I'm happy that Obama won, but now that it's over, I'm a little nervous. The fact that he's a liberal still worries me a little. I'm not worried about Obama, but more liberalism in general gaining ground under his victory.
Obama ran an excellent campaign, and he will be a good President. Maybe even a great President. The only thing that bothers me so much about this election is the deep rooted hatred of Bush and conservatives that came up in this election. To be fair, McCain ran a sloppy campaign, and his biggest mistake was probably picking Sarah Palin for a running mate. His concession speech, however, was sincere and heartfelt, and truly reflected his character. He referred to Obama as "my President", and took the blame for losing the campaign. When he said "God Bless America" at the end of his speech, it was the first time I understood what it means. It's not an arrogant statement asking God to bless America more than its neighbors, but just an invitation for God to be a part of what we are... I sincerely believe, that despite our faults, America is the greatest nation on earth, and I hope we can stay that way. I think the reason for that is because we invite God to be a part of it. Let the non-religious say what they will.
I was in Europe when Bush was re-elected. People were shocked. They were sure that Kerry would win. Now they're cheering for Obama, and my only hope is that he's not as liberal as the world thinks he is. Europeans and American Liberals misunderstand the American people. Remember that nearly half of all voters still voted for McCain... Liberals often think that Republicans are only ignorant racist rednecks. Americans are still largely a conservative and religious nation. In eight years, we'll probably see a Republican in the White House again. Eight years after that, probably a Democrat (unless I can weasel my way into the office by then ;0 ).
In closing, I think Bush was a good president. Not the best, but not the worst. I've always supported his policies, and I stand by my belief that he's a sincere, honest, and all around good man, and every decision he made, he did his best. He made some mistakes, but not on the level people think he did... Until Janurary 20, he's still my President.
God Bless America.
Sincerely,
Youngil Ely Loew
Monday, November 10, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
John Stewart, Bill Maher, and God
I heard this guy on the John Stewart Show from Tuesday (9/30/08) talking about religion… His name was Bill Maher. He said some things that just really, personally, pissed me off. To be fair, I agreed with many of his points, like I do with everyone, but overall, he’s an example of what’s wrong with the anti-religious people on the left. Even though I admire John Stewart’s political and comedic genius, it disappoints me to see him have such an anti-religious guest on his show. Of course, I wasn’t surprised. It’s hard to forget Colbert got his jump start into fame with his segment ‘This week in God’ (which was hilarious) on the Daily Show, but it is still disappointing to have someone you admire be so hostile to something you love…
I’d like to grab some points that Bill Maher made and comment on them. You can watch his interview in two parts at http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186755&title=Bill-Maher-Pt.-1 and http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186756&title=Bill-Maher-Pt.-2.
First comment (Para-phrased unless put in quotations): There are two Americas. One is the progressive, European nation that most of us live in or would like to live, but it’s being strangled by this other, stupid red-neck nation that won’t allow it to develop.
Ok, not only is that a very broad and unfair generalization, but it is setting the stage for his later comments that only stupid people believe in religion. There are uneducated and misinformed people in both parties, and it is pure arrogance, in my opinion, to say that your views are better because you are smarter…
Second Comment: If you tell people the tenets of any religion, and people aren’t familiar with it, they’ll think you’re crazy. I was ranting the beliefs of Scientology in the streets of London, and people thought I was a nutter. That’s only because Scientology is a new religion. Christianity is just as crazy, we’re just used to that one. (He then goes on to imitate the conversation between Jesus and God, making comments like God is a single parent, he went down to impregnate Mary to give birth to Jesus, a.k.a Himself, etc.)
Personally, I also think the Christian understanding of Jesus and God’s relationship is a bit illogical, but for someone to attack the most complex and confusing part of a religion and point out it’s logical shortcomings as a basis for declaring that the whole religion is worthless is a little short sighted, in my opinion. It also ignores the most noble and effective parts of that religion. I believe that both Christianity and Scientology (as well as every other religion), provide an incredible service to their followers and to society as a whole. If they also provide a disservice (a debatable point), then it is still outweighed by the benefits any religion provides.
Third Comment (and this is the thing that atheists/strong agnostics say that frustrates me the most): John Stewart was pointing out that religion is comforting, and asking if that doesn’t give it some value. Bill Maher’s response: “Well, its comfort and aid that comes at a great price. Like almost every war in history, suicide bombings, and oppression of women and minorities, and having sex with children…”
The question I always have to ask when people say this is, “So did those things not exist before religion?” This statement is a perfect example of probably the most common logical fallacy: confusing cause and result. Humankind has problems, and if we study the rise and fall of civilizations, it usually is religion that helps lead the way toward progress and reform (again, a debatable point). Especially Christianity. Most hospitals and schools around the world were built by Christian missionaries, especially before the end of WWII and the creation of the U.N., which led to a rise in NGOs and International non-profit organizations.
Were WWI and WWII religious wars? The Japanese had suicide bombers during WWII. Were these religiously motivated? Greeks and Romans had sex with children. They oppressed women and minorities… In fact, it was often religious people that helped liberate women and minorities. Think of Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi. Mother Theresa. Also, for people that actually study the cause of war, it is recognized that most wars in history were fought over scarcity of recourses or national pride. Other than the Crusades, and the 100 Year War in Germany, I’d like some more examples of religiously motivated wars. The Revolutionary War? The Civil War? It’s such a bogus statement. People start wars, and sometimes they use religion to justify them, but religion itself rarely is the cause of war. Rarely… Religion is run by people, and so it is a victim of, and not a source of, evil. Evil comes from the selfishness and ignorance of people.
Comment Four (this is one I agree with – to be fair and balance ;): The Bible was written over 2000 years ago, for people who didn’t know where the sun went at night, or how women get pregnant, or what an atom or a germ was. It was forgivable to make up these myths. But now its 2008, it’s not so forgivable.
I agree with this to the extent that the Bible is outdated and should not be taken literally. It was written for a people who needed symbols and metaphors to understand the world. Imagine trying to explain an atom to someone in the 1st century. People would have thought you were crazy. (just to make a quick side point, what society thinks is crazy is very relative, and therefore is not a basis for what is true or not).
Fifth Comment: I’m not an atheist, because I find atheism to mirror the certainty of religion. What I say is that I don’t know.
Yeah, that is an excellent sentence, but whether he knows or not, it doesn’t stop him from portraying religious people as stupid…
Sixth Comment: “I understand that not having faith is a luxury of having a good life.”
Yeah, so only poor people who’ve suffered are religious… give me a break. I’ve led a very good life, and I’m very religious. There are probably just as many people among the rich as there are among the poor that believe in religion. Another very unfair and common generalization made by anti-religious people…
Anyway, I was annoyed. It really bothers me when people like to attack religion, and make a profession out of it. I know that religious people often believe and do some crazy things, but again, it’s dangerous to create a cause- result relationship out of something that could in fact just be correlation. For example, there are many non-religious people that believe in ‘crazy’ things, like the Zeitgeist followers who believe that international bankers control the world and that 9-11 was an inside job. This group is also anti-religious, so I could claim their bogus beliefs are because they don’t believe in God… but I don’t believe that.
I believe the search for truth has to always be open-minded and respectful. Humility is also important. Even though I think the Zeitgeist people are ‘crazy’ (which is a very relative word), I’ve probably spent over 25 hours watching various videos and researching claims that they’ve made. While doing so, I asked myself, “could this be true?”. My personal answer is “NO”, but I could be wrong, and I accept that. Using all the logic and reason I posses, I believe that religion is valuable and that God exists. This has been confirmed for me through various experiences and intense studying. I also believe that religion overall has made the world a much better place, despite its faults. I think it’s good to question and challenge, but to say that the other side is stupid for believing something is to ignore the value of what they believe and what they are doing. I think that it is good that Zeitgeist people believe what they do, because it forces people to question the way they are living and what is happening around them. I get a little annoyed when they call me blind or brainwashed, but I believe the only way to handle that is to take them point by point thru every claim in Zeitgeist and show them the contradictions, misinformation, and outright lies. If they are willing to take the same amount of time listening to me the way I listened to them, then I believe that we would both be wiser and closer to the truth…
By the way, although I aim to always be patient and open minded, and not to insult people that believe differently, I know I sometimes fail. It’s a goal to aim for, nonetheless.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Youngil Ely Loew
I’d like to grab some points that Bill Maher made and comment on them. You can watch his interview in two parts at http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186755&title=Bill-Maher-Pt.-1 and http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186756&title=Bill-Maher-Pt.-2.
First comment (Para-phrased unless put in quotations): There are two Americas. One is the progressive, European nation that most of us live in or would like to live, but it’s being strangled by this other, stupid red-neck nation that won’t allow it to develop.
Ok, not only is that a very broad and unfair generalization, but it is setting the stage for his later comments that only stupid people believe in religion. There are uneducated and misinformed people in both parties, and it is pure arrogance, in my opinion, to say that your views are better because you are smarter…
Second Comment: If you tell people the tenets of any religion, and people aren’t familiar with it, they’ll think you’re crazy. I was ranting the beliefs of Scientology in the streets of London, and people thought I was a nutter. That’s only because Scientology is a new religion. Christianity is just as crazy, we’re just used to that one. (He then goes on to imitate the conversation between Jesus and God, making comments like God is a single parent, he went down to impregnate Mary to give birth to Jesus, a.k.a Himself, etc.)
Personally, I also think the Christian understanding of Jesus and God’s relationship is a bit illogical, but for someone to attack the most complex and confusing part of a religion and point out it’s logical shortcomings as a basis for declaring that the whole religion is worthless is a little short sighted, in my opinion. It also ignores the most noble and effective parts of that religion. I believe that both Christianity and Scientology (as well as every other religion), provide an incredible service to their followers and to society as a whole. If they also provide a disservice (a debatable point), then it is still outweighed by the benefits any religion provides.
