Mary, Arlo, I just finished a delightful book by A. J. Jacobs about living the bible literally, wherein an agnostic Jew tries to live by the bible as literally as possible for a year. A delightful book, full of wry observations and interesting interviews from atheists to snake handlers.
Anyway Mary, pertaining to your point about utility, at the atheist meeting the leader shared a tasty rhetorical tidbit I thought I'd pass on: If you ever do find an atheist in a foxhole, he'll be digging, not praying. John On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Mark, > > Appreciate your comments. I have read them all and will be pondering them > over the long term I assure you. Long live humility over ego! > > I have to say this, though, in defense of science. It plain works. It > gives us some control over the vagaries of nature, you gotta admit. It may > not be THE answer, but we're on to something. Who knows where it will go? > If my car won't start I'd rather be equipped with a good set of metric > socket wrenches than with faith. Of this I am certain. :) > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of markhsmit > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Are theists irrational? > > Hi Mary, > Thank you for your thoughtful post. I tried to address some of the > misunderstanding in my > previous response to you. We have a different definition of God. My posts > are more from the spiritual side of things, if you will. I have no > interest > in > a dogmatic, human-like God. It doesn't work for me. I have some personal > comments in your post below, for what they are worth. > Hello Mark and all, > > I think I am doing you a disservice, Mark. I am skirting the issue here > about religion. As I have revealed in other posts I am an atheist. Perhaps > In fairness to you I should explain why. I apologize in advance, because I > guarantee you will not like hearing this. However, if we cannot be truthful > with each other, then we have no basis for real conversation and will never > reach any kind of understanding. Perhaps you will find this interesting > because I have never heard this elsewhere. As far as I know, It is a little > bit of original thought. Of course, I could be wrong. Probably pretty > presumptuous of me to think so. > > I am but one insignificant individual on a planet now occupied by billions. > Is it reasonable to assume that if there is a god he should care about me > as > an individual? No. Is it reasonable to assume that if I pray to him to ask > for guidance or favors, that he will respond? No. "Why not?", you may ask. > The answer is because I do not believe I am of any particular significance > to a being so great as a god. You see, god is a construction of the ego. > We require our ego for survival. If we did not have a high opinion of > ourselves, we would not have the drive necessary for survival. The ego is > an evolutionary construct that is necessary for our very survival - and > evolutionarily speaking - survival to reproduce into the next generation is > of the greatest importance. > The way I look at this is that I am just as insignificant as everything > else. The logical corollary > of this is that I am just as significant as everything else. My god does > not look out for me. > My God is a construction of the psychoemotional as far as my ability to > interpret it. But this > interpretation is but a poor shadow. > > > Let me say that again. Our ability to survive into the next generation if > of the utmost importance to biology (the Biological Level if you will). > There is nothing more important to a biological being than that. To > facilitate this, our brain evolved, along with that of every other species, > with in innate "high opinion" of ourselves as individuals. My ego and yours > are biological survival mechanisms. If you are not willing to defend > yourself, you will not survive. You must not be willing to defer to others > in any way, otherwise you reduce your own chances of survival. How would > evolution ensure this? By constructing an enormous ego.I > I personally do not think that evolution is a very useful way of looking at > things. There have been many discussion on this, it is just my belief. > We are not governed by competition and survival. We are drawn > into niches like water is drawn into pools. What exists is a > perfect match for everything else that exists. Much harm has been > done in the name of evolution. > > > This enormous ego that we all have insists that we are important. Dogs and > cats probably have an ego too, but they do not have the higher brain > functions necessary to feed it in the way we must. Let me repeat that. In > the way we must. You see, once intelligence within our species developed to > the point where we started asking questions about why we are here and where > we go after we die, the ego had to be there to provide the answers. > Evolution ensured that. If there were early humans that posed existential > questions (which I believe there absolutely were, since we do) then the > entire human species would have been at risk of extinction had we not had > some sort of brain function that prevented us all from just committing > suicide so to speak. The ego will not tolerate this. The ego is necessary > and