, so I would like to conclude with letting you know the bad news ... and the good news. The bad news is that there is no god to watch over and care for us. The good news is that there is no hell, and we can all love and care for each other — if we so choose.

Copyright © 2007 Mark W. Thomas. All rights reserved.

>>>

The purpose of this posting is to educate people and thus concurs with Fair Use.

bluecross

Sep 28, 2007, 05:56 AM

n3X

Sep 28, 2007, 08:22 PM

Good article--just from what I read. I have to tell you, I am a very religious person. However, I still have the utmost respect in what you believe in. I also agree with you. We all should have the freedom to choose our religion.

I think you need to FINISH the article, before making comments. You totally miss the point, its not about the freedom to choose religion, its about this belief in a god and its ramifications in human thinking and behavior. I respect the right to a religion. But people should realize that there should be a limit to the influence of these institutions in the greater realm of human affairs. People are blinded in their thinking and impeded in their capacity to be in solidarity with others. You could be as religious as you want. But when it comes to policies that affect others, like in population, etc., it is just expected that reason must triumph. Hindi yung ay sinabi ng church ganito e, so dapat ganito.

But I find it completely irrelevant to argue about the existence of God in a thread entitled "Theology and Philosophy subjects, relevant pa ba?" Every person has his or her own opinion in this subject matter. Personally, as an Atenean fed up with theology, I am starting to find it completely irrelevant in my line of study. I know how you feel,.. the Church is like a baby's diaper, it's always up on your ***.

You cant even start to comprehend how irritating this institution has been. Talk about a thousand years, wala pa ring breakthrough. :grrr: Talking about the existence of god is completely relevant because Theology is about the study of god and of the nature of religious belief. Kung walang god, walang religion, then walang theology, baka wala pa tayong pag-uusapan na relevance at all. E di kung walang god, yung theology na yan baka maging sub na lang talaga ng Anthro and Philo.

And again, yes lahat tayo may opinion but not all opinions are equal. Some are more reasoned than others.

I dont think you realize how heavy this topic is, its even world-altering to people, to confront their own reality and mortality. And to say na lahat ng tao may opinion in this subject matter lightly na parang chikahan lang ito is appalling. Remember people died and are being killed UP UNTIL NOW because of religion. These beliefs/opinions are powerful! They must be examined thoroughly!

Now I don't know how many philosophy classes you have in UP. But we have quite a lot in the Ateneo. Our philosophy is probably one of the, if not the best in the Philippines. It's something Ateneans are truly proud of. Sa totoo lang, tingin ko, ang yabang ng isang Atenista sa pilosopiya nang gagaling. Sa pilosopiya nang gagaling ang pagyayabang na "iba magisip ang Atenista." From what you posted, you obviously look at this matter from a certain perspective. Madaling sabihin, "Walang Diyos." Pero the beauty of philosophy classes is that you actually put your perspective into test. Kahit dun sa article na pinost mo, napaka rami ring sablay. Madali lang irefute yan. Wala namang perspective ang walang mali. Lahat yan, tama in their own ways.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Im so sorry bluecross pero natawa talaga ako dito. I'm not bashing ateneo okay, you have okay programs and some intelligent people. But dont get me started sa "iba magisip ang Atenista." I try to be very fair, logical and accurate with statements that I leave, and I'm going to say this: Sadly, hindi iba mag isip ang Atenista. From my experience with talking with Ateneans, napaka high school ng thinking. Kahit magalit pa kayong lahat, or magkunwari na hindi ito totoo, sorry na lang. And kahit isang libo pa bluecross ang Philosophy subjects niyo, I dont think papantay siya sa critical thinking na cultivated in UP which is present not only in every subject but in discussions outside of the classroom, in inumans, during meals, on internet boards. I-compare mo nga mga Atenista forums sa peyups.com sa quality and level ng thinking. Sorry kung parang nagyayabang but I think when I say this its true, kung merong IBA mag-isip na university sa 'Pinas, kami yun. [personal PERSPECTIVE: ang yayabang niyo talaga sa Ateneo, hello malapit na kayong masurpass ng la salle.]

Now dun sa perspective thing, this is BS. Did you really try to understand and comprehend the points in the article? Tinapos mo ba? When we say perspective, its a way of looking at something or an attitude. Ako, I look at religion in an open way, what is correct or not. I think its useful in being spiritual but it also has many pitfalls. Kung merong perspective dito, galing sa iyo yun. Were you even open to the ideas? O sinasala mo na sila because as youve said youre very religious. Walang subjective dun sa arguments you know, its all reasoned out and it stands in any time and place. And I challenge you to refute those sablay points. Dont be afraid to confront your own faith. Liberate yourself bluecross, be free. Stop thinking na lahat naman yan tama in their own way, hindi ganun ang mundo. Kung lahat tayo nag isip na lang na tama tayo in our own way, lahat talo.

