Them's fighting words!

Alright, I'm a little worked up this morning.

As I said a couple of posts ago I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am reading it because I have friends who question God's existence and I wanted to see what a popular and respected (these are my assumptions) scientist would say. I expected something along the lines of rational arguments about whether God exists. A large part of the book is basically an attack on religion of any kind and those who profess faith. Today was the last straw.

I have been keeping notes as I read it, both of things I disagree with and things I agree with. I have just finished his eighth chapter on What's Wrong With Religion? and his misguided attacks are going to provide the topics for an upcoming series of posts.

A few things have to happen first. I'm going to be moving soon, so between travel for work and packing I will be very busy in July. Look for my rebuttal starting in August. I also have to acquire the book since I am reading a library copy and it will take more than two weeks to say all I have to say. If Mr. Dawkins is reading, send me a copy. Otherwise I'll buy one. Although I don't agree and don't want to support your efforts with one more book sale, I'll gladly chalk it up to supporting dissenting voices because I believe we should engage in dialog and that we shouldn't feel threatened by opposing views.

I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is probably shaking in his boots at the thought of my response. (Actually I'm sure he'd be shaking from uncontrollable laughter.) Stay tuned as I take on Goliath... (Oh those useful religious allusions.)

On a strangely related note, I just got done also watching a video entitled The Islamic Connection which is a lecture by Walter Veith. To ruin the punchline, Islam was created and controlled by Catholicism to wage war against "true Christians" and to protect access to Jerusalem. This is "proven" through reference to various secret societies and use of symbols and testimony from secret Masonic texts. Sigh.

Needless to say I find both extremes, Mr. Dawkins anti-religiousness and Mr. Veith's anti-everything except his religion, to be equally misguided and lacking in spiritual insight. Of course by definition Mr. Dawkins would probably say there is no such thing as spiritual insight, but we shall explore that.

No Water Birds

So I get up this morning, still half asleep. I am making a copy of the lease we just signed on a new apartment and my sleepy eyes catch one of the sections and read "No Water Birds" which just didn't make sense.

I blinked a couple of times and looked more closely. Ah. No Water Beds.

As I started chuckling, I could just imagine the damage that could be done by flamingos.

Or storks.

Herons.

Pelicans.

Ducks.

Eww... Canadian Geese.

I know it isn't much, but I'm heading out of town this weekend to lovely Vermont on Saturday and lovely Maine on Sunday for work, so that is all you get until next week.

Rodin's Snooze

Man, time is crazy! I can't believe how many days can go by in the blink of an eye. There is some reference to time-dilation or faster-than-light travel just waiting to happen, but instead I'll rely on other witticisms like playing with the name Rodin's Muse to find something appropriate to the recent dearth of posts.

Rodin's snooze.

Rodin's cruise.

Rodin's lose(r).

If we can't be self-effacing, we need a different line of hobby, eh?

So this blog is increasingly turning in to an exploration of science and religion. There are many ramifications to that. The reconciliation of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, logic and emotion, art and science, yin and yang, etcetera etcetera. It may not be a permanent thing, but it is certainly worthy of exploration. Here are some thoughts coming at you, stream-of-consciousness like.

I was watching a show I taped from EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting station. (DVR Rocks!) It was called "Has Science Discovered God?" I was pretty impressed with the premise and arguments despite the horrible quality of the video. It seems to be based on evidence described in the book "The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God" by Roy Abraham Varghese who briefly shows up in the video. I'll share more of the specifics later. I found it very thought-provoking. Just look up "cambrian explosion" to get an idea of what they are talking about.

In order not to too loudly proclaim the death of atheism I thought I'd give "The God Delusion" a whirl to see what Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist, has to say. I'm only part way through it, but I have to say that the condescension, over-generalization and smarmy nature of the book are off-putting to say the least. It is similar to my complaint about the "debate" between Kirk Cameron and "anything-but-rational response squad." If you can't debate and postulate without trying to humiliate, if you can't engage in dialogue with respect, how can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously? Dawkins makes many good points, but they are lost amongst his strident disrespect which stems, ironically, from his feeling of being disrespected as an atheist. Come on. What happened to the golden rule? Or is that too religious to be of value?