Third Comment (and this is the thing that atheists/strong agnostics say that frustrates me the most): John Stewart was pointing out that religion is comforting, and asking if that doesn’t give it some value. Bill Maher’s response: “Well, its comfort and aid that comes at a great price. Like almost every war in history, suicide bombings, and oppression of women and minorities, and having sex with children…”
The question I always have to ask when people say this is, “So did those things not exist before religion?” This statement is a perfect example of probably the most common logical fallacy: confusing cause and result. Humankind has problems, and if we study the rise and fall of civilizations, it usually is religion that helps lead the way toward progress and reform (again, a debatable point). Especially Christianity. Most hospitals and schools around the world were built by Christian missionaries, especially before the end of WWII and the creation of the U.N., which led to a rise in NGOs and International non-profit organizations.
Were WWI and WWII religious wars? The Japanese had suicide bombers during WWII. Were these religiously motivated? Greeks and Romans had sex with children. They oppressed women and minorities… In fact, it was often religious people that helped liberate women and minorities. Think of Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi. Mother Theresa. Also, for people that actually study the cause of war, it is recognized that most wars in history were fought over scarcity of recourses or national pride. Other than the Crusades, and the 100 Year War in Germany, I’d like some more examples of religiously motivated wars. The Revolutionary War? The Civil War? It’s such a bogus statement. People start wars, and sometimes they use religion to justify them, but religion itself rarely is the cause of war. Rarely… Religion is run by people, and so it is a victim of, and not a source of, evil. Evil comes from the selfishness and ignorance of people.
Comment Four (this is one I agree with – to be fair and balance ;): The Bible was written over 2000 years ago, for people who didn’t know where the sun went at night, or how women get pregnant, or what an atom or a germ was. It was forgivable to make up these myths. But now its 2008, it’s not so forgivable.
I agree with this to the extent that the Bible is outdated and should not be taken literally. It was written for a people who needed symbols and metaphors to understand the world. Imagine trying to explain an atom to someone in the 1st century. People would have thought you were crazy. (just to make a quick side point, what society thinks is crazy is very relative, and therefore is not a basis for what is true or not).
Fifth Comment: I’m not an atheist, because I find atheism to mirror the certainty of religion. What I say is that I don’t know.
Yeah, that is an excellent sentence, but whether he knows or not, it doesn’t stop him from portraying religious people as stupid…
Sixth Comment: “I understand that not having faith is a luxury of having a good life.”
Yeah, so only poor people who’ve suffered are religious… give me a break. I’ve led a very good life, and I’m very religious. There are probably just as many people among the rich as there are among the poor that believe in religion. Another very unfair and common generalization made by anti-religious people…
Anyway, I was annoyed. It really bothers me when people like to attack religion, and make a profession out of it. I know that religious people often believe and do some crazy things, but again, it’s dangerous to create a cause- result relationship out of something that could in fact just be correlation. For example, there are many non-religious people that believe in ‘crazy’ things, like the Zeitgeist followers who believe that international bankers control the world and that 9-11 was an inside job. This group is also anti-religious, so I could claim their bogus beliefs are because they don’t believe in God… but I don’t believe that.
I believe the search for truth has to always be open-minded and respectful. Humility is also important. Even though I think the Zeitgeist people are ‘crazy’ (which is a very relative word), I’ve probably spent over 25 hours watching various videos and researching claims that they’ve made. While doing so, I asked myself, “could this be true?”. My personal answer is “NO”, but I could be wrong, and I accept that. Using all the logic and reason I posses, I believe that religion is valuable and that God exists. This has been confirmed for me through various experiences and intense studying. I also believe that religion overall has made the world a much better place, despite its faults. I think it’s good to question and challenge, but to say that the other side is stupid for believing something is to ignore the value of what they believe and what they are doing. I think that it is good that Zeitgeist people believe what they do, because it forces people to question the way they are living and what is happening around them. I get a little annoyed when they call me blind or brainwashed, but I believe the only way to handle that is to take them point by point thru every claim in Zeitgeist and show them the contradictions, misinformation, and outright lies. If they are willing to take the same amount of time listening to me the way I listened to them, then I believe that we would both be wiser and closer to the truth…
By the way, although I aim to always be patient and open minded, and not to insult people that believe differently, I know I sometimes fail. It’s a goal to aim for, nonetheless.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Youngil Ely Loew
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Vote Obama
So I was doing some research on Presidential candidates last night, and what I found just blew my mind. John McCain has completely embarrassed the Republican Party, completely compromised his principles and has thrown common sense out the window. I'm so ashamed to be a member of the Republican Party. Sarah Palin is the political equivalent of a dumb blonde... there are only about three short videos you need to watch to understand how ridiculous this whole campaign is:
John Stewart catching Fox News with their pants down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQK1al91drs
(this ones just funny, but not as relavent. It has both Stewart and Colbert, and a little of Family Guy :) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCRncVOkS0 )
Here's a clip of Katie Couric ripping Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience. It also shows just how dumb Palin is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
God, that was painful to watch.
