|
|
 | | From: | bejarry at mail.com | | Subject: | Why people believing in same God are killing each other. ? | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:02:43 -0600 |
|
|
 | Bush says "i work for God".
Ben Laden says "i work for God".
If they believe the same.
Why they want to kill each other ?
I know i'm supid,
I don't work for God.
I work for me.
But if anyone smarter than me, involved with
that metaphysic question can explain me.
He would change my life.
Thanks.
|
|
| | From: | Pete | | Subject: | Re: Why people believing in same God are killing each other. ? | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:02:47 -0600 |
|
|
| bejarry@mail.com wrote:
> Bush says "i work for God".
> Ben Laden says "i work for God".
>
> If they believe the same.
> Why they want to kill each other ?
>
> I know i'm supid,
> I don't work for God.
> I work for me.
>
> But if anyone smarter than me, involved with
> that metaphysic question can explain me.
>
> He would change my life.
> Thanks.
What most people consider "religion" is actually a function of the
social instinct. The social instinct is the preprogrammed animal urge
to form and propagate social groups. If you've seen any documentary
about social animals such as wolves, gorillas, chimpanzees and etc.
then you've seen this instinct at work. We as social animals also
possess this instinct. This instinct compels us to form and establish
standards and boundaries for social groups. It compels us to enforce
these standards. It compels us to expand our societies. Everything
within the bounds defined by the society is good. Everything outside
the bounds defined by the society is evil. Foreign societies are
therefore evil.
The church's function is to establish social standards and enforce
them. This is the reason for such things as Inquisitions and witch
burnings. This is also why religion is the leading cause of war
throughout history. Foreign nations are by definition evil so therefore
their land and resources should be conquered and used for the
betterment of the native "good" society. As Pope Urban II said before
the start of the First Crusade, "Kill them all, let God sort them out."
There are also good aspects to the instinctual part of religion. It
manipulates the social instinct within the members of society so that
they conform and don't question authority. In truth most people
function more stably when they know their place in society. It is part
of being a social animal that we work best as part of a larger machine.
The other aspect of religion is a function of the intellect. This
aspect is represented by the Gnostic tradition in Christianity. At the
beginning of Christianity there were two traditions, the Church of Rome
and Gnostims. Rome advocated salvation through faith, blind obedience.
Gnostism advocated salvation through knowledge, independent spiritual
development. According to Gnostics God could be understood by studying
the world he created and philosophical contemplation. Science and
philosophy. This of course attracted and developed individuals of
independence and intelligence. Society consider these people
troublemakers since they question the standards and boundaries of
society and advocate change. This is of course is why the Byzantine
Empire chose the Roman Church over Gnostism as the new state religion.
After which all followers of Gnostism were massacred.
>From that time forward the West is ruled by the religion of instinct.
Not until the time of the Enlightenment when European philosophers
separated science and philosophy from dogma is democracy possible.
Monarchy is based on absolute authority ordained by God. By separating
religion from government rule by consent of the people is possible. The
founding fathers used this new philosophy to help establish the US.
Unfortunately, the religion of instinct is rearing its head again in
the US. Through the manipulation of fear after 9/11 a President is
using faith to build power. He projects the image of the alpha male of
the primal troupe. Strength and aggression as illusion of security. A
nation that for so long has been led by reason and compassion is
falling under the pall of fear and instinct.
Peter
|
|
| | From: | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | Subject: | Re: Why people believing in same God are killing each other. ? | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:42:22 -0600 |
|
|
| Maybe a part of the answer you seek lays in the following:
1. Essay on why do I say religion (as opposed to faith in the existence
of God) should be discouraged?
