My Thoughts on Religion and Mysticism in General

I make absolutely no bones about criticizing the worst aspects of religion or indeed, any other spuriously held beliefs.

I have personally been an atheist for as long as I can remember, well at least from the age that I grasped the meaning of the word. Indeed, even as a young child I never bought into the God concept. I guess I would clarify my position thus: I do not believe in God for the same reason, that I do not believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy (sorry children). One cannot produce evidence for Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies and of course sane people don't attempt to. The reason one cannot, is because they are arbitrary man-made speculations that have no context within reality. There is a difference between an arbitrary statement and a false one. Even the false can be falsified through context, for example: 2 + 2=5 is falsifiable, because one can frame it within context. The same that applies to arbitrary mind spun speculations like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies, applies equally to the God concept. It is an arbitrary speculation, because it is simply a subjective mind-spun idea and is devoid of context.

Let me give a simple example of context, as it relates to objectively definable entities within reality. Try if you will to point to an entity in the World called species - of course you cannot. The fact that one cannot point to an entity within reality called species, does not falsify objective context of the concept species. One needs to realize that species is a higher level concept and belongs in a hierarchy of man-invented labels, that help us identify categories. So, one cannot point directly to an entity called species, but one can identify an animal, that belongs to the category of a particular species such as a mammal, one still cannot point to an entity called mammal, but from mammal one can point to a dog called Spot. This hierarchical string of man-invented contextual labels, which we use to categorize through the process of language, helps us store information in an organized way in our brains. You will note that the above chain of hierarchical identifications, from species to mammal to a dog called spot, is what verifies the objective nature of the original concept in the hierarchy - re: species.

Now, here is the main point, what one absolutely cannot do with the concept of God, ghosts gremlins, fairies Santa Claus et al, is to identify a conceptual objective hierarchy of context, that allows one to string a context of conceptual identifications, in the form of category labels, that would allow one to for example identify the God concept as objectively definable, with reference to reality, it cannot be done.

The reason one cannot identify the God concept, within objective context, is because it is an arbitrary man-invented speculation, that is subjectively arrived at and not objectively arrived at within context of something axiomatically knowable.

Now, individuals do of course have different definitions of God. There is God in the Einsteinian sense, which he used simply as a metaphor and shorthand to personify the universal forces as a totality. There is also Spinoza's God, which he simply referred to as nature. I would have no problem with someone labeling me as a philosophical Spinozian in the context just described.

The other kind of God of course, is that of the major monotheism's. These are the kind of gods that I call arbitrary and man-made. These are the gods that individuals believe in, not based on evidence, but simply because they are believed on faith and passed down through tradition.

What applies to God applies to all forms of mysticism one can think of; from mind-reading, Tarot Card reading, UFO abduction, Crystal Healing, Water Divining, Telekinesis, Ghosts, spiritual healing, dream analysis, in fact I could go on and on with an ever expanding list. What all these have in common, is that they all rely on faith and are believed without a shred of evidence in their favor.

So, am I being a kill joy, to all the mystics out there. Well maybe. But the fact is that I write these articles because I think it matters. There are a lot of charlatans in the World who prey on the feeble minded, who sometimes out of desperation, look towards a mystic for help. Not all mystics are in it for the money, but many are, and they will happily rip off, the next 'mug-punter'.

What I find particularly disturbing is the inculcation with mysticism, of a child's mind. The child mind is desperately and courageously attempting to grow its mind and integrate aspect of reality. Religious mysticism in particular, is poisonous to the child mind. What is particularly vile, is the inculcation of the child mind with the concept of Hell.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Photo-Eraser Software
o Stop deleted photos being recovered from your memory card

The Intellectual Dishonesty of Agnosticism

As an atheist, I find the agnostics position to be the flimsiest of all positions. While I am of course in total opposition to the theistic position, at least the theist has the courage of his or her convictions, to decide one way or the other. The agnostic reminds me of a political liberal in politics, who is never quite sure on anyone issue and spends much of the time 'fence-sitting'.

The intellectual agnostics, that is the academics, are the worst of all and can be extremely exasperating. Listening to them in debate or reading them in print, they spend much of their time in apology for the worst elements of religion, but they will rarely push it as far as condemnation.

While claiming not to be religious themselves, they make claims that we should however keep religion going for the good of society. They claim that they can live without it, but the "intellectually unwashed" general public cannot: A classic example of this thinking came from the Spanish-American biologist and philosopher Francisco Ayala, at the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference. The same position was further promulgated at the same conference by Melvin J. Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology, Neuroscience, and Behavioral Biology at Emory University.