To differentiate Philosophy from Theology, at least in the Ateneo, Philo does not spoon feed. You don't really need to memorize anything. Papatikim lang sayo ang pag kain, at magisa kang pipili ano ang gusto mo. Napaka sarap na experience. I never thought I would enjoy it. Talagang tataas ang critical thinking mo right after. Sometimes in class, tumataas ang balahibo ko just thinking of what the professor had just said.

Wala akong problema sa Philosophy, sa theology meron. I would never question it. And I share this love for critical thinking, but I think kulang pa bluecross. If you were really a critical thinker, dapat na-examine mo na talaga yung religion na yan.

Ito, click on it: http://www.austhink.org/critical/
Yung number 5 may pdf tungkol sa Critical thinking and what it really is. Paging Atenista din, para sa iyo to. :naughty:

I don't mean to offend you, but if you have not yet taken any philo/theo classes, I don't think you are in a position to judge whether it is relevant in undergraduate studies. Try enlisting yourself in at least two philosophical class. What you previously posted is not solely what we take in philosophy. Tignan mo lang, after a year of philosophy, marami kang matutunan. Kung wala, ganon talaga.

Hahaha :rotflmao: So much for philo classes. Hindi ba parang ad hominem yang if I havent taken any philo/theo classes I cant judge if its relevant in undergraduate studies? So yung may degree in philo/theo are the most qualified to say if its relevant, and a person with a more reasoned argument wont matter because maybe business courses lang kinuha niya? Parang yung ad hominem attack mo rin sa akin sa taas na "perspective." I dont mean to offend you, but clearly you're a hypocrite. Try enlisting in UP, tingnan mo lang, after a year in UP, marami kang matutunan. Kung wala, ganon talaga. :lol:

bluecross

Sep 29, 2007, 04:35 AM

Wow. I'm glad to get a quick response from you.

I'm not going to paste, quote and refute each and every statements you made. Why? Because in my previous post, I did not make myself entirely clear (my fault)

Most of your statements are under the assumption that I am a dog of the Church because I said "I am very religious." That is no way true. When I say I am religious, ibig sabihin ko lang, talagang naniniwala ako na MERONG DIYOS. Kasalanan ko to dahil hindi ko sinabi ng mabuti. Sa mga klase kasi namin, pag sinabing "religious," ibig sabihin lang, naniniwala na may Diyos--not necessary believing in a particular Church/religious organization. Again, I'm sorry.

I know how influential religious organizations are, and you don't have to give me the whole thing about people dying in religious wars. I share almost the same stand as you..

Obvious naman na hindi ka naniniwala na may Diyos. Pero pakiramdam ko kasi, hindi ka naniniwala dahil galit ka sa simbahan. Ako, sobrang BS din ng tingin ko sa simbahan. Pero dapat pagisipan mo ng mabuti, while suspending your biases against the Church, kung meron ba talagang Diyos o wala--hindi mo kailangan maniwala sa kahit anong religious organization para maniwala sa Diyos.

Eto lang talaga ang gusto kong i-quote :)

Im so sorry bluecross pero natawa talaga ako dito. I'm not bashing ateneo okay, you have okay programs and some intelligent people. But dont get me started sa "iba magisip ang Atenista." I try to be very fair, logical and accurate with statements that I leave, and I'm going to say this: Sadly, hindi iba mag isip ang Atenista. From my experience with talking with Ateneans, napaka high school ng thinking. Kahit magalit pa kayong lahat, or magkunwari na hindi ito totoo, sorry na lang. And kahit isang libo pa bluecross ang Philosophy subjects niyo, I dont think papantay siya sa critical thinking na cultivated in UP which is present not only in every subject but in discussions outside of the classroom, in inumans, during meals, on internet boards. I-compare mo nga mga Atenista forums sa peyups.com sa quality and level ng thinking. Sorry kung parang nagyayabang but I think when I say this its true, kung merong IBA mag-isip na university sa 'Pinas, kami yun. [personal PERSPECTIVE: ang yayabang niyo talaga sa Ateneo, hello malapit na kayong masurpass ng la salle.]

I don't know how you UP people spend your free time. But to speak for my schoolmates, I have never heard a single Atenean talk about joining any forums. I myself only joined to look for tickets in PEX's UAAP forum :) Siguro, merong ilan-ilan. But it is definitely no way representative of the students we have in campus.

