I am unconvinced by any claims that anyone has ever made about the existence of a divine force operating in the universe. I don't accept the basic premise that the bible is a historic document. I don't see indication that this book is anything other than a work of fiction and fables, mixed with bits of real history, based on 2000 year old Middle Eastern mythologies. The bible is a collection of propaganda pieces (hagiographies of old testament patriarchs and the new testament savior) aimed at promoting the religion, not an objective history. Basically, it is "sales literature" which attempts to convince its readers of something that is otherwise not believable.
I don't accept that the miracles described in the bible ever happened or happen now, that people rise from the dead, that they ascend into heaven or descend into hell, that a god and/or angels are watching us, that supernatural causes exist, that proper rules for human conduct come from a god, that the body is inhabited by a "soul", or that consciousness is anything more than an emergent process generated by the brain/mind/body. I don't accept a source of knowledge based on apocryphal writings by mostly anonymous authors or what you perceive to be a god talking to you. Nor do I consider a warm feeling in your soul caused by possession by the holy spirit to be a proper epistemological source. I don't buy into the convoluted logic that Christian academics use to "prove" that a god created the universe, or created the laws of nature. These arguments literally date from medieval times, and have barely been updated as the discipline of Metaphysics has matured (through Kant, Hume, Russell, Carnap, Ladyman, and others). They are just scholastic sophistry clothed in the vernacular of logic, intended to overwhelm the audience with intellectual-sounding double-speak and complex jargon, but loaded with unclear and ambiguous premises and antique conceptions of how the universe works.
The historical abuse of reason and contempt for evidence shown by past Christian philosophers convinces me that your warped use of logic is just another tool to win converts to a belief in what is ultimately a fairy tale. Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments, Paley's designed universe, Aquinas's five proofs of god, and countless others have been thoroughly refuted, or at least shown to be incoherent, as far as I am concerned.
I base what I know on what I see happening in the real world. I don't require a deductive proof of my worldview or of yours, and frankly, I don't think such proofs are even possible. I am an empiricist, and I move through the world as do all living creatures, following the evidence of my senses, relying on instinct, and using what intellect and emotion I can bring to bear. In nature, animals hunt where the game goes, the hunted hide where they can't be found, plants turn their leaves to the sun and send their roots towards the water. Humans, like all of living creatures, are part of nature. We all follow the basic life functions of seeking what sustains us and avoiding what does not. We use our talents, our gifts, and our strengths to make our lives. Instead of teeth and claws, we have big brains and civilization.
In spite of centuries of systematic and rigorous searching, no uncontroversial evidence for a god or gods has been found. The lack of existence of a god or gods has been confirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse and stubbornly contrary to continue to deny it. Everywhere we look, there is no god, and no need for a god to explain what we see. The evidence for god is of the same low quality as that for the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, and cold fusion - a few people claim to have seen these, but when asked to produce them, they are unable to. If there were good evidence, there would be no need for faith. And where faith is needed, it is principally due to a lack of good evidence.
I can see no compelling or persuasive reason to believe the fantasy put forward by religions. Given the alternative explanations for my experiences in the world, inference to the best explanation, and all available evidence supporting that inference, leads me to conclude that we live in a naturalistic universe that does not include supernatural beings controlling events behind the scenes. Until evidence to the contrary is produced, and only if the overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalism is overturned, I will continue to disbelieve in supernatural causes like gods. Produce a god for me, and you will get my attention.
No reasonable person today should believe 2nd / 3rd / 4th handed testimony coming from a lone part of the ancient world as we find in ancient manuscripts written by pre-scientific biased and superstitious people who doctored up and forged many of these texts, who cared more about swaying public opinion and promoting their new religion than accurately representing history. If I were asked to commit to "Yes" or "No" on the god question, to take a stand, without hestitation I say "No". I don't need to be saved, because I'm not lost. I am doing very well without a religion.
I agree with David Hume who wrote:
If we take in our hand any volume ... of divinity or ...metaphysics ... let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment