(You'll have to look it up on YouTube, as I can't post links yet. It's called "Children of a Stupid God".)
...and it really ticked me off.
During the last couple years I've frequented the video sites (YouTube and LiveLeak), and I often come across the religion vs. atheism debate without any representation from the fence-sitters, or, as a teacher once called himself, an atheist with a parachute. Of course these are pretty unflattering terms, conveying the idea that we're like undecided voters, too stupid to figure out something for ourselves. I don't see agnosticism that way. Intelligence, when dealing with the unknown, has no bearing. Instead, it's a matter of wisdom (or lack thereof). Is a person WISE enough to realize they don't even have a fraction of the answers, or a fraction of the right questions, for that matter, and see "I don't know" as the most liberating idea of all, because it plants your feet firmly in the ground, enabling you to judge without any bias what seems reasonable and what seems like unadulterated fiction.
Whenever I start talking to people in the God vs. No God debate, I always chose the atheists because I think --- in these matters, at least --- they're going to be more open-minded and intelligent about things than your typical Bible-thumper whose only agenda (I would fear) is to convert me to whatever religious sect they belong to. Wow, I couldn't have been more wrong. Atheists, I discovered, are as closed-minded and arrogant as the worst kinds of holy-rollers you're likely to find. And I say arrogant because I thoroughly believe that's what it is when you say matter-of-factly that YOU KNOW whether something exists in the universe or doesn't. Sometimes you'll catch an atheist slipping up and throwing an "I don't know" around, here or there, and you wonder why they don't just take that extra little step and adopt it as their ideology: the ideology of wise, blissful, liberating ignorance, devoid of all pretense and fiction; in short, the ONLY molecule of truth that could ever come out of this ridiculous debate.
I don't know. I don't know. The words ring so true, but we so rarely hear them.
So it occurs to me that people are people, and whether they want to believe in God or believe in nothing is mere semantics: deep down, most of us are rude, opinionated and so steadfast in our own belief systems that ANYONE who tries to shake our foundations is in for a real tongue lashing. And what a shame that is, too, because IMO, the only thing we should be after is the truth.
I put a lot of faith in science. Or, I should say, I've put a lot of my hopes into it. Science, if done properly, doesn't judge or opine. It looks for evidence, it tests, it repeats, it submits for peer review. As a non-scientist, I have the dubious luxury of watching modern biology, cosmology, quantum physics, and then coming up with my own half-baked ideas about what it could all mean. As long as I plant my feet firmly in that soil of ignorance, realizing my answers may be quite wrong and that gaining better understanding goes hand-in-hand with greater scientific understanding, I know I'm at least not fooling myself.
A case in point: the movie What the Bleep Do We Know. When I first watched it, I slapped myself upside the head and shouted voila!, they have all the answers! Of course! They've explained quantum physics in such a way that a Higher Power is now proven beyond all doubt! As the days passed and I began to look deeper into some of their claims, I realized so much of that movie was based on hearsay, guesses, shoddy science, new age hoodoo and outright lies. So I threw it out. I was left with a few good questions that the movie brought up --- questions I'll research on my own --- but no answers, as the great charlatan J.Z. Knight might have us believe. It was my fascination in linking science with spirituality that gave me an interest in their subject matter, and my steadfast agnosticism which grounded me firmly enough to toss it all out. I really pitty the people who don't search for answers because they're so sure there's nothing to be found, and the people who accept whatever pop-religion comes out this week or next week because something inside them is so empty that they gullibly cling to whoever claims to have "the answer", even if it's a self-proclaimed 35,000 year old warrior-prophet from Atlantis.
It just rubs me the wrong way when people are so sure of themselves about issues that are intrinsically impossible to prove or disprove. All this bickering you see on the video sites between atheists and religious believers is like so many dogs barking at each other from across the fence. In fact, the dog barking probably has more substance, is probably more real and true, because at least it deals with territorial rights or something concrete. But when a religious person is using a holy text (written by men) to prove the existence of God, and then an atheist is using that same text (at least in the case of Condell, as seen in the video noted above) to admonish the religious person and talk about how stupid and ridiculous the idea of God really is, it's nothing more than mindless chatter, the squawking of imbeciles who don't have enough common sense to simply admit THEY DON'T FRIGGIN KNOW!
Why do people hate that phrase so much? Why are people so full of themselves, or lacking in such confidence, that they cringe at the idea of being unsure about something? You know what I think the problem is in today's world? Too many opinions spewed, not enough questions asked.