Lastly, I found this article very touching and bringing up a very relevant point. Something all conservatives should consider when casting their vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathlyn-and-gay-hendricks/the-obama-relationship-a_b_128896.html
In closing, I want to say I've been reading Obama's book, and the guy is not as liberal as people make him out to be. He's very well educated, was raised on the streets of Indonesia, and quite balanced in his views of the world. He supports the idea of improving small business and strengtheing family values. I think he knows what he's doing, and he's not a push over when it comes to defending America. He also understands that America has to be involved in world affairs, and at times even police the world... something most liberals just can't comprehend. He's not one of those "we can't impose democracy on other people" idiots, because he realizes that given a choice, ALL people want to be invovled in the decision making process. All people want the freedom to be themselves and express themselves. It's human nature. So yeah, I was on the fence before, just because I felt he was a little too liberal for my liking, but McCain has proven himself to be a power hungry bastard. Thank you for your service, but you compromised too many of your principles... and Palin was obviously a purely political choice that was not well thought out.
Sorry, I'm too annoyed and embarassed to say anything else.
Sincerely,
Youngil Ely Loew
John Stewart catching Fox News with their pants down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQK1al91drs
(this ones just funny, but not as relavent. It has both Stewart and Colbert, and a little of Family Guy :) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCRncVOkS0 )
Here's a clip of Katie Couric ripping Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience. It also shows just how dumb Palin is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
God, that was painful to watch.
Lastly, I found this article very touching and bringing up a very relevant point. Something all conservatives should consider when casting their vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathlyn-and-gay-hendricks/the-obama-relationship-a_b_128896.html
In closing, I want to say I've been reading Obama's book, and the guy is not as liberal as people make him out to be. He's very well educated, was raised on the streets of Indonesia, and quite balanced in his views of the world. He supports the idea of improving small business and strengtheing family values. I think he knows what he's doing, and he's not a push over when it comes to defending America. He also understands that America has to be involved in world affairs, and at times even police the world... something most liberals just can't comprehend. He's not one of those "we can't impose democracy on other people" idiots, because he realizes that given a choice, ALL people want to be invovled in the decision making process. All people want the freedom to be themselves and express themselves. It's human nature. So yeah, I was on the fence before, just because I felt he was a little too liberal for my liking, but McCain has proven himself to be a power hungry bastard. Thank you for your service, but you compromised too many of your principles... and Palin was obviously a purely political choice that was not well thought out.
Sorry, I'm too annoyed and embarassed to say anything else.
Sincerely,
Youngil Ely Loew
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Occam's Razor
Well, I'm going to try my hand again in the blogging world.
Reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reason, #7)
“the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument”
“the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought”
Occam's razor- Unreasonable Reason
While engaging in intense arguments with different people about the existence of God, the purpose of religion, and the existence of a spirit world, I’ve often been hit with this ‘law of logic’, which is known as Occam’s Razor (the following excerpt is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor ).
“"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities”
When talking with a friend recently about spiritual phenomena, I pointed out that it bothered me that many atheists, scientists, psychologists, and philosophers (among others) try to explain and invent causes to experiences that they themselves never had. I pointed out that I knew people personally who have had spiritual experiences, and their personal testimonies of what they experience are nearly impossible to discount. They are obviously not crazy, and they obviously are not lying. I find it very unscientific to discount these testimonies off-hand, because much of scientific inquiring is based on personal study and experience. If someone goes into the Amazon jungle, and comes out and explains about the life forms they saw and studied there, people believe them. If they bring back a rare species, maybe a total of 200 scientists actually get the chance to see the new species with their own eyes. The rest believe the personal accounts of those two hundred and the books that they write concerning it. I think spiritual phenomena should be looked at the same way. It is possible to study it in a scientific way, thru personal experience and then the accounts of these experiences.
Anyway, after I expressed my frustration at this arrogant and biased attitude of the sciences towards spiritual phenomena, my friend responded with an Occam’s Razor argument:
“What makes a naturalistic explanation of a phenomenon more rational than a supernatural explanation is the fact that it makes fewer assumptions about the world (and is therefore less likely to be false). A good theory posits as few substances/entities as possible. Practically speaking this makes it easier to test the theory and isolate confounding variables”
Every time I get this response, I kind of stop and ask myself... “What the hell does that mean??”After thinking about it for awhile, I’ve finally decided that I can simplify it into layman’s terms for everyone: “When there are two theories and you don’t know which one is best, pick the one you like the most.” Yes, Occam’s Razor is basically an open license for people of reason to be completely arbitrary in their decision making, a very unreasonable thing to do...
