A Must Read!

[leo9]

Interesting reading, for believers and non-believers alike.

This was deeply disappointing. After your buildup I expected some seriously reasoned philosophical and rational presentation of the materialist case, but what I found was a boilerplate anti-sermon that took too many paragraphs to say:
a) You can't prove a thing
b) I don't believe it
c) Liar liar pants on fire.

Which could have been replicated, mutatis mutandis, in any Muslim attack on Christianity, Christian attack on Islam, either against atheism, et cetera. One expects that level of discourse from fundies, but rationalists are expected to be more, well, rational.

His conclusion is, in my opinion, both moving and undeniable. (Emphasis mine.)

We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help. Believing in a magical savior won't save you. You face reality bravely, or you hide in fear — and that won't help you either.

The essential principle, though, the one that the religious cannot abide, is that you can face it honestly. And there's at least a little dignity in that.

I've noticed before that true believers seem unable to apply normal standards of criticism to their own school's literature, believing that a sufficiently vehement statement of their beliefs is in itself such a compelling and persuasive argument that it must convert any reasonable person. Jehovah's Witnesses routinely ask me if I've read the Bible, and when I say yes, they look baffled, as if the question on the tip of their tongues is "Then why aren't you converted?" I've read Dawkins, as well, who says the same things more eloquently and at much greater length than your referent, and I'm not converted by him either.

Moving? Well, yes, if you mean "using dramatic phrasing". "Undeniable"? Well, no, you may have noticed that several people have already denied it. But then, "undeniable" is usually a weasel word meaning "if you deny it you must be stupid".

He's entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine, which differs from his. But he isn't entitled to assert that his opinion is fact and mine is lies without offering evidence, which - by the nature of the question - neither of us have.

Alan Watts observed that there has been a trend in 20th Century philosophy towards facing grim realities, to the point where it has become a one-up game to face grimmer realities than your rivals; in the same way that some Protestant sects seem to vie with each other to make the certainty of damnation even more inescapable. But they're still only presenting their opinions as facts. I don't believe I'm inevitably damned, and I don't believe I stand naked before the universe - well, actually, I do, but not in the bleak sense he intends by that image. When I stand naked before someone who loves me, there's nothing bleak about it at all!

When people demand evidence for spirituality I'm frequently reminded of the radical Behaviourists who assert, as a matter of fact, that consciousness does not exist: you may imagine that you're a self-aware mind, but it's just your conditioned reflexes talking. And the great strength of their position, like yours, is that nobody can prove them wrong: their materialist theory accounts for all the evidence - except the evidence of our own senses. We all know they are wrong, but our evidence is purely subjective!

As with the mind, so with the spirit. You can quite satisfactorily demonstrate that material science can account for everything I see as spiritual and divine: I cannot measure the beauty of the world with a photometer, or show you a photograph of the Goddess when She came to me, or produce a recording of Her unspoken words that changed my life. I know your explanation is as incomplete as the Behaviourists', but I can't show you a scrap of objective evidence. Which is why I don't call anyone a liar; I just wish they would be as accomodating of my opinions, and not tell me that I'm weak-minded or cowardly or dishonest for not feeling the way they feel.