To an extent, I agree with you. UP people are very passionate. I've always been amazed on how UP students discuss politics and the socio-economic problems of the country in inumans and during meals. While we Ateneans, sad to say, would rather talk about the latest fashion trends and UAAP games. Nung pumunta ako sa UP para tignan yung student council election niyo, nahiya ako maging Atenista. You guys talked about real life problems--while our candidates only talked about school parkings and dress codes :)

But "iba mag isip ang Atenista" is different from "iba mag salita ang Atenista." Our actions speak louder than words:) Wala kang makikitang Atenista na nag cut ng klase para mag rally sa labas ng building. Pero halos lahat kami, may kanya kanyang mga clubs. At tuwing sabado, karamihan saamin ay nasa GK tumutulong gumawa ng bahay, or nasa school nag tuturo ng mga public school students.. Active nga kayo sa usapan, but is that what you call critical thinking? You can't even stop violence inside your own campus--may it be hold-ups, rapes, or hazings.Kung merong university na "iba magsalita" sa Pilipinas, kayo na nga yun. *peace*

n3X

Sep 29, 2007, 05:41 AM

Before anything else, your tone is refreshing. Minsan kung nagsusulat ako, it seems parang nakikipag-away ako, but I'm not. So cheers! ;)

Most of your statements are under the assumption that I am a dog of the Church because I said "I am very religious." That is no way true. When I say I am religious, ibig sabihin ko lang, talagang naniniwala ako na MERONG DIYOS. Kasalanan ko to dahil hindi ko sinabi ng mabuti. Sa mga klase kasi namin, pag sinabing "religious," ibig sabihin lang, naniniwala na may Diyos--not necessary believing in a particular Church/religious organization. Again, I'm sorry.

Dont be sorry. I got that already from your first post. It was clear then.

Obvious naman na hindi ka naniniwala na may Diyos. Pero pakiramdam ko kasi, hindi ka naniniwala dahil galit ka sa simbahan. Ako, sobrang BS din ng tingin ko sa simbahan. Pero dapat pagisipan mo ng mabuti, while suspending your biases against the Church, kung meron ba talagang Diyos o wala--hindi mo kailangan maniwala sa kahit anong religious organization para maniwala sa Diyos.

Haha Akala ko critical ka mag isip. Have you finished reading the article? Binasa mo ba yung critical thinking link din? Alam mo kung may diyos TALAGA kahit may simbahan o wala, matagal na akong naniwala! Dont u get that? I dont have any BIAS. Ive thought about these things already. Have you? Kahit love ko pa ang simbahan pero di ko majustify logically kung may diyos, wala talaga. Read the critical thinking articles, I'll post another one pa later. Then read the Atheist article. Baka asa iyo yung bias.

I don't know how you UP people spend your free time. But to speak for my schoolmates, I have never heard a single Atenean talk about joining any forums. I myself only joined to look for tickets in PEX's UAAP forum :) Siguro, merong ilan-ilan. But it is definitely no way representative of the students we have in campus.

True true, I totally agree. It is no way representative of the students. Parang kunti nga asa Atenista.net. Anyway, one still cannot deny that its still indicative of the thinking of the students. There's at least a grain of truth there.

But "iba mag isip ang Atenista" is different from "iba mag salita ang Atenista." Our actions speak louder than words:) Wala kang makikitang Atenista na nag cut ng klase para mag rally sa labas ng building. Pero halos lahat kami, may kanya kanyang mga clubs. At tuwing sabado, karamihan saamin ay nasa GK tumutulong gumawa ng bahay, or nasa school nag tuturo ng mga public school students.. Active nga kayo sa usapan, but is that what you call critical thinking? You can't even stop violence inside your own campus--may it be hold-ups, rapes, or hazings.Kung merong university na "iba magsalita" sa Pilipinas, kayo na nga yun. *peace*

Alam mo malabo yung punto mo.

Before I address the main point. Alam mo yung violence na yan complicated na issue yan. UP has an open campus, isa siyang transit point plus people dont like closing it because its a public institution daw blah blah. Yang hold-ups, rapes, and hazing na yan happen everywhere. Good thing Ateneo could afford to put up walls and other security measures, kung buksan mo yan you think you wouldn't have people stealing stuff or whatever? Kahit sabihin natin lahat ng tao sa isang lugar critical mag-isip, may mangyayari pa rin na violence kung walang mga security guards or ibang measures because simply its outside of our control. Ikaw ba i-dedebate mo pa ba yung maghohold-up sa iyo sa katips? Hello! Nag-iisip ka ba?

First of all, yung mga iniisip natin sila ang nagdidictate kung ano yung gagawin natin. So first and foremost, dapat tama yung resolutions na iniisip natin. In fairness sa mga aktibista na misjudged na mga tao, yung mga rally rally na yan nangyayari after much educational discussion and investigative immersions. Oo baka mali na yung ideology pero laging may definite na basis yung mga campaigns. Actually matinding form of ACTION ang mass mobilization sa isang political system. Read up on May 1968 in Paris. Thats critical thinking in critical action for you.