How does one determine how many assumptions a theory has? It’s like that old tootsie roll pop commercial. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? The boy asks the wise old owl this question, and the owl takes a huge bite out of the tootsie roll pop, gives it back, and says “One”. In the same way, how many assumptions does the theory of evolution have compared to the creationist theory? Depends on who’s counting and how they’re counting. Not that I think the world was created in six days, which is a stretch in logic for even the most liberal thinkers, but still, if I believed that the world was created in six days, I could argue that there is only one assumption in that theory: That God exists and He can do whatever the hell he wants. My theory is the simplest, and therefore is the most likely to be true…
Example: a close friend of me and my wife is very spiritually open. She’s proved this to my wife a couple times, but most clearly when she could guess 5 or 6 numbers in a row that my wife was thinking of between one and 100. One time my wife was even unsure of her number, and this friend was saying “87, no wait, 88, 87, make up your mind!” (actual numbers were different). So, I have to ask, does this friend has some weird chemical reactions in her brain that makes her delusional (and capable of reading minds sometimes), but in all other ways fully functional in society, or she actually can see and talk with spiritual beings? Which has more or less assumptions? You decide.
Another example: A close friend was lying in her bed, studying late at night by lamp light, when a dissembled hand floats in saying ‘go to sleep, go to sleep, go to sleep’ and then shuts off the light. A delusion induced by tiredness (vision and sound come to different parts of the brain, so isn’t it weird that both would be affected at the same time)? Or a spiritual vision? Again, you decide.
The fact is, there are countless stories like this, all told by perfectly sane and normal people. Some are more clear and straight forward, like actual conversations and being told information that a person could not know otherwise, and others are vague and could easily be discounted. The point is, rather than studying these phenomena and coming up with a scientifically based conclusion, most people just discount these testimonies using very arbitrary theories and logic because the existence of a spirit world is something that they don’t believe in. It’s a very biased and unscientific approach, which is actually understandable, considering the history of religion and science.
It used to shock me that people who claim to hold reason as the highest virtue could be so unreasonable, but now I think I understand. I think the pursuit of pure reason is one of the most unreasonable things a person can attempt. Why? Because they’re people. Because a part of their existence is emotional. They can’t understand their own existence without including all of the evidence, and some of that evidence is emotional. Therefore in order to come to a truly reasonable understanding of the world, they need to have emotional experiences and include emotion into their calculations. In the end, I think people who are pursuing pure reason are actually doing something else: avoiding the pain of emotions. That seems reasonable to me.
What do you think?
-Youngil Ely Loew
Reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reason, #7)
“the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument”
“the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought”
Occam's razor- Unreasonable Reason
While engaging in intense arguments with different people about the existence of God, the purpose of religion, and the existence of a spirit world, I’ve often been hit with this ‘law of logic’, which is known as Occam’s Razor (the following excerpt is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor ).
“"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities”
When talking with a friend recently about spiritual phenomena, I pointed out that it bothered me that many atheists, scientists, psychologists, and philosophers (among others) try to explain and invent causes to experiences that they themselves never had. I pointed out that I knew people personally who have had spiritual experiences, and their personal testimonies of what they experience are nearly impossible to discount. They are obviously not crazy, and they obviously are not lying. I find it very unscientific to discount these testimonies off-hand, because much of scientific inquiring is based on personal study and experience. If someone goes into the Amazon jungle, and comes out and explains about the life forms they saw and studied there, people believe them. If they bring back a rare species, maybe a total of 200 scientists actually get the chance to see the new species with their own eyes. The rest believe the personal accounts of those two hundred and the books that they write concerning it. I think spiritual phenomena should be looked at the same way. It is possible to study it in a scientific way, thru personal experience and then the accounts of these experiences.
Anyway, after I expressed my frustration at this arrogant and biased attitude of the sciences towards spiritual phenomena, my friend responded with an Occam’s Razor argument:
“What makes a naturalistic explanation of a phenomenon more rational than a supernatural explanation is the fact that it makes fewer assumptions about the world (and is therefore less likely to be false). A good theory posits as few substances/entities as possible. Practically speaking this makes it easier to test the theory and isolate confounding variables”
Every time I get this response, I kind of stop and ask myself... “What the hell does that mean??”After thinking about it for awhile, I’ve finally decided that I can simplify it into layman’s terms for everyone: “When there are two theories and you don’t know which one is best, pick the one you like the most.” Yes, Occam’s Razor is basically an open license for people of reason to be completely arbitrary in their decision making, a very unreasonable thing to do...
How does one determine how many assumptions a theory has? It’s like that old tootsie roll pop commercial. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? The boy asks the wise old owl this question, and the owl takes a huge bite out of the tootsie roll pop, gives it back, and says “One”. In the same way, how many assumptions does the theory of evolution have compared to the creationist theory? Depends on who’s counting and how they’re counting. Not that I think the world was created in six days, which is a stretch in logic for even the most liberal thinkers, but still, if I believed that the world was created in six days, I could argue that there is only one assumption in that theory: That God exists and He can do whatever the hell he wants. My theory is the simplest, and therefore is the most likely to be true…
Example: a close friend of me and my wife is very spiritually open. She’s proved this to my wife a couple times, but most clearly when she could guess 5 or 6 numbers in a row that my wife was thinking of between one and 100. One time my wife was even unsure of her number, and this friend was saying “87, no wait, 88, 87, make up your mind!” (actual numbers were different). So, I have to ask, does this friend has some weird chemical reactions in her brain that makes her delusional (and capable of reading minds sometimes), but in all other ways fully functional in society, or she actually can see and talk with spiritual beings? Which has more or less assumptions? You decide.