1.1---The pernicious tendencies of religion and the religion
dividend---
Beyond the history of religion as a pernicious force (e.g.
inquisitions, holy wars, etc.), and beyond its continuing ability to
divide (e.g. President Bush, "God is on our side." versus President
Lincoln, "I hope we are on God's side."), religion exacts a tax on
the development of our civilization that can be measured in lives lost
due to wasted effort. How much time, money and effort has gone into
filling the coffers of the Jimmy Swaggerts, the popes, and other
religious leaders? Could not the money for building new churches
instead be donated to cure cancer? Science does work. Childhood
leukemias are now highly (above 90%) curable, whereas just 50 years ago
they were nearly always fatal. Or how about putting some of that wasted
money into education for better schools and higher paid teachers? There
are likely thousands of worthy causes struggling for cash that is
otherwise wasted on religion. Now, I do realize 'some' nominal amount
of church money does go into cancer research and other good causes, by
what fraction of it? Half? I doubt it. So cut out the middle man and
send 100% of the cash to the good causes. Then instead of wasting time
at church functions, people could put time into their communities. Yes.
Some nominal amount of church time is spent on improving communities.
But what fraction? Half. I doubt it. Cut out the middle man, and while
you're cutting out the middle man, cut out the hypocrisy as well. Why
do good members of faith X, Y or Z do their good deeds? Out of the
goodness of their own hearts, or for the Holy reward of life after
death for Christians and a harem for suicide bombers? The religious do
good to save their own skins and the skins of those they care about.
2. What is wrong with morality based on religion?
2.1---NO DOUBT there is trouble with religion---
This, NO DOUBT, is what religion is predicated on. No doubt equals
faith and conversely. Having NO DOUBT is the innate trouble of most
religious doctrine. That is, religion, by its own construct, is
innately pernicious, because only under a moral philosophy of NO DOUBT
can entire hordes of religiously motivated people throughout the ages,
by reason of their NO DOUBT faith, become (Teutonic) Nazis, KKK
members, al Qaeda members, witch burners, lynchers, homophobes,
misogynists, child molesters, and other numerous types of nefarious
-obes, -ists and -ers in order to raze entire civilizations, pillage,
plunder, murder, maim, destroy, burn books, imprison scholars,
discriminate, rape, butcher, segregate, and slowly eviscerate other
peoples. (I'm certain I missed a couple of good ones.) And these
religiously motivated people committed these crimes and atrocities
against humanity without a doubt in their minds for they were following
the will of their God, NO DOUBT.
2.2---Does lack of religion imply degeneracy?---
If there is no religion, no faith in God, then what? Can there be no
morality as Immanuel Kant would insist? Why does religion have to
equate to morality? How many millions of atheists are there out there
following the same basic morals of the faithful? Don't kill, steal,
cheat, etc., help others, etc., these morals need not have anything to
do with religion. These morals, which try to hem our wanton natures,
make good sense if one wants to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Does
the lack of religion make the enforcement of such morals impossible?
Ask the millions of atheists.
3. Can there be alternative, less dangerous moralities?
3.1---Morality based on the scientific method is less arrogant and thus
less dangerous---
The scientific method is based on doubt up to reproducibility. Cold
fusion ala Fleshman and Ponds turned out to be bullshit. It could not
be reproduced in other labs. But to follow a scientific based morality
is more than this. It is to doubt everything within context. Newton's
law of (scalar) gravity works well within its context--no extreme,
complex gravity fields. Experiment (the orbit of Mercury with its
exposure to a stronger part of the sun's gravity field) indicated there
was something not completely correct with Newtonian gravity. Einstein's
general theory of relativity took care of that, and we know of no
experimental violations of this theory. Yet we doubt Einstein's theory
is complete. We expect that someday, with sufficient technology, the
experiment will come that shows cracks in Einstein's general
relativity. This innate doubt of the scientific method, should, if we
are good "scientists", make us humble.
In a world where people shunned NO DOUBT religious faith, and instead
searched for demonstrable, defendable, repeatable facts both
scientifically and logically, it seems likely there would be less risk
of holy war and other such crimes. These people would categorize
scientific observations and theories according to their applicability,
testability, utility, and probability over other competing models. They
would realize there can be no ultimate theory of truth, just models
with certain ranges of utility. They would, hopefully, be decent people
in the conventional sense of not stealing, cheating, killing, etc., and
would, recognizing that humans also have wanton tendencies, bind
themselves to secular laws designed to prevent crime and corruption for
the better good of civilization.