E ano naman kung marami kayong clubs, nag-gGK at nagtuturo kayo ng public students? Ginagawa rin yan sa ibang school. Marami rin kaming clubs sa UP (more than Ateneo) , nag-gGK din (led pa ng fratmen), and have you heard of the Pahinungod program? Sa Pahinungod, di lang Sabado nagtuturo mga taga-UP, talagang pinapadala sila sa mga bundok at malalayong lugar for years para magturo sa public schools na di mo maiisip na school dahil walang mga pader. Your distinction of Ateneo fails.

And lastly, after preaching that action speaks louder than words, bakit di mo i-refute yung points (mas lalo yung sa article) instead of just saying mali siya?

---

I could just afford quick comments. Pero babalikan ko pa yung previous posts so parang side dish ito. Plus kailangan ni Atenista ng critical thinking skills.

n3X

Sep 29, 2007, 05:44 AM

Critical Thinking
What Is It Good for?
(In Fact, What Is It?)

Nearly everyone is in favor of critical thinking. This is evidence that the term is in danger of becoming meaningless. Skeptics should spearhead the effort to clarify what critical thinking is-and what it is not. The stakes are high.

HOWARD GABENNESCH

Respect for the truth comes close
to being the basis for all morality.
-- Frank Herbert

A lady said, "What's your solution?"
I said, "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."
She said, "The people demand solutions!"
-- Thomas Sowell

When republic is used in such expressions as "The People's Republic of ____" or lies refers reflexively to an adversary's interpretation of the facts, damage is done to the concepts-liberal government, truthfulness-that stand behind the words. Critical thinking is another concept whose value is being diminished by terminological disarray.

I suggest that one of our major responsibilities as skeptics is to maintain a continuous exploration of fundamental questions involving critical thinking, including:

1. What are the essential components of critical thinking?
2. Are those who claim to be promoting critical thinking doing justice to the concept or corrupting it?
3. What is the value of critical thinking, and how do the benefits justify the undeniable costs of studying, teaching, and practicing it?

But haven't we been pursuing such questions for quite a while? Amazon.com lists more than 2,000 titles on critical thinking. Haven't we largely ironed out the conceptual fundamentals by now?

Apparently not. Here are some indicators from my discipline of sociology that illustrate some of the work that needs to be done. I draw these examples from four mainstream, college-level introductory sociology textbooks, three of which are best-sellers in a crowded market. As is true in virtually all such texts, the preface and promotional material of each book explicitly assure instructors and students that the book attaches much importance to critical thinking.
Is This Critical Thinking?

A text that's currently in its fifth edition discusses the influence of social forces on definitions of aging by stating (Kendall 2006, 101):

Negative images also contribute to the view that women are "old" ten or fifteen years sooner than men. . . . The multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry helps perpetuate the myth that age reduces the "sexual value" of women but increases it for men. Men's sexual value is defined more in terms of personality, intelligence, and earning power than by physical appearance. For women, however, sexual attractiveness is based on youthful appearance. By idealizing this "youthful" image of women and playing up the fear of growing older, sponsors sell thousands of products that claim to prevent the "ravages" of aging.

Certainly, there is some truth to this, but is it fair to say that it is a myth that age reduces the sexual value of women more quickly than for men? After all, a society that generally considers older women as physically attractive as younger ones has yet to be discovered, whereas the attractive older man is an anthropological commonplace. The author is ignoring the more fundamental possibility that sexual value has something to do with reproductive value, making nature partly (largely?) responsible for the double standard of aging. A more educational analysis might suggest that a huge cosmetics industry is both cause and effect of the link between youth and female beauty.

However, the idea that sex differences in reproductive biology could underlie sex differences at the psychological and sociological levels is ideologically off-limits to most sociologists. Of course, textbooks are entitled to emphasize a certain theoretical point of view. But are we still practicing and teaching critical thinking if we actually direct students away from likely pieces of the truth?

A book that for many years has been one of the leading introductory sociology texts cites the Israeli kibbutz (a utopian agricultural settlement) as evidence of the cultural construction of gender (Macionis 2006, 253):

In kibbutzim, both sexes share most everyday jobs. Both men and women take care of children, cook and clean, repair buildings, and make day-to-day decisions concerning life in the kibbutz. Girls and boys are raised in the same way and, from the first weeks of life, children live together in dormitories. Women and men in the kibbutzim have achieved remarkable (though not complete) social equality, evidence of the wide range that cultures have in defining what is feminine and what is masculine.