Another example: A close friend was lying in her bed, studying late at night by lamp light, when a dissembled hand floats in saying ‘go to sleep, go to sleep, go to sleep’ and then shuts off the light. A delusion induced by tiredness (vision and sound come to different parts of the brain, so isn’t it weird that both would be affected at the same time)? Or a spiritual vision? Again, you decide.
The fact is, there are countless stories like this, all told by perfectly sane and normal people. Some are more clear and straight forward, like actual conversations and being told information that a person could not know otherwise, and others are vague and could easily be discounted. The point is, rather than studying these phenomena and coming up with a scientifically based conclusion, most people just discount these testimonies using very arbitrary theories and logic because the existence of a spirit world is something that they don’t believe in. It’s a very biased and unscientific approach, which is actually understandable, considering the history of religion and science.
It used to shock me that people who claim to hold reason as the highest virtue could be so unreasonable, but now I think I understand. I think the pursuit of pure reason is one of the most unreasonable things a person can attempt. Why? Because they’re people. Because a part of their existence is emotional. They can’t understand their own existence without including all of the evidence, and some of that evidence is emotional. Therefore in order to come to a truly reasonable understanding of the world, they need to have emotional experiences and include emotion into their calculations. In the end, I think people who are pursuing pure reason are actually doing something else: avoiding the pain of emotions. That seems reasonable to me.
What do you think?
-Youngil Ely Loew
Thursday, June 5, 2008
This is to answer some of the questions from my last entry. I am very grateful for your questions, and encourage all readers to ask as many questions as possible.
The questions regarding my last entry were:
Why not just have one morally imperfect god? Why must you have both an omnibenevolent and an omnimaleficent god? Or, why not three gods, each of varying morality? In what way are these two beings God? How can either be supremely anything if its antithesis exists too? Which one created?
The existance of one morally imperfect God is problematic because if he/she is our creator, than whatever he/she would consider moral would be the absolute moral standard of the universe. This would be because he/she would create everything to follow his/her moral code. So it could be that today's world IS the way such a being would want it, except that it is a world WE don't want, so to us, such a god would be an evil god, getting some kind of sick joy out of making us incapable of fulfilliing our desire for what we believe is good. Otherwise, there is some absolute standard of good which all people are striving for, which can be seen in the fact that we're making the effort to discuss these issues. If there is a god, then it is his/her moral standard that we must eventually adopt to be happy and find fulfillment, since he/she determined what will make us happy. If there is a god, then he/she is either evil, since he/she allows evil to exist, or he/she is good and is powerless to stop evil. The only thing that could allow a being powerful enough to create us to be limited is herself/himself. Which is why I mentioned the role of free will in the equation. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide to be good or bad. The reason two gods makes sense is that if there is only a good being actively trying to convince people to be good, then they would. It makes sense that there would be some other force (that is non-material) that would be working against the original one. This second god would not be as powerful as the original good god, because he/she would have to be a result of the creation of the good god. This evil god must have been originally good and then become corrupted, just as people must have been. This second god's power is based on his/her influence over human decisions and not it's cosmic ability. It can compete with the good god because of the good god's own laws allowing for human free will. The good god is more powerful, but because of the universal principles he/she laid down to allow for free will, the good god must play by the rules of the game, which gives the evil god the ability to defy the good god. The reason three or more gods could not exist is because any other being would either lean towards the good god or the bad god, and neither of them could be more powerful than the original good god or the original evil god (who was originally good). They would pick a side...
These views are obviously based on my religious background, Unificationism, but I try to be open minded and love discussing such things.
Thank you for taking the time to read my opinions.
Sincerley,Youngil Ely Loew
The questions regarding my last entry were:
Why not just have one morally imperfect god? Why must you have both an omnibenevolent and an omnimaleficent god? Or, why not three gods, each of varying morality? In what way are these two beings God? How can either be supremely anything if its antithesis exists too? Which one created?