4. Do we have to believe in God?
4.1---Can't prove existence or non-existence of God---must have
faith---
Immanuel Kant proved that we humans can't prove the existence of God.
Still, he thought faith (if not proof) of God's existence made sense.
He used a design type argument. If a watch needs an intelligent watch
maker, then our complex world too, it seems, needs an intelligent
creator. He also thought that lack of faith would make it impossible
for civilization to arise--we'd all be killing each other off like
godless savages, like the millions of today's atheists do all the time.
Kant did not consider the possibility that we humans inhabit one of
infinitely many universes, with this one allowing for the spontaneous
evolution of life from a primordial soup of chemicals. Amino acids,
which can be found in meteors, when mixed up in a simulated primitive
Earth environment form polypeptide chains after all. In this case,
infinite universes, we don't need an intelligent creator. This is not
to say, however, that God cannot exist. One can no more prove his
existence than his non-existence, but of this more will come down
below.
4.2---Occam's razor---it's not a close shave.
In its simplest form, Occam's razor states that explanations should
never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are
offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable.
I would hope that the people of the hypothetical, a-religious world
would prefer, using Occam's razor, to think of their existence as
having no explanation, and of having no special purpose other than what
they made of their own existence while they lived. They would be
godless, and they would, hopefully, be driven to help each other out,
not for eternal life (in a harem), but out of the goodness of their own
hearts. At least, being more realistic, these people would help each
other out to help themselves econometrically thru secular laws.
4.3---But what about salvation? Tough--when you die to die. Until we
figure out how to cure aging and disease, and perhaps transform
ourselves into more advanced types of indefinitely long lived beings,
we die, and our lives will have had no meaning other than quality of
our children we raised and what we contributed to the better good of
humanity while we lived.
4.4---The alternative to believing we are nothing special via Occam's
razor, is to believe we are something special in the eyes of some
higher being, and this requires throwing logic out the window. If the
higher being is simply a more scientifically and technologically
developed being (or beings), then this is the least of the illogical
alternatives to believing we are nothing special. Hey, humanity is
BloGorg's 1st grade biology lab experiment. Maybe this is why vast
portions of humanity's history has and continues to suck. If we chose
to have faith in a perfect, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent God,
then we have real problems!
Can an omnipotent god make a burrito so hot even He can't eat it? But
seriously, in Judeo-Christian-Muslim type religions we are asked to
believe that God, who knew an eternity before creating us exactly what
would happen after he created us, namely, that we would screw things
up, will punish the wicked and reward the good. Given his omniscience,
I say the wicked were condemned an eternity before they ever saw the
light of day--this falls under predetermination. I say the supposedly
perfect creator is the screw up. How dare he punish (typically by
roasting the wicked in hell) a single human being, and demand from the
rest of us that we worship Him lest we suffer the same fate as the
wicked? Doesn't the buck stop with HIM? If so, then he is the perfect
masochist. How am I supposed to reconcile a perfect creator with an
imperfect system that is predetermined by His omniscience? And why
would a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being need the worship
of lowly humans? To satisfy an infinitely weak ego? In fact, a perfect,
omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being is a dead lump of nothing that
would have zero motivation for doing anything. Create, or do
anything--but what for? He knows the outcome, hence He would have zero
motivation. Someone, countering this line, once asked me, why should I
procreate? You know what the kid will do he stated, e.g., breath, drink
water, learn to read, etc. Because I am not perfect, eternal,
omnipotent nor omniscient. I don't know whether my kid will become a
mass murderer or land on Mars. His/her world will constantly change.
Science will reveal whole new domains for exploration. Lacking
omniscience allows for the possibility, if not the guarantee of
motivation.
I know that some of you who read these arguments for dropping God will
cite the "father analogy" when I will point out the misery of the human
condition. When you were a kid, they will say to me, and your father
denied you ice cream as a punishment, he was doing it for your own
good, to protect you, to teach a lesson, etc. As a child, you could not
have understood his logic, and you probably thought he was a bad guy.