The theistic position, though I believe it to be untenable in the presence of reason, is at least a position based on a one or the other choice. Agnostics on the other hand, though claiming to have made a choice, have really copped out of having to make any choice whatsoever.

The atheist has decided based on probability, that the God concept is improbable. That improbability is based on the same reasoning, that most of us do not believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. They are simply mind-spun speculations and are disconnected from any evidence that could begin to even lead to probability.

The theist on the other hand (and here I am referring to monotheism in particular), believes in God not based on probability, but simply because they have faith and it's 'supported' by a long history of tradition.

But what of the agnostic. On what basis have they even proposed that the God concept should be at least considered a possibility, however remote that possibility is. Well, it is not a position based on faith, if agnostics could be convinced based on faith, then they wouldn't need the 'crutch' of agnosticism. On the other hand how can they come to a conclusion of holding God up, in the realm of maybe, however small that maybe is, if there is no evidence to support that position.

Agnosticism then, seems to be a none decision, it is really intellectual weakness and dare I say cowardice. It is a position based on an inability to make a choice one way or another. Now when I say cowardice, I am really talking about that of the 'intellectual elite', the one's who push the agnostic position at the expense of reason and indeed, often in defense of religious extremism. Not necessarily openly, but it is implicit in the very protection of the agnostic position. Of course I am not saying that agnostic intellectuals support religious extremism directly or even deliberately, but what I am saying, is that the agnostic position does often give shelter to the more extreme position and it particularly does; when these agnostics refuse to condemn the extreme violence perpetuated in the name of religion.

When one asks a simple question, one comes out with a startling answer: What two groups are most openly condemning of religious extremism? ...it is most often atheists followed by religious moderates, the ones for the most part who are apologetic in the name of religion, are the agnostics and they are most often the one's that refuse to condemn religious extremism. Their basic argument seems to be that it is offensive to criticize someone else's religious belief. This is the very cover that is indirectly supportive of extremism and helps it 'tick-along'. There are of course religious moderate apologists too.

There are those, outside of the intellectual boundary of the 'elite'. The average person who simply considers himself or herself agnostic, for no other reason than not having given it much thought. These individuals, are usually the most likely to be converted to religion or become atheists. Richard Dawkins has made the point in his book: 'The God Delusion', that he is unlikely to convince, what he calls "dyed in the wool faith heads'.

What is particularly frustrating about the 'intellectual elite' that wish to keep religion 'ticking-over', is that in doing so they are simply saying that humanity cannot live without religion. It is better to be a 'woolly headed' believing theist or a 'middle-of-the-road' agnostic, anything is better than an 'out-of-the-closet' atheist.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Hide IE Software
o Hide all your private Windows instantly, with a single keystroke!

Victor J. Stenger and the Failed Hypothesis

I based the ideas in this article, on the book written by the physicist Victor J. Stenger, 'God the Failed Hypothesis'. The book is subtitled 'How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist'. This is also a modification of a debated thread within an article on this blog entitled: "Atheism or Religion?"

What you cannot do is prove 'God doesn't exist' as an axiomatic certainty. But what Stenger does and I believe he is the first scientist to do it, he comprehensively breaks down every theistic claim for God and shows why it is a failed hypothesis, using the scientific method, based on probability. So, even if one claimed nothing for atheism, not requiring it to show, rational and probabilistic decisions, this in itself is false... it suggests, that someone who loses their religion, comes at that position without any rational decisions, it is simply done on a whim?

Atheism is not simply a belief that there is not a God... That suggests that an atheist simply believes there is no God, end of argument and cannot put forth a rational argument to why they don't believe. If that were true, one could not take the Richard Dawkins position (I think he originally borrowed this analogy from someone else), which I do here and which is based on probability, that is: 'I take the God concept, to be as likely as the tooth fairy' ...I take this position, because God, like the Tooth Fairy, are both arbitrary speculations, even the false can be falsified through context, such as 2 + 2=5... This is exactly what one cannot do with an arbitrary speculation, because there is no context within reality, by which to falsify it, how could there be, it's a supernatural claim. So you have to fall back on probability.

And as for the often made claim, that one does not need tradition, or religion to believe in God, the point is that most people do. Those that simply believe in a God in the Spinozian sense, it appears what Spinoza means by God, however, is simply nature. Well, I have no qualms with that claim. Those are not the individuals, who tend to feel the need to bully others, through religious dogma. But even here, there is sometimes a problem... Intelligent Design advocates will often use this argument, to attempt to strengthen their position. This is exactly what Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute does.