Atheism is as much a fiction as fundamental religious belief (or so we must conclude, until evidence is revealed one way or another!) Someone might say I seem confused or non-commital. How wrong! There's not an ounce of confusion in me, and I'm completely commited to these ideas. It's the person who tells you with absolutely authority and no doubt whatsoever that an Invisible Spaghetti Monster exists, or doesn't exist, who's confused. Both are extremes, and both may be equally and hopelessly wanting for the truth. The agnostic considers all possibilities, and although he may be no closer to that truth, he's much better prepared to RECOGNIZE it in the unlikely event that it's ever revealed (in life, at least).
But it's not so dull, agnosticism, nor is it a blank slate. We know, first and foremost, that "we don't know," but we also know we have a powerful tool in our imaginations. Which isn't to say we need to concoct silly myths about "what might be". Imagination need go no further than "I imagine the truth is far more fantastic than anyone has considered." Imagination conjures such wonderful tidbits as "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Does anyone remember the episode of Star Trek: TNG where the crew stumbled upon one of their many unwinable situations, in this case some ultra-powerful being who was going to kill all of them to see how humanity deals with death? In his quarters, Picard is talking to someone (I forget who), and answering the question about whether he believes in God, heaven, etc. This is a horrible paraphrase, but he says something to the effect of "For centuries people looked to the gods for their answers. Then we gave that all up and looked toward science. I imagine the truth is far more complex and fascinating than either of them."
And sure, to go even that far requires a little faith, which comes dangerously close to religion (without necessarily crossing the line). But have your faith, I say (or your hope, as I do), and have your science, and keep it all grounded in the knowledge that you know very little, you'll probably never know a lot, that science can bring us a little closer and that reason and imagination (or "reasonable imagination) can bring us closer still. Combine all of that with a preparedness to lose all your fallacies in one fell swoop, should the database of human knowledge drastically change (perhaps with some juicy new information from a certain Doomsday Device in Switzerland?), and you'll be well-rounded, wise, better-prepared to see the miniscule crumbs of real truth if and when they arrive (either in favor of, or against, God/the afterlife/etc.), and, as I've said, liberated. Most of all you'll maintain an open mind and be very un-like the obnoxious %#&% bullies you hear on both sides of the debate, spewing their know-it-all, painfully know-nothing opinions about that which is impossible to prove or disprove.
...and it really ticked me off.
During the last couple years I've frequented the video sites (YouTube and LiveLeak), and I often come across the religion vs. atheism debate without any representation from the fence-sitters, or, as a teacher once called himself, an atheist with a parachute. Of course these are pretty unflattering terms, conveying the idea that we're like undecided voters, too stupid to figure out something for ourselves. I don't see agnosticism that way. Intelligence, when dealing with the unknown, has no bearing. Instead, it's a matter of wisdom (or lack thereof). Is a person WISE enough to realize they don't even have a fraction of the answers, or a fraction of the right questions, for that matter, and see "I don't know" as the most liberating idea of all, because it plants your feet firmly in the ground, enabling you to judge without any bias what seems reasonable and what seems like unadulterated fiction.
Whenever I start talking to people in the God vs. No God debate, I always chose the atheists because I think --- in these matters, at least --- they're going to be more open-minded and intelligent about things than your typical Bible-thumper whose only agenda (I would fear) is to convert me to whatever religious sect they belong to. Wow, I couldn't have been more wrong. Atheists, I discovered, are as closed-minded and arrogant as the worst kinds of holy-rollers you're likely to find. And I say arrogant because I thoroughly believe that's what it is when you say matter-of-factly that YOU KNOW whether something exists in the universe or doesn't. Sometimes you'll catch an atheist slipping up and throwing an "I don't know" around, here or there, and you wonder why they don't just take that extra little step and adopt it as their ideology: the ideology of wise, blissful, liberating ignorance, devoid of all pretense and fiction; in short, the ONLY molecule of truth that could ever come out of this ridiculous debate.
I don't know. I don't know. The words ring so true, but we so rarely hear them.
So it occurs to me that people are people, and whether they want to believe in God or believe in nothing is mere semantics: deep down, most of us are rude, opinionated and so steadfast in our own belief systems that ANYONE who tries to shake our foundations is in for a real tongue lashing. And what a shame that is, too, because IMO, the only thing we should be after is the truth.