The kibbutz as evidence of the wide latitude cultures have in defining gender? This interpretation would astonish Spiro (1996) and Tiger and Shepher (1975), anthropologists known for their research on gender in the kibbutz. These authors (and others) make it clear that the attempt to eradicate gender distinctions is instructive precisely because it did not succeed. Despite intense socialization pressures to the contrary, many familiar differences between the sexes appeared in the kibbutz: boys and girls preferred different toys, activities, subjects in school, and clothing styles; men gravitated toward outdoor work and leadership positions; mothers wanted to spend more time with their children than the design of the kibbutz originally allowed. To his own surprise, Spiro (1996, x) concluded that:

. . . the findings of this study (like those of Tiger and Shepher) constitute a direct, if implicit, challenge to some central assumptions of gender and women's studies, including [that] gender and gender differences are culturally constructed. . . .

Some critics have claimed that the kibbutz was not a true test of the cultural malleability of gender, but it is clearly misleading to offer the kibbutz as evidence of such plasticity. Perhaps this is simply an innocent error by the author. But complying as it does with the powerful "blank-slate" orthodoxy among sociologists, this tendentious presentation has survived the scrutiny of scores of the book's reviewers and adopters.

In a discussion of "heredity or environment," intended to emphasize the role of environment, another highly successful text devotes several paragraphs to a description of two identical twins, Oskar and Jack, who were separated early in life. When reunited in adulthood, they turned out to be quite different in most respects (Henslin 2006, 57). The author grants that the men showed some uncanny similarities (e.g., "Both flushed the toilet both before and after using it"), and he notes that heredity establishes "the limits of certain physical and mental abilities." But the focus is on the ability of different environments to produce different people, even when their genes are the same.

It is fine to teach that social experience may override the influence of biology on behavior. But what about the rest of the story that has emerged from the study of twins and adoptees? The case of Oskar and Jack comes from the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research, headed by Thomas Bouchard. One waits in vain for the text to present-or somehow to acknowledge the existence of-the main outcomes of that research. For example:

1. Adult identical twins reared in the same family are no more similar than identical twins reared apart.
2. Identical twins raised apart are more similar, in almost every physical and psychological trait, than fraternal twins raised together.
3. Even after growing up in the same home, unrelated adults are no more alike in intelligence than complete strangers.
4. Twin studies of various kinds consistently find that between 40 and 80 percent of the variance in intelligence is due to genetic factors.

As Bouchard (1997, 54) notes, "Such findings fly in the face of the emphasis on the role of the environment in child development that has pervaded American psychology until very recently." Results like these have drawn widespread attention to the twin studies at the University of Minnesota and elsewhere. They are a foundation of the field of behavioral genetics. But they are nowhere to be found in this text's discussion of "heredity or environment."

A text that promises to emphasize how to think more than what to think fires a broadside at the field of evolutionary psychology by listing its fallacious claims (Brym and Lie 2004, 65-67). These alleged errors include "men are promiscuous and women are not" and "what exists is necessary." In rebuttal, the authors assert, "it would be wrong to conclude that variations among people are due just to their genes," "genes never develop without environmental influence," and "the pattern of your life is not entirely hardwired by your genes."

But this is waging war on straw men-tired ones. No contemporary evolutionary psychologists support the crude biological determinism imputed to them here. And no young reader of this text would imagine that the bourgeoning study of evolution, genes, and human behavior has attracted many sophisticated scholars from a variety of disciplines.

This is teaching students how to think?
Toward a Sharper Definition

When academic textbooks come to resemble hymnals that celebrate a religious denomination's theology, and when this goes by the name of critical thinking, it is time for some definition adjustments.

No one should pontificate a definition of critical thinking, nor should we expect to achieve unanimity. But I offer the following definition for consideration: Critical thinking is the use of rational skills, worldviews, and values to get as close as possible to the truth. Here, critical thinking is conceived as consisting of three essential dimensions: skills, worldview, and values.

The Skills Dimension

By critical thinking skills, I mean the various higher-order cognitive operations involved in processing information, rather than simply absorbing it: analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, explaining, evaluating, generalizing, abstracting, illustrating, applying, comparing, recognizing logical fallacies.

It is primarily the skills dimension that most people appear to have in mind when speaking of critical thinking. This narrow focus has permitted critical thinking to become a hot topic in American education-reasoning skills can be taught in virtually any academic course at any level, and, importantly, they can be taught without venturing into sensitive areas. We can, if we wish, restrict our critical thinking skills to the safe and sanitary.

Proficiency in the skills dimension is necessary but not sufficient for anyone who claims to be a critical thinker. One could excel at reasoning while failing at other dimensions of critical thinking. Indeed, this is not uncommon. A more fully developed conception of critical thinking that includes the worldview and values dimensions is both more difficult to teach and more dangerous to display than a narrow conception that focuses on logical reasoning.
The Worldview Dimension

In his classic Invitation to Sociology, Peter Berger (1963, 23) states, "It can be said that the first wisdom of sociology is this-things are not what they seem." I would alter the wording slightly-things are not always entirely what they seem-and propose it as the first wisdom of critical thinking. The recognition that the world is often not what it seems is perhaps the key feature of the critical thinker's worldview.