He is our Father and we are His children. My father was not a perfect,
omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being. God, supposedly, is. This is a
fundamental distinction people never seem to realize. And, counter to
those who, using the "father analogy", claim we are too pea-brained to
understand God, I claim that we humans are sufficiently intelligent to
question God along the lines in the paragraph above. If you are
perfect, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, then why X, Y and Z? I'm
not arrogantly claiming to understand this kind of God's mastery of
science and mathematics. I'm asking basic questions and pointing out
self-evident contradictions. Finally, if I'm too pea-brained to ask God
questions, wouldn't I be too pea-brained to worship Him? I wouldn't
have the sufficient brain power to worship HIM properly.
Another defensive tact on behalf of religion goes along the lines,
without bad you can't have good, that's why we have bad in God's world,
so that we learn and appreciate things. What good comes of genocide?
What lesson did the annihilated peoples, the children, mothers and
fathers, learn? What benefit is conferred when a five year old dies of
cancer? God had to create a child to teach his parents a lesson? To pay
for an oncologist's shiny sports car? Or God, the omnipotent, as some
say, needed the kid's help in heaven? Really. The variations of the
illogical contradictions of an omnipotent, eternal, perfect, omniscient
god of love are countless.
5. Why religion and faith in God should die
5.1---Religion should die because of bullets 2 thru 3, and faith in God
should die because of bullet number 4.
6. Does killing religion and God save humanity?
6.1---An a-religious humanity following a doubt-based morality is not
guaranteed survival. A big-ass comet may squash us like the bugs we
are. We, because we are innately competitive, and have difficulties
with basic morality (e.g., we kill, steal, cheat) may yet treat
ourselves to nuclear winter or death by advanced viral weapons. Yet,
given that the scientific method based morality can be equated with
DOUBT and that religious practice can be equated with NO DOUBT, it
seems reasonable to believe an a-religious world would be a bit more
stable than a religious world. A herd mentality requires a threshold
number of initiators, if there are less initiators there is a reduced
likelihood to "herd."
7. Is science Lily-white?
7.1---Since I seem to be advocating scientific morality over religious
morality, I'm sure people will point out the dark ways of science. Are
there and have there been evil scientists? Yes. Are there and have
there been arrogant scientists? Yes. Have (and do) some scientists get
tempted to play God? Yes. Are there and have there been evil priests?
Yes. Are there and have there been arrogant popes? Yes. Have (and do)
some people of religious faith get tempted to play God? Yes. These
points, picking out individuals from a population, are not THE POINT.
What is more dangerous? A crowd of religious faithful driven by NO
DOUBT, or a crowd of a-religious people driven by DOUBT? Which will
"herd" first and bash your brains in for being a heathen/non-heathen?
Scientists do not make the scientific method any more than religious
leaders make up religion practice.
Does science bring us evil? A-bombs? H-bombs? Hey, when was the last
time we had a full-blown world war? And how many American and Japanese
lives were saved by using Fat Man and Little Boy? Or was President
Truman an agent of Satan set out to deliver the handiwork of demonic
scientists? Fifty-nine A-bomb scientists signed a petition to President
Truman asking him to instead demonstrate the bomb's power to the
Japanese on a remote island.
Can science destroy the world? Maybe some nasty bug will escape from
some lab and we'll have to kiss our collective asses good-bye. However
we, humanity, can also do the job quite nicely as well. Do we
non-scientists drive economical cars? NO WAY! We want our bigger LAND
ROVING SUV penises. We waste and pollute. Good-bye rainforests hello
farting hamburgers! We don't push for more reasonable uses or our
resources, until, that is, it hits us in our pocket books. If we're
going to make it, it's going to take all of us. See my article on "Some
thoughts concerning law...in a post-Darwinian world of conflict, crime,
social inequality,... at:
http://www.convergingtechnologies.org/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=39
8. Improving our chances.
8.1---I say that if we want to improve the lot of humanity, religion
must die. Some can point to all the humanitarian good religion has done
and continues to do. Though I can't prove it, I suspect the net harm
done in the name of religion far outweighs the net good it has done. A
body count of saved versus killed off in the name of God could be one
metric among others. But how would you count those who died of cancer
because decades worth of charity and time has gone to building opulent
churches, popes, etc. over basic research?