Of course the argument for all encompassing God, doesn't answer anything either. It is an anti-intellectual proposition, because one end up in an infinite regress, of who created the creator and so on. The best one can do, is say: 'I believe in an all encompassing God ', end of conversation, what has one proved, nothing. Of course I believe in Spinoza's God too, if one simply means nature.

Of course, the statement that statistical probability is not necessarily proof, well, this may be correct. But unlike the belief in God, the atheist position is not dogmatic. If someone presented evidence for God, most atheists (I would hope) would be open to it, how many theists on the other hand, would read Stenger's book with an open mind? Now following on from this: because the God concept lies in the same arbitrary conceptual category as tooth fairies, that is enough on its own, not only to dismiss it as improbable, but most likely impossible. Note, I do not say false. I take the same position as Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine fame, I do not buy into the God concept, because evidence for God is so weak... Indeed, it is so weak that I go beyond agnostic; to strong atheism. But being open minded to evidence, if a theist can present good evidence (none ever has), then I of course, would have to accept it.

Note: I use the definition of Spinoza's God in this article, as it is often misrepresented by theists, as a force beyond nature, that is all encompassing... But in reality, Spinoza's God is nothing more than nature itself. Spinoza is often misrepresented as an agnostic because of this error, in fact with this correct definition of Spinoza, one could best call him an atheist and not an agnostic.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Hide Folders Pro
o Make your private Windows folders invisible, with the click of a button!

Atheism or Religion?

The claim that neither religion or atheism is right, is on its surface, a fair pronouncement, that somehow you can weigh one logically against the other and each is equally preferable. But when you dig a bit, you realize it is a hollow claim. It is a claim that presupposes an equal footing, between religion and atheism. Therefore, one cannot disprove the religious position and thus, one has to hold just as much faith that there is no God; as a theist holds that there is. Let us 'dig' in, to see why the claim is a poor one.

When an atheist says there is no God, it is based on probability and that probability is arrived at, based on the improbability of the claim. This simply means, it is improbable based on the simple fact, that there is no evidence to lead to probability. On the other hand, when a religious person says they believe in God, it is not a belief based on probability, rather, is is a belief built on faith and tradition.

Thus, we arrive at two different methods of knowledge. The religious position that holds the God concept as true, is a belief based purely on faith and tradition, whereas, the atheist position against the concept of God, is held as a belief grounded in improbability.

One can say as an atheist, there is no evidence to back up the religious proposition and therefore, there is no reason to hold it up as probable, until such evidence can be presented. A theist on the other hand, cannot say, 'there is no evidence against the possibility of God, therefore God is a probable concept'.

For a theist to say, there is no evidence against the concept of God, is really no different, than that of a mystic, who believes in the tooth fairy and saying: 'one has no evidence against the possibility of tooth fairies, therefore, they should be held in the realm of the probable'.

The very point is, that the concept of God lies within the same category as tooth fairies, hobgoblins, gremlins, ghosts, vampires - et al, none of these arbitrary mind-spun concepts can be disproved or indeed proved, that is because one cannot prove or disprove a negative. What one can do however, is offer a base of probability and simply say, unless you can present any evidence, then your claim is simply an arbitrary speculation and remains in the category of improbable.

Indeed, because the God concept lies in the same arbitrary conceptual category as tooth fairies, that is enough on its own, not only to dismiss it as improbable, but most likely impossible.

What makes the God concept an arbitrary concept, not to be taken seriously as a probable event, is the fact that it is a supernatural speculation. Supernatural means 'above nature'. This alone means it is unprovable by the laws of nature, because to prove it, one would have to do so, through some supernatural means. One would have to suspend all know laws of physics, to grasp 'a straw' that would bring the God concept into the realm of the probable. The fact that it's a supernatural speculation, is enough on its own to dismiss it as nonsense.

There is another point here too, and it is one that theists are liable to forget to mention. The burden of proof in any honest claim; or an attempt at a claim of probability, is that, the burden of proof is with the one making the claim. So, if someone makes a claim that God exists, then the burden of proof is their's. Unless such evidence can be presented, then an atheist has every right, to hold the God concept up, to be as likely as tooth fairies and hobgoblins.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* The Perfect Keylogger
o Log keystrokes, take screenshots and monitor computer use, automatically!