I put a lot of faith in science. Or, I should say, I've put a lot of my hopes into it. Science, if done properly, doesn't judge or opine. It looks for evidence, it tests, it repeats, it submits for peer review. As a non-scientist, I have the dubious luxury of watching modern biology, cosmology, quantum physics, and then coming up with my own half-baked ideas about what it could all mean. As long as I plant my feet firmly in that soil of ignorance, realizing my answers may be quite wrong and that gaining better understanding goes hand-in-hand with greater scientific understanding, I know I'm at least not fooling myself.
A case in point: the movie What the Bleep Do We Know. When I first watched it, I slapped myself upside the head and shouted voila!, they have all the answers! Of course! They've explained quantum physics in such a way that a Higher Power is now proven beyond all doubt! As the days passed and I began to look deeper into some of their claims, I realized so much of that movie was based on hearsay, guesses, shoddy science, new age hoodoo and outright lies. So I threw it out. I was left with a few good questions that the movie brought up --- questions I'll research on my own --- but no answers, as the great charlatan J.Z. Knight might have us believe. It was my fascination in linking science with spirituality that gave me an interest in their subject matter, and my steadfast agnosticism which grounded me firmly enough to toss it all out. I really pitty the people who don't search for answers because they're so sure there's nothing to be found, and the people who accept whatever pop-religion comes out this week or next week because something inside them is so empty that they gullibly cling to whoever claims to have "the answer", even if it's a self-proclaimed 35,000 year old warrior-prophet from Atlantis.
It just rubs me the wrong way when people are so sure of themselves about issues that are intrinsically impossible to prove or disprove. All this bickering you see on the video sites between atheists and religious believers is like so many dogs barking at each other from across the fence. In fact, the dog barking probably has more substance, is probably more real and true, because at least it deals with territorial rights or something concrete. But when a religious person is using a holy text (written by men) to prove the existence of God, and then an atheist is using that same text (at least in the case of Condell, as seen in the video noted above) to admonish the religious person and talk about how stupid and ridiculous the idea of God really is, it's nothing more than mindless chatter, the squawking of imbeciles who don't have enough common sense to simply admit THEY DON'T FRIGGIN KNOW!
Why do people hate that phrase so much? Why are people so full of themselves, or lacking in such confidence, that they cringe at the idea of being unsure about something? You know what I think the problem is in today's world? Too many opinions spewed, not enough questions asked.
Atheism is as much a fiction as fundamental religious belief (or so we must conclude, until evidence is revealed one way or another!) Someone might say I seem confused or non-commital. How wrong! There's not an ounce of confusion in me, and I'm completely commited to these ideas. It's the person who tells you with absolutely authority and no doubt whatsoever that an Invisible Spaghetti Monster exists, or doesn't exist, who's confused. Both are extremes, and both may be equally and hopelessly wanting for the truth. The agnostic considers all possibilities, and although he may be no closer to that truth, he's much better prepared to RECOGNIZE it in the unlikely event that it's ever revealed (in life, at least).
But it's not so dull, agnosticism, nor is it a blank slate. We know, first and foremost, that "we don't know," but we also know we have a powerful tool in our imaginations. Which isn't to say we need to concoct silly myths about "what might be". Imagination need go no further than "I imagine the truth is far more fantastic than anyone has considered." Imagination conjures such wonderful tidbits as "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Does anyone remember the episode of Star Trek: TNG where the crew stumbled upon one of their many unwinable situations, in this case some ultra-powerful being who was going to kill all of them to see how humanity deals with death? In his quarters, Picard is talking to someone (I forget who), and answering the question about whether he believes in God, heaven, etc. This is a horrible paraphrase, but he says something to the effect of "For centuries people looked to the gods for their answers. Then we gave that all up and looked toward science. I imagine the truth is far more complex and fascinating than either of them."
And sure, to go even that far requires a little faith, which comes dangerously close to religion (without necessarily crossing the line). But have your faith, I say (or your hope, as I do), and have your science, and keep it all grounded in the knowledge that you know very little, you'll probably never know a lot, that science can bring us a little closer and that reason and imagination (or "reasonable imagination) can bring us closer still. Combine all of that with a preparedness to lose all your fallacies in one fell swoop, should the database of human knowledge drastically change (perhaps with some juicy new information from a certain Doomsday Device in Switzerland?), and you'll be well-rounded, wise, better-prepared to see the miniscule crumbs of real truth if and when they arrive (either in favor of, or against, God/the afterlife/etc.), and, as I've said, liberated. Most of all you'll maintain an open mind and be very un-like the obnoxious %#&% bullies you hear on both sides of the debate, spewing their know-it-all, painfully know-nothing opinions about that which is impossible to prove or disprove.
