Letters to the Editor
-
I had what I would consider a "spiritual experience" once
Dropped two hits of Owsley, bonged a bunch of Michoacan and felt a "connectedness" with the universe that I've never felt before or since.
Laughed so damn long and hard that I could barely move the next day because my abdomen hurt so bad. My face hurt pretty bad too, felt like I'd been slapped around thoroughly. But it was definitely worth it and no worse than a bad hangover minus talking to Ralph on the big white phone.
Tantric sex on acid is exquisite extacy if you are with someone you really love and are in a nice dark, comfortable, secure place.
Sometimes I get tired just smilin'
-
Just Ask My In-Laws
You don't have to go through all this academic balogna to find out if ape-like creatures have religious beliefs. Just ask primitive human-like animals my In-Laws instead. They have a rudimentary form of language, sophisticated enough to express concepts such as "more food", "give me that", "can I borrow your car" and "beer".
For example, these strange, primitive and savage proto-humans will wait until near the Vernal Equinox annually and then trek to Wilkes-Barre PA in search of a food anthrpologists call "home-style pierogies".
Behavior such as this will lull humans into thinking these creatures have outgrown their annoying, noisy and malodorous habits. Even people such as myself, with extended periods of contact and familiarity, have been tricked into associating with them again despite a history of aggressive behavior, such as refrigerator pillage, breaking of personal items and savage beatings.
What's lacking in this species is any notion of compassion, table manners or taking off your shoes before walking on the carpet after stepping in dog shit.
Religion they've got, though.
-
missed my point
My point wasn't that atheists have to prove to me the non-existence of God. My point was that scientists who are atheists cannot argue that science teaches the non-existence of God. God, by definition, if he/she/it were to exist, exists outside of nature, or transcends nature if you will. Science, by its definition, describes nature. So how, tell me, does science have anything to say about the existence of God?
If you're an atheist, you can have your reasons and don't need to justify them to me. If you're religious, you can have your reasons and also don't need to justify them. Just don't try to use science to prove either.
To reiterate: Scientists as scientists -- knock off trying to tell me that you know there is no God because you're a scientist and science points this out. Because it doesn't, and it can't. And if you're going to tell me that science disproves much of what some religious people think, and therefore God doesn't exist, well that doesn't make much sense either.
-
On what science can say about God
My point was that scientists who are atheists cannot argue that science teaches the non-existence of God. God, by definition, if he/she/it were to exist, exists outside of nature, or transcends nature if you will. Science, by its definition, describes nature. So how, tell me, does science have anything to say about the existence of God?
I take your point, but it's actually more muddy than that. See, most people who believe in God think that God actually does things to or in the world-- that is, God interacts with nature. If God is wholly outside nature, how can he/she/it do this? At the very least, most people think that God acted in some way to physically cause the universe to exist. So theoretically, science can study the ways that God interacts with the world....although, of course, the question that immediately comes up to that is "How the hell are we supposed to recognize God acting in the world?" If God acting in the world is indistinguishable from the world acting on its own, well.....perhaps that says something about God's existence.
Richard Dawkins views the claim that God created the universe as a scientific hypothesis-- not a valid one, but a claim that exists on science's territory. He alleges that we should expect a universe with a creator, a super-mind behind it, to be different from one without. I don't know how we can expect to demonstrate either way conclusively, but we can falsify the claims that certain events in the world must have supernatural causes, and we do this by showing the natural causes. Evolution, for example, demonstrates that species do not come into existence ex nihilo directly from the hand of God, as was previously thought. It demonstrates that a more complex thing can come from a less complex thing, as opposed to needing a divine architect. I would say that all that we have learned about how consciousness arises in the brain demonstrates that the kind of consciousness we have is very much dependent on the brain (or at least some kind of physical substrate) which constitutes strong evidence against the existence of an immaterial consciousness...though of course it does not disprove it.
So I would say that science can show that certain aspects of nature make certain ideas of God unlikely to be true...unless for you "supernatural" means "capable of defying the laws of logic as well as of nature," in which case God could be literally anything. God could be evil. God could exist only on Wednesdays. And such a god, I would contend, is not worthy of belief much less worship.
-
For those who missed this in JC Miller's post:
The early Christian use of rhythmic movement to experience collective joy and ecstatic states was egalitarian, accessible, and socially bonding, and was disallowed because the direct access to transpersonal experience ran counter to the needs of religious structures to control behavior. What patriarchy was in competition with was a profound, existential and archetypal representation of safety that resonated with and recapitulated the use of coordinated group movement over millions of years of evolutionary history to provide for survival. That is, transpersonal experience courtesy of evolution.
That is the 'religion-as-spirituality Vs. religion-as-control mechanism' dynamic in a nutshell. Print that one out.
-
Response to The Invisible Organist
And, for the record – “No Name Given” was initially an oversight on my part, but I figured I’d better stick with it. Yes, they are all ME. Dreaded Atheist Church-Organist! (If I tell you I’m gay as well, will you completely write me off as a lost cause??? I mean, how many reviled minorities can a single contented person claim membership in??)
Certainly not. I feel sorry for you- that must be one of the most difficult positions for someone to be in. You love to play the organ, which by design exists almost exclusively in churches (or the Wanamaker's here in Philly). Your passion for the organ compel's you to work in a place where they damn your passions for love- that must truly be difficult to endure.
There should not be any Christian who would write you off as a lost cause- they would by definition be ruled by fear rather than by Christ- so do not pay attention to them. The homosexual relationship with the church can at most be one in which you 'agree to disagree'. That of course, being the most ideal balance between the two, not the general reality. A good Christian would be commanded by his faith to both condemn your sin and love you as a neighbor- there is no sin greater than another- save one- and it sure as shit ain't "guys can't get in on with guys". I would not, of course, expect you to be satisfied with this kind of a relationship- and so 'live and let live' is the closest relationship I think there can be- a sort of 'kissing corners' relationship, where you share only a tiny point of ground, but can still support one another.
Or, of course, you can bear the hypocrisy and endure the attempts to 'reform' you, and enjoy the company- it is your choice and not mine.