The existance of one morally imperfect God is problematic because if he/she is our creator, than whatever he/she would consider moral would be the absolute moral standard of the universe. This would be because he/she would create everything to follow his/her moral code. So it could be that today's world IS the way such a being would want it, except that it is a world WE don't want, so to us, such a god would be an evil god, getting some kind of sick joy out of making us incapable of fulfilliing our desire for what we believe is good. Otherwise, there is some absolute standard of good which all people are striving for, which can be seen in the fact that we're making the effort to discuss these issues. If there is a god, then it is his/her moral standard that we must eventually adopt to be happy and find fulfillment, since he/she determined what will make us happy. If there is a god, then he/she is either evil, since he/she allows evil to exist, or he/she is good and is powerless to stop evil. The only thing that could allow a being powerful enough to create us to be limited is herself/himself. Which is why I mentioned the role of free will in the equation. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide to be good or bad. The reason two gods makes sense is that if there is only a good being actively trying to convince people to be good, then they would. It makes sense that there would be some other force (that is non-material) that would be working against the original one. This second god would not be as powerful as the original good god, because he/she would have to be a result of the creation of the good god. This evil god must have been originally good and then become corrupted, just as people must have been. This second god's power is based on his/her influence over human decisions and not it's cosmic ability. It can compete with the good god because of the good god's own laws allowing for human free will. The good god is more powerful, but because of the universal principles he/she laid down to allow for free will, the good god must play by the rules of the game, which gives the evil god the ability to defy the good god. The reason three or more gods could not exist is because any other being would either lean towards the good god or the bad god, and neither of them could be more powerful than the original good god or the original evil god (who was originally good). They would pick a side...
These views are obviously based on my religious background, Unificationism, but I try to be open minded and love discussing such things.
Thank you for taking the time to read my opinions.
Sincerley,Youngil Ely Loew
Friday, May 30, 2008
Response to Stephen Law
This blog is in response to a philosopher named Stephen Law:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/intellectual-black-hole.html
You've convinced me Mr. Law. There is an evil God of hate.You arguments are sound, in that you are taking the general arguments of theists, who themselves only have a small grasp of the God they believe in, and applying them equally to an evil God. Just as effectively, I might add. Since it is possible to apply the same agruments equally to both a good and an evil God, your are stating that the argument is illogical, therefore neither a good or an evil God exist. At least, this is my understanding of your argument.
I propose an alternative explanation...Both arguments are true. There exists, simultaneously, an evil and a good God. There are rules dictating what each God is allowed to do (which might fly in the face of traditional views of God as omnipotent. This is obviously not compatible with the idea of a loving God and the mess we see around us. In the same way, an omniscient God is incompatible with free will), rules we can call 'universal principles'. The insane evil we see around us is not a result of the good, kind, and loving God, but the evil, deranged, and hating God. Both god's must also allow for human free will, bringing in the third player, the individual. Each action is a decision by the individual, but influenced by the efforts of both good and evil.
For example: you say "“Ah, but you are taking me far too literally. When I say God is evil, I don’t mean what we normally mean by 'evil' but something far deeper and ineffable, so that his transcendental evilness is really, in some mysterious way, compatible with these things you consider good.” This is a mirror image of a believer's argument that would go something like this "The evil you see in this world is actually good, in that it is part of the divine plan of God, so these evil things are compatible, in some mysterious way, with a kind, loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God." This argument is flawed in both situations, which is why the existance of both gods resolves the problem. The good things are from the good God, the bad things are from the bad God.
Another argument you mention is "So there are good reasons why we struggle to recognize his existence, or even make sense of him." This is true for both gods. I am proposing, however, that the reasons are different that what most people argue. Many Christians think that understanding God is beyond our ability. One reason for this is that most people, Christians and Muslims alike, only have a very basic understanding of God. They don't actually have a first hand experience with God, only second hand experience and what Maslow called 'peak experiences'. They then conclude that the kind of personal relationship they have with real people is impossible with God. I believe they are wrong. I think the reason that we struggle to recognize the existance of both gods is that in order to have the qualities of a god, both gods must be immaterial. In order to survive from generation to generation without deteriorating, they must exist of something non-material, since all material things eventually deteriorate.
Even so, I believe human beings have the ability to experience non-material phenomenon. In other words, it is possible to engage in communication with God in a way that is equal to the kind of communication we have with other people. It just isn't easy...
In fact, I know people personally who have seen and experienced non-material phenomenon. These close friends and family have talked with people who have passed away, seen visions, and have had other such 'spiritual' experiences. All of these people are completely normal and functional in everyday life. It seems almost impossible to me that they are lying or that they are partially insane.
In conclusion, I think it is possible to know God. I just think most people don't. I think a few do. I think these few try to educate the rest of us on how to get to the point where we can also know God. I think this is what Jesus, Muhammad, and other great religous leaders were trying to do. I think people, with their limited knowledge, have often misunderstood these great leader's teachings, and also have misunderstood the nature of God. In so doing, they've also misunderstood the nature of Satan.
I believe in a suffering God. A God who cannot intervene on the suffering of His children because of the free will he granted them. The evil and pain we see around us is not a part of some mysterious plan to save a few of us, but a tragedy that breaks God's heart every single second of every single day. This God does everything within His power, in accordance with His own universal laws, to lead us back towards an ideal society. Satan does everything within his power to stop this. Satan spreads ignorance and confusion, and religions are not immune from this. Which is why religions have constantly had to be reformed throughout history.
Athiests help this process. Their critiques and frustrations help break down the ignorance of the religous community, forcing them to rethink their faith and try something new. Athiesm, however, will never destroy religion.