saves our lives daily. It is as necessary as breathing. We are the > center of our own universe and that universe cannot be allowed to die. > Yes I agree, this is how it seems, until one gets beyond the ego which is > based on SOM. > > > The ego, then, is our will to live. It is present in every creature, but > has achieved greatest complexity in humans. This is because we need more > than a basic survival mechanism now. Once we were capable of formulating > the big questions, another evolutionary threat was posed. I am sure that > within the general population of all people existing at an early stage of > Homo Sapiens, there were some who did not have this enormous ego. Those > people had a higher probability of failure to reproduce. Over time, having > a small or non-existent ego was a trait weeded-out. Those people, though > probably nicer and more thoughtful of others than we are, were unable to > compete. Few if any of them are with us now. > > It is unacceptable to us to believe that we are born and simply die without > continuing to exist in some fashion afterwards. This is a byproduct of our > enormous ego. You cannot just turn it off when you get old. Have you ever > wondered why humility must be taught? This is why. Humility is not a > survival skill. It doubtless existed in the distant past, but has been > gradually weeded out of our gene-pool. > I don't think that humility has to be taught, it just has to be accepted. > Again, basing > ones belief on a survival skill I do not think is appropriate, that is just > what we are > taught. > > > So, what does this have to do with why I don't believe in God? I am a > seeker of humility. It takes great shepherding of your thoughts to achieve > even a modicum of this; but, once you do begin to see it, you realize that > there is absolutely no reason to believe that you should exist after death. > Another way to put this. What makes me think that I am so important that I, > where "I", after all is nothing more than my ego, should continue to exist > after death? My brain will have ceased to function. Those pretty bright > lights people with near-death experiences report to observe are nothing > more > than a lack of oxygen to the physical brain. Wouldn't it be pretty > presumptuous of me to believe, nay _insist_ that I have a "soul" which is > greater than my body? Why? That's ego talk. Pure and simple. > Hmm. I believe in reincarnation, not of the body/brain, but of the self. > We will never > remember, because that resides only in the brain, which is gone. But the > sense > of self continues. > > > Do not take this as an insult, because it is not intended as such, but I > have always thought that religion is fine if you think you need it. > I'm not sure that I need religion. I suppose if one's belief system is > based on modern > psychology, then that could be argued. But such a belief system is simply > taught > to us, and we accept it. Then we think that it is truth. I have no choice > but to have > a God. In my opinion non of us do, we just all define it differently, it > is > the human > condition to think we know. > > Thanks again, > Mark > > > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:23 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: 'Mary' > Subject: RE: [MD] Are theists irrational? > > Hello Mark, > > [quote] > I still do not understand the moral distinction between using plate > tectonics to explain something, or a benevolent god. > ----- > This is getting old, but I will make one more attempt. > > 1) Not everyone, everywhere believes in your God, so using her to explain > things to them may not be helpful. > > 2) There is no need to resort to God to explain things that have sound > scientific explanations existing, and even if no sound explanation exists > maybe that's because there is no explanation. Do you require an explanation > for everything? > > 3) It is insulting personally to the people of Haiti who are in the midst > of > a terrible tragedy (which, by the way could easily befall any of us in any > location tomorrow) to maintain that the earthquake is a punishment for > Aids. > If Aids were a punishment for promiscuity then Lila and Pirsig would have > it, in which case, since you object to immoral behavior to this extent, > makes me wonder why you ever read the book. > > 4) Please explain how accusing people who have suffered a great tragedy of > bringing it upon themselves is helpful to you or them? Does it make you > feel morally superior, Rigel? > > 5) You are exhibiting a moralistic, Victorian era, holier-than-thou point > of > view that has been rejected by even those steeped in the Social Level 100 > years ago. > > [Quote] > But if we [myself and colleagues] are talking philosophically, we start > with > faith, because we make so many assumptions to begin with. We do not have to > prove that which we accept. > ----- > Excuse me, but > > 1) perhaps a little less talking and a little more experimenting should be > the order of the day in your scientific laboratory. > > 2) This is beginning to sound like the most unscientific group of > "scientists" I have ever heard of. I do not know what you are working on, > but I hope I never have to rely on it. > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