I apologize for the lack of substance in this post. I thought with five days off of work I'd be able to post before this, so this is the best my tired brain can do tonight because I just couldn't tolerate another day without offering my two cents to the universe.

Ah, Rodin, forgive me.

Coming soon to a Rodin's Muse near you

Sorry again for the long delay. I have some posts stewing in my mind. I just need to clear my schedule to make time. This is a priority, so soon my patient friends...

A logic-antilogic explosion

A friend sent some links to some articles "proving" the existence of God. (I put the word in quotes not because I doubt it, but because others will.)

One story was about Frank Tipler, a mathematics professor at Tulane University who uses Einstein's theories of general relativity and theories of quantum mechanics to come to the conclusion that God must exist.

The other is a debate between Kirk Cameron (yes, that Kirk Cameron) and another evangelical friend who use three arguments to "prove" God exists and the rebuttal from two atheists who come across as equally fanatical in their arguments.

For the record, I think it is a travesty when people refuse to use their ability to critically think about something and instead trot out trite, emotional, vapid arguments either for or against. There were several good points from both sides, and several arguments that just made me cringe with their silliness.

Here is a suggestion. If you are going to use logic, then use it correctly.

Several of the points atheists often use to refute the existence of God were used in all their "originality." Please pardon my smarminess as I share them with you so you can revel in their illogic.

1. Horrible things have been done in the name of religion, so God does not exist

2. Different religions cannot agree on what God is, so God does not exist

3. People have believed in gods such as Poseidon who we know does not exist, so God does not exist

4. The Bible tells you that you can do anything and be loved by God, so God does not exist.

5. God wouldn't invent cancer or evil, so there must not be a God.

6. Every journey of 1,000 miles begins with the a single step. Micro-evolution exists, so therefore macro-evolution must exist.

This last is my favorite. We learned in logic class on day one that

(If A Then B) does not infer that (If B then A)
(If it is a car then it has wheels) does not infer (If it has wheels it must be a car)

Every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but not every step leads to a journey of a thousand miles.

I would not have any problem if instead they said "Because horrible things have happened in the name of God I choose not to follow or worship that God" because that is logical. I believe in God and subscribe to that statement. To say that God doesn't exist because I choose not to follow Him is not logical. (Isn't the English language fun!)

I also love seeing people in opposite corners engaging in silly accusations and definitive statements.

We can't trust science because science has been wrong (flat earth, sun revolves around the earth).

We can't trust the Bible because it contradicts itself and advocates slavery, stoning, polygamy (therefore God doesn't exist).

Scientist: We cannot prove God with science because science is about the natural, not the supernatural. To even ask the question is absurd.

Priest: God cannot be proven by math. He can only be proven by faith.

Me: We learned in Biology class that you can prove that spontaneous generation never has occurred, but not that it can never occur.

Here is an interchange between evangelists and atheists with some of my comments interjected.

Believer:
I see a painting, I know there was a painter.
I see a house, I know there was a builder.
I see a universe, I know there was a creator.

Atheist:
You know there was a painter because you can call him.
You know there was a builder because you know he had to get building permits.
You can't call God to verify He exists.

Me: If you found a painting, but there was no historical record of the painter, wouldn't you still believe there was a painter? Have you called the builders of Stonehenge, the heads on Easter Island, the Nazca lines, or the sphinx?

Believer:
Micro-evolution is one thing. We know each species evolves. That doesn't mean species evolve into other species (macro-evolution).
There is no fossil record of these missing links. Darwin himself said if we didn't find evidence within 100 years the theory would be suspect.

Atheist:
We don't need to see no stinking fossil records to believe in evolution.

Me: We don't need no stinking painter, either. You can't have it both ways, dude!

I fully admit I have had several days to ponder on the arguments made by both sides. I have picked more on the atheists only because they were so darn condescending and self-righteous and because we have pretty much heard all the evangelical arguments before. I would have made mistakes in the debate format because I am a ponderer, not a rapid thinker. I have to cogitate.

The point I am trying to make is that they would have had much more effect in uncovering the truth by engaging in a dialog rather than a competition. By critically thinking we can uncover the truth. In order to do so we must be detached from the outcome, be committed to finding the truth, and expect to find clues in the most unusual places. No question is absurd. To find the truth is to ask questions.