From this perspective, the world is a deceptive place-not just occasionally but inherently. Such a worldview goes beyond the usual suspects (e.g., deceptive TV ads and phony crop circles) to incorporate a broader recognition of the deceptive nature of the world, including such insights as:

* Like fish who are unconscious of the water that envelops them, we are often unaware of the constraints imposed on our thinking by the taken-for-granted social forces surrounding us-not to mention the gene-based forces within us.
* Some aspects of the social world appear natural, but are actually human contrivances. And vice versa.
* The social roles we play can shape not just our behavior but our identity-often we unwittingly become what we play at.
* We are often ignorant of our ignorance. And the more incompetent we are, the more likely we are to overestimate our competence.
* It is normal for seemingly contradictory things to occur together.
* All good things have costs. Many bad things have benefits.
* Issues frequently appear black-and-white, when in fact they usually consist of grays.
* We typically mistake pieces of the truth for the whole truth.
* Partial truths can be just as misleading as outright lies.
* We are more likely to be misled by people who sincerely believe what they are saying than by liars.
* Self-deception can be an even bigger problem than deception by others.

In short, since it is so easy to misperceive reality, a critical thinker is disinclined to take things at face value, suspicious of certainties, not easily swayed by conventional (or unconventional) wisdom, and distrustful of the facades and ideologies that serve as the ubiquitous cosmetics of social life.

In other words, critical thinkers are necessarily skeptics. Skepticism can be summarized as concisely as this (Skeptic 2005):

1. Skeptics do not believe easily. They have outgrown childlike credulity (Dawkins 1995) to a greater extent than most adults ever do.
2. When skeptics take a position, they do so provisionally. They understand that their knowledge on any subject is fallible, incomplete, and subject to change.
3. Skeptics defer to no sacred cows. They regard orthodoxies as the mortal enemy of critical thought-all orthodoxies, including those that lie close to home.

Convincing people that their worldview underestimates the extent to which things are not what they seem requires a wide range of no-holds-barred examples such as these:

* From the beginning, AIDS has been exaggerated as a significant threat to heterosexuals in the U.S.
* It is far from clear that Abraham Lincoln cared deeply about social equality between whites and blacks.
* Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his doctoral dissertation and on his wife.
* We fall out of love with our children less often than with our lovers/spouses because our children carry our genes.
* Despite what is widely assumed by professionals in the counseling and education industries, self-esteem has not been shown to be causally related to academic and behavioral outcomes.
* Whatever intelligence tests measure is related to many academic, occupational, economic, and behavioral outcomes-and it is substantially heritable.
* It is far from clear that many returning Vietnam vets were spat upon.
* It is far from clear that child sexual abuse produces devastating and long-lasting effects in nearly all of its victims.
* Studies have found that many gender stereotypes contain an element of truth.
* There may be credible UFO sightings that science is currently unable to explain.
* Chance alone caused the forty-sixth word from the beginning of Psalm 46 to be "shake" and the forty-sixth word from the end to be "spear" in the King James Bible, which was published in the year Shakespeare turned 46 (Myers 2002).

Developing a skeptic's worldview means that one's foundational assumptions will be disturbed, not to mention those of others. Toes will be stepped on, tempers could flare, mortified members of the audience may stagger from the room. Hence, there is still more to full-fledged critical thinking.
The Values Dimension

Imagine a juror in the trial of a defendant accused of murdering a child. The juror listens to the prosecution's case, which is accompanied by grisly photos, testimony from a detective who becomes visibly shaken when describing the crime scene, and audible sobs from the victim's family. Then, roiled by emotions ranging from grief to outrage, she is called upon to do something remarkable: listen to the defense just as receptively as she did to the prosecution.

To do her job well, she will need more than good reasoning skills and the sturdy skepticism that is appropriate when listening to dueling lawyers. She will also need a certain set of values that will motivate her to do the difficult things necessary to reach an honest verdict. It takes a principled person to force aside her personal suspicions and preferences long enough to determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like the honest juror, the critical thinker is ethically committed to the concept of due process-intellectual due process-as the best way to increase the likelihood of finding the truth. This code of intellectual conduct demands giving ideas their day in court before rendering an informed and reasoned verdict. It requires such traits as these:

* Being unwilling to subordinate one's thinking to orthodoxies that demand to be swallowed whole-at the risk of being charged with heresy
* Refusing to dismiss possible merits in ideas that otherwise may be deeply repugnant-at the risk of appearing immoral
* Being capable of saying, "I don't know"-at the risk of appearing unintelligent
* Being willing to judge the truth value of ideas sponsored by demographic and cultural groups to which one does not belong-at the risk of being accused of prejudice
* Being willing to change one's mind-at the risk of appearing capricious
* Being open to the arguments of adversaries-at the risk of appearing disloyal
* Having an acute awareness of the limits and fallibility of one's knowledge-at the risk of seeming to suffer from that dreaded malady, low self-esteem