8.2---But modern religion is truly enlightened and tolerant.
Some might argue that modern religions are now more enlightened. Which
religions? Those practiced in Bosnia? Africa? Iraq? Or by our own
homophobic, segregating, discrediting president? Did President Bush
conclude the American constitution needs to be modified via an
intellectual path, or out of religious conviction, tantamount to NO
DOUBT? I saw him claim on TV that the base of great civilizations have
been the union of man and woman. America's government is modeled after
Greek and Roman states. Does President Bush not know that those toga
wearing peoples had no problem with homouality? Does President Bush
not know that around 10% of humanity is genetically predisposed to
homouality? No. He has NO (God given) DOUBT that homouals, as
"aberrant", do not deserve the same legal rights as heterouals.
Religion, even today in an "enlightened" western power, is just as vile
as it ever was, and still preaching holy war. Didn't President Bush
state it is America's duty to spread freedom, which is God's gift to
humanity?
9. Putting logic aside, can religion ever be expected to die.
9.1---Religion will die? Eventually. Though, should humanity survive to
evolve into post-corporeal beings, I do believe religion will die, I
don't expect it to do so in the near future. Not until humanity--should
it survive--has transformed itself into beings with indefinitely long
lives will the need for religion die. So long as we live but a handful
of years, the need for religion and faith in God will continue to
exist. Moreover, there really could be a "god gene" (which we will drop
when we drop our carbon-based bodies). According to Dean H. Hamer, the
"god gene" could be a real, built-in engine driving Homo sapiens
sapiens religiosity. See the book review below summarizing Hamer's
ideas.
10. A call for atheist preaching.
In the mean time, given that religion will be with us for some time to
come, we godless people must accept and tolerate those religious people
among us as they accept and tolerate us--and I'm not being funny.
Throughout large chunks of the world, atheists and the faithful live
their lives in peace. Moreover, just as religious people have a need
and a duty to save heathens so that all may enjoy paradise, we godless
people too must do our best to "unsave" people so that we may all enjoy
a more real (Occam's razor based) reality in a more stable world. We
have to preach unGod on unSaving logically, as I have tried to do in
this post.
PS--Wouldn't it be nice if religion came with a warning sign listing
off all its
completely illogical foundations and inconsistencies, and its innate
tendency to do harm thanks to NO DOUBT morals. People--before we evolve
into more advanced beings--could then decide to believe or not on a
more informed basis despite their potential "god genes." Science, with
its scientific method, does this by definition.
Alex Alaniz
HAMER'S BOOK REVIEW
REVIEW: From Publishers Weekly
This book's title is more rhetorical effect than factual accuracy:
Hamer, who discovered the controversial " gene" in the 1990s,
reports that he has now found a gene that may correlate in some people
with their level of spirituality-not with belief in a being we would
call God or with the performance of traditional religious practices,
but with what psychiatrist Robert Cloninger called
"self-transcendence." This trait is a capacity to feel at one with all
life and with the universe as a whole, and Cloninger measured it with
personality testing. The so-called "God gene" is a particular location
in the human genome known as VMAT2, which affects the brain's
neurotransmitters. Hamer admits that the gene probably accounts for
less than 1% of the total variance in human spirituality. The book's
later chapters become still more speculative, as Hamer, a molecular
biologist at the National Cancer Institute, considers the scanty
evidence of health benefits of spirituality, which would make faith an
adaptive evolutionary trait. Hamer emphasizes that the existence of a
"God gene" would neither prove nor disprove the reality of God.
However, this gracefully written book may intrigue people of all
faiths-or no faith-who wonder about the ultimate connection between
science and religion.
Copyright (c) Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved.
Alex Alaniz, PhD
|
|
|