I got a little worked up about this one. I find that exploring truth works with just about anyone, and it is usually those with the least amount of faith who feel most threatened, whether they believe in God or not. I'd love to hear what you think.

Man, I'm busy

I apologize for the lack of recent posts. It has been a busy time. I won't bore you with all the ways I spend my time. I am going through an evaluation of where I spend my valuable time, so I expect writing time will be increased.

Well, maybe I will bore you with some details. Let see, in no particular order:

A weird computer semi-crash, botched backup, and reinstall
A weekend out of town in the hinterlands of Maine with no Internet access (my cell doesn't even get reception there)
Newly elected to the Local Spiritual Assembly with requisite duties
Two business trips, one overnight
Too many Bible studies
Two dinners at friends' houses (can't pass up Persian and Greek food)
Neighborhood cleanup

Some things have go to go!

Stay tuned...

A word from our sponsor

I would like to take this opportunity to digress from the current train of thought, or stream of blogginess if you will, to offer a couple of interpositions. One is inspired by a recent blog comment, the other is a "credit where credit is due" tiradette. (I think I just invented a word.)

I want to make it clear that in my exploration of circumstantial proofs of the existence of God that I am not trying to convert or convince anyone. I am sharing the thought process I, as a lifelong advocate of "intelligence is enough for me" and adherent of the religion of self-sufficiency, went through in allowing myself, perish the thought, to accept the existence of a Supreme Being and even more to accept my inferior and supplicative relationship to said being. I would look pretty foolish abdicating intellectual responsibility for my own set of rules for conducting my life if I was only accepting the rules of a non-existent being whose moral code was made up by a bunch of men thousands of years ago. This was a HUGE paradigm shift and I was not going to tread lightly. We are talking about overcoming the crashing gulf of cognitive dissonance that I had maintained all my life, not to mention 25 years of socialization as a man where I learned that you are to be self-sufficient and to surrender to any man (or God) is anathema to your being as a man. (I think that is one reason women find spirituality easier to embrace than men. Just look at participation in most churches.)

Perhaps I am beating a dead horse by exploring all these topics meticulously. Perhaps there is some amount of "easy topics for the next few blog posts in order to not stop writing while I think up the next thing to write about" syndrome. Perhaps I should just get on with the spiritual quest that led me to today and not partake of this primrose path. I'll consider it over the next few days. Stay tuned...

Now, for a rant about the topic of the extremes of wealth and poverty.

I picked up a book today. The title is Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls and I am looking forward to reading it. I also have books like The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men which is a fantastic, eye-opening book. You can also look at the Portland Press Herald's special report here.

I am somewhat of a passionate scholar of the issue of the equality of women and men. I firmly believe that establishing the equality of men and women isn't a matter of women attaining what men have. It isn't about just treating everyone the same. It is about eliminating everything that hinders people from exploring and reaching their full potential. It is about stopping the definition of things by gender when they don't need to be. Anyway, I digress in my digression.

I am not railing against Myra and David Sadker, the authors of the book I picked up today. I laud them for their efforts. I laud the efforts of anyone that points out how people are getting short-changed, particularly when it is how our children are getting short-changed by our education system. The problem is not that our education system favors boys over girls or girls over boys. THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS GROSSLY UNDERFUNDED! Schools should never have to wonder where funding is going to come from, or how many children they can fit into a classroom, or which programs are going to get cut, or which teachers are going to be let go. Schools are not mills where you feed children in at age five and retrieve them at age eighteen just to send them off to jobs or higher education or whatever. They are vital elements of society. Baha'u'llah says: "“Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom.”

Here is a thought. If class sizes were smaller and educators were plentiful enough to actually tailor education to the needs of children and to develop relationships with their students, perhaps we wouldn't have children who are so under-served and ostracized they feel the need to shoot people. (I'm not justifying these horrendous acts by blaming it on schools. These are individuals who make the decisions to act in heinous ways.)

How higher education is messed up, how municipalities get put in the position of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when it comes to funding education, the racial impact of public schools, and where the money that should go in to education actually goes are topics for another day. Suffice it to say that children, regardless of gender, in most of our public school systems are paying a price that our society can ill afford. It is short-sighted in the same way chopping down rainforests is. Those who have money can bypass the issue by choosing private schools or tutors or whatever.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.