In short, this aspect of critical thinking can be the most difficult of all. Subjecting ideas to intellectual due process can require more integrity, humility, tolerance of uncertainty, and courage than most of us find easy to summon. No wonder we will join a wild-eyed, slobbering lynch mob from time to time.
Benefits

Is critical thinking worth the costs? Consider for a moment how costly uncritical thinking can be. Stephen Jay Gould (1997, x, xii) calls attention to two precious human potentials that together constitute "the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known":

Only two possible escapes can save us from the organized mayhem of our dark potentialities-the side of human nature that has given us crusades, witch hunts, enslavements, and holocausts. Moral decency provides one necessary ingredient, but not nearly enough. The second foundation must come from the rational side of our mentality. For, unless we rigorously use human reason . . . we will lose out to the frightening forces of irrationality, romanticism, uncompromising "true" belief, and the apparent resulting inevitability of mob action . . . Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism-and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.

According to this striking claim, critical thinking is one of the most important resources a society could develop. This is because bad things do not emanate only from bad people. Bad things can also occur because of the mistaken thinking of decent people. Even when a bad idea originates with a psychopath, the real danger occurs when it is accepted by the gullible and condoned by the sincere who have little more than a child's understanding of what intellectual due process entails.

It is likely that an important link exists between critical thinking, broadly defined, and democracy itself. The American jurist Learned Hand (1952, 190) described this connection as follows:

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it . . . . The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside its own without bias.

So by cultivating genuine critical thinking, we strengthen the crucial underpinnings of democracy (Kuhn 2003). People who are careful about the truth are less likely to be fooled by the ideologies that justify illiberal practices or promise simple solutions. Moreover, such people are more likely to recognize the value of intellectual and ideological diversity-they understand that the truth comes in pieces and is unlikely to be found all in one place. They are the best counterweight to true believers of all stripes. Ultimately, intellectual due process is no less integral to democracy than is due process of law.

Within a democracy, the social world remains a deceptive place-for the sophisticated and the innocent alike. The tendency of leaders and large numbers of citizens to underestimate this fact is a source of enormous human misery.

Here is an example. In his book a few years ago and in the 2003 Oscar-winning documentary by Errol Morris, The Fog of War, former defense secretary Robert S. McNamara (1995) identifies the mistakes made by him and others that led to calamity in Vietnam. His account describes confident, mostly decent men who did what they thought was best, but who fell prey to a chilling list of errors that could serve as chapters in a textbook on critical thinking: dualistic thinking, wishful thinking, absence of intellectual humility, underestimating complexity, groupthink, childlike credulity, rigid adherence to orthodoxy. These were intelligent, educated men whose logical reasoning skills were far above average. Yet McNamara finds it "incredible" that "[w]e failed to analyze our assumptions critically."

Perhaps the architects of the Vietnam war went wrong because they indulged in what Thomas Sowell (2002) calls "shibboleths" as substitutes for critical thinking. A shibboleth is a belief that serves the purpose of identifying the believer as one of the good guys, prominently planted on the side of the angels. Shibboleths "transform questions about facts, causation, and evidence into questions about personal identity and moral worth":

Mere facts cannot compete with shibboleths when it comes to making people feel good. Moreover, shibboleths keep off the agenda the painful question of how dangerous it is to have policies which impact millions of human beings without a thorough knowledge of the hard facts needed to understand just what that impact has actually been. . . . Shibboleths are dangerous, not only because they mobilize political support for policies that most of the supporters have not thought through, but also because these badges of identity make it harder to reverse those policies when they turn out to be disastrous.

Like many other forms of uncritical thinking, shibboleths derive their power from the fact that humans are designed to be social animals more than truth-seeking ones. For all the societal benefits of critical thinking, at the individual level, uncritical thinking offers social and psychological rewards of its own.
Promoting Critical Thinking

If the societal benefits of multidimensional critical thinking are great, so is the task of raising the level of such thinking in our society. On whose shoulders does this responsibility fall?

Thomas Gilovich (1991, 193-194) has argued that social scientists, by virtue of their "way of looking at the world, the habits of mind that they promote," are in the best position to educate others about the importance of "question[ing] our assumptions and challeng[ing] what we think we know."

This is not encouraging, since social scientists appear to be as prone to orthodoxies, wishful thinking, ad hominems, and shibboleths as anyone else (Horowitz 1996; Berger 2002; Goldberg 2003). As our glimpse inside the sociology texts suggested, there are problems with trying to teach genuine critical thinking in disciplines that are several parts social for each part science.