"By such means, it is possible to construct an impregnable fortress around ones belief system, rendering it utterly immune to any sort of rational criticism." Actually, that is impossible. No one is immune to rational criticism. Some people are just very very resistant to it. Including a lot of atheists I know...
"Occasionally, one of these little bubbles will grow huge, perhaps encompassing an entire civilization (like Islam, or Christianity), before dividing or deflating or popping or being subsumed by another bubble."
This is a funny statement, since neither Christianity nor Islam have really 'divided', 'deflated', 'popped', or have been 'subsumed by another bubble'.
That's my two cents for now.
-Youngil Ely Loew
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/intellectual-black-hole.html
You've convinced me Mr. Law. There is an evil God of hate.You arguments are sound, in that you are taking the general arguments of theists, who themselves only have a small grasp of the God they believe in, and applying them equally to an evil God. Just as effectively, I might add. Since it is possible to apply the same agruments equally to both a good and an evil God, your are stating that the argument is illogical, therefore neither a good or an evil God exist. At least, this is my understanding of your argument.
I propose an alternative explanation...Both arguments are true. There exists, simultaneously, an evil and a good God. There are rules dictating what each God is allowed to do (which might fly in the face of traditional views of God as omnipotent. This is obviously not compatible with the idea of a loving God and the mess we see around us. In the same way, an omniscient God is incompatible with free will), rules we can call 'universal principles'. The insane evil we see around us is not a result of the good, kind, and loving God, but the evil, deranged, and hating God. Both god's must also allow for human free will, bringing in the third player, the individual. Each action is a decision by the individual, but influenced by the efforts of both good and evil.
For example: you say "“Ah, but you are taking me far too literally. When I say God is evil, I don’t mean what we normally mean by 'evil' but something far deeper and ineffable, so that his transcendental evilness is really, in some mysterious way, compatible with these things you consider good.” This is a mirror image of a believer's argument that would go something like this "The evil you see in this world is actually good, in that it is part of the divine plan of God, so these evil things are compatible, in some mysterious way, with a kind, loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God." This argument is flawed in both situations, which is why the existance of both gods resolves the problem. The good things are from the good God, the bad things are from the bad God.
Another argument you mention is "So there are good reasons why we struggle to recognize his existence, or even make sense of him." This is true for both gods. I am proposing, however, that the reasons are different that what most people argue. Many Christians think that understanding God is beyond our ability. One reason for this is that most people, Christians and Muslims alike, only have a very basic understanding of God. They don't actually have a first hand experience with God, only second hand experience and what Maslow called 'peak experiences'. They then conclude that the kind of personal relationship they have with real people is impossible with God. I believe they are wrong. I think the reason that we struggle to recognize the existance of both gods is that in order to have the qualities of a god, both gods must be immaterial. In order to survive from generation to generation without deteriorating, they must exist of something non-material, since all material things eventually deteriorate.
Even so, I believe human beings have the ability to experience non-material phenomenon. In other words, it is possible to engage in communication with God in a way that is equal to the kind of communication we have with other people. It just isn't easy...
In fact, I know people personally who have seen and experienced non-material phenomenon. These close friends and family have talked with people who have passed away, seen visions, and have had other such 'spiritual' experiences. All of these people are completely normal and functional in everyday life. It seems almost impossible to me that they are lying or that they are partially insane.
In conclusion, I think it is possible to know God. I just think most people don't. I think a few do. I think these few try to educate the rest of us on how to get to the point where we can also know God. I think this is what Jesus, Muhammad, and other great religous leaders were trying to do. I think people, with their limited knowledge, have often misunderstood these great leader's teachings, and also have misunderstood the nature of God. In so doing, they've also misunderstood the nature of Satan.
I believe in a suffering God. A God who cannot intervene on the suffering of His children because of the free will he granted them. The evil and pain we see around us is not a part of some mysterious plan to save a few of us, but a tragedy that breaks God's heart every single second of every single day. This God does everything within His power, in accordance with His own universal laws, to lead us back towards an ideal society. Satan does everything within his power to stop this. Satan spreads ignorance and confusion, and religions are not immune from this. Which is why religions have constantly had to be reformed throughout history.
Athiests help this process. Their critiques and frustrations help break down the ignorance of the religous community, forcing them to rethink their faith and try something new. Athiesm, however, will never destroy religion.
"By such means, it is possible to construct an impregnable fortress around ones belief system, rendering it utterly immune to any sort of rational criticism." Actually, that is impossible. No one is immune to rational criticism. Some people are just very very resistant to it. Including a lot of atheists I know...
"Occasionally, one of these little bubbles will grow huge, perhaps encompassing an entire civilization (like Islam, or Christianity), before dividing or deflating or popping or being subsumed by another bubble."
This is a funny statement, since neither Christianity nor Islam have really 'divided', 'deflated', 'popped', or have been 'subsumed by another bubble'.
That's my two cents for now.
-Youngil Ely Loew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)