Are the hard sciences doing much better? In the first place, science education is not producing high levels of scientific literacy in the population (National Science Foundation 2004). Besides, there appears to be only a weak relationship between science knowledge and disbelief in various forms of nonsense (Walker and Hoekstra 2002; Johnson and Pigliucci 2004).

As many have noted, we teach science as a collection of facts and theories about a certain category of phenomena, rather than as a set of principles for understanding the world. A course in "Science, Pseudoscience, and Anti-science" would stimulate broader critical thought than the typical Chemistry 101 class. But the problem is deeper than this. Full-blown critical thinking is not coterminous with good scientific thinking. Critical thought is the principles of scientific thought projected to the far reaches of everyday life, with all the attendant demands and complications. This expansive generalization of the scientific method is hardly spontaneous or self-evident for most people. Just as learning the truth about Santa does not shatter the typical child's credulous worldview, learning the principles of science can easily fail to fully penetrate the larger vision of science students-and indeed, of scientists. By themselves, science classrooms are poor competition for the powerful obstacles to highly developed critical thinking that reside in human social life and in the wiring of the human brain.

Multidimensional critical thinking is not simply a byproduct of something else. It must be taught. Well, then, what about the "critical-thinking" trend that has permeated American education across the curriculum at all levels? Are these efforts succeeding in materially strengthening the quality of critical thinking in society at large? Again, the various indicators of uncritical thought in our society suggest not. It is doubtful that what students learn from those classrooms and texts does much to alter their worldviews and values regarding the truth. A primary cause of this shortfall is the antiseptic nature of the "critical thinking" typically taught to students. Either most teachers and authors do not possess a highly multidimensional conception of critical thinking themselves, or they are reluctant (perhaps with good reason) to approach the perilous territory-way past logical fallacies and weeping Madonna statues-to which full-fledged critical thinking inevitably leads. The result is the commonplace teaching of quasi-critical thinking.

It is naive to expect social-science education, natural-science education, or education in general-at least in their present forms-to elevate critical thinking to something more than a pedagogical fashion that everyone applauds but few conceptualize very deeply. This leaves the skeptical community. We identify ourselves as champions of science and reason. But this is a broad mandate. We should avoid concentrating our skepticism too narrowly on the realms of superstition, pseudoscience, and the supernatural-for the ultimate challenge to a critical thinker is posed not by weird things but by insidiously mundane ones. If we hope to realize the promise of critical thought, it is important that skeptics affirm a multidimensional definition of critical thinking -- reasoning skills, skeptical worldview, values of a principled juror -- that exempts no aspect of social life.
References

1. Berger, Peter. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
2. ______. 2002. Whatever happened to sociology? First Things, 126 (October): 27-29.
3. Bouchard, Thomas. 1997. Whenever the twain shall meet. The Sciences 37(5): 52-57.
4. Brym, Robert, and John Lie. 2004. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World, 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
5. Dawkins, Richard. 1995. Putting away childish things. Skeptical Inquirer 19(1): 31-36.
6. Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.
7. Goldberg, Steven. 2003. The erosion of the social sciences. In Steven Goldberg, Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences, 15-34. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
8. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. The positive power of skepticism. In Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, ix-xii. New York: W.H. Freeman.
9. Hand, Learned. 1952 (1944). The spirit of liberty. In Irving Dillard, ed., The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
10. Henslin, James. 2006. Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-earth Approach, 6th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11. Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1996. Are the social sciences scientific? Academic Questions 9(1): 53-59.
12. Johnson, Mathew, and Massimo Pigliucci. 2004. Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims? The American Biology Teacher 66(8): 536-548.
13. Kendall, Diana. 2006. Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials, 5th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
14. Kuhn, Robert. 2003. Science as democratizer. American Scientist 91(5): 388-390.
15. Macionis, John. 2006. Society: The Basics, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
16. McNamara, Robert. 1995. In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York: Random House.
17. Myers, David. 2002. The power of coincidence. Skeptic 9(4): 28.
18. National Science Foundation. 2004. Science and Education Indicators 2004. Arlington, Virginia.
19. Skeptic. 2005 (every issue). What Is a Skeptic?
20. Sowell, Thomas. 2002. The high cost of shibboleths. Townhall.com. February 15. Available HERE. (Accessed December 1, 2006.)
21. Spiro, Melford. 1996. Gender and Culture: Kibbutz Women Revisited. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction. (Originally published by Duke University Press, 1979.)
22. Tiger, Lionel, and Joseph Shepher. 1975. Women in the Kibbutz. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
23. Walker, W. Richard, Steven J. Hoekstra, and Rodney J. Vogl. 2002. Science education is no guarantee of skepticism. Skeptic 9(3): 24-27.