The Boondock Saint

Adventures in Europe : Day 1

2007-08-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

First, I'd like to start off with a disclaimer. If you have an inability to focus on huge chunks of text for any extended period of time, then I warn you in advance that this is likely to be one of those marathon reads. I've tried to break up, and delete, parts of my journal entries while on the trip, but depending on my mood I may include details which may not seem relevant to you. They are, however, part of what made the trip fun for me, and so if you have any problems, just skip over it.

Note: The acronym SK refers to Sophie & Kelvin, my erstwhile traveling partners.

On to the journal..

Day 1

We arrived in Berlin in the evening, at Tegel airport. Contrary to what I had expected of Germany, Immigration was extremely slow and somewhat poorly designed, causing a massive pileup behind us (thankfully we were one of the first few out of the plane). First time I've ever seen an immigration checkpoint literally right next to the luggage belts. A minor incident also occurred ,with an Indian family wanting to jump the queue as their transit flight was leaving shortly, but a Middle Eastern man was unwilling to let them through. It took a Caucasian man to berate him before he finally acquiesced. Multiculturalism FTW!

When we left the airport, we were rather lost, the German transport system of ticketing being totally alien to us. How it works, as we found out, was that Berlin is divided into 3 zones, A B and C, radiating outwards from the centre, zone A. It works similarly in London and possibly in other parts of Europe. Anyway, since zones A and B cover most of Berlin, the most commonly bought ticket is the AB ticket. As far as I know, an unlimited number of trips can be made with one ticket, on all forms of transport (U-bahn: underground train, S-bahn: aboveground train, and monorail, and bus I think), but its validity expires after two hours. The tickets once bought, can be validated at anytime at validating machines. There are no gantries whatsoever at train stations, so cheating is extraordinarily easy. One only has to watch out for conductors, who actually wear plainclothes, although the risk of running into one is fairly low. It's a pretty expensive price to pay to get caught though, since the fine is a hefty 40 euros.

In any case, a friendly stranger explained to us how it worked, and although we didn't know it at that point, he would join us all the way to our destination and was extraordinarily helpful. For posterity, I'll record his name: Vitor, a Portuguese railway signaller who worked in Germany and was going to Poland the next day. A Benfica fan, too, even though he lived just a short distance away from Lisbon.

Friedrichstrasse is a major station/street, and finding our way to the hostel (Baxpax hostel) was a breeze. The hostel, in hindsight, was simply fantastic. I mean, walking into the reception area alone feels like walking into a cosy little hotel, with its excellent decor, bar, and softly lit interior. Over the course of the stay, I noticed that reception was manned by a few regulars, all of them young. I suspect that they are students working there as part of a summer job. Anyway. The room were allocated was a joy to behold, with a private bathroom, and extremely comfortable beds. After spending some time planning the next day's itinerary, to a man (and woman), we hit the sack gratefully.

No photos on this day.

A critique of Pascal's Wager

2007-01-09T03:00:00.000-08:00

I think that even though this is an argument which has been quite obviously demolished many times, it still is quite necessary to include a critique of it, simply because so many people still adhere to this failed argument.

Here we go.

Pascal's Wager basically operates along this line of logic:
- If you believe in God, and he exists, you gain an infinite amount of benefit.
- If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing.
- If you don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing.
- If you dno't believe in God, and he does exist, you suffer infinitely.

Clearly, most theists would focus on the first and last line as the crux of the argument. They would argue that since believing in God can only result no loss, only infinite benefit, why would you not believe? Especially since by not believing in God, the best outcome one can hope for is to lose nothing, with the worst outcome being eternal suffering. On the surface, it might seem to be a fairly decent argument. However, closer examination would reveal that there is in fact plenty wrong with this argument.

Abrahamic religion - Centric
Quite clearly, from the very ideas of eternal heaven and eternal hell present in the argument, one can clearly see that the argument carries with it the assumption that Christianity (or if one wants to be generous, Abrahamic religions) are the only possible correct ones. After all, if the behaviour of God were any different than the one laid out in the original argument, the whole Wager would fall apart. The power of the wager lies in the concept of eternal punishment and eternal bliss. Take those out of the equation, and you'd find that the argument suddenly sounds especially poor. This is exactly what would happen if we were to remove the Abrahamic religions, and replace the central idea of God in the Wager with the idea of God from another religion. If we were to, for example, assume the Shinto faith of the Japanese people to be true, then this is what the Wager would end up as:

- If you believe in God, and he exists, you gain nothing.
- If you don't believe in God, and he exists, you lose nothing.

Hardly an argument anymore, because whether you believe in God is entirely irrelevant to your eventual benefit. Thus, we find that the Wager makes the assumption that only the Abrahamic religions can be true, an assumption for which there is basically no justification, and which can be attributed to the time and period during which Blaise Pascal proposed his Wager.

False assumption that there is no loss
I quote the second line of the argument: ' If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing.' This, of course, is false. Belief in God tends to require you to place all kinds of limitations on your life. Just take for instance the rules you are expected to adhere to by being a theist. Even the most moderate theist would have some limitations placed on his life by religion. Muslims cannot marry a non-Muslim without suffering from their family's scorn and derision, unless the other partner converts to Islam. And this is not even counting the fact that if God doesn't exist, huge sums of money have been lost in paying tribute to something which does not exist. Can you imagine how much the good the money (which could easily amount to the billions) could have done if it had been put to use elsewhere?

The statement that there is no loss even if God does not exist is blatantly false, because it only assumes no loss after death. It fails to take into account the potentially huge loss that occurs/occurred in each person's life as a result of a misplaced, unnecessary belief.

Idolatry!
One key ingredient missing from the Wager which theists love to put forward so much is related to the matter of idolatry. Somehow, they also seem to forget that even if I were to accept the initial premises of the Wager, I'm faced with an even bigger problem (and risk) than when I started.

Which god do I pick now? There are so many potential gods out there, so how on earth am I supposed to tell which one is the right one? Given that I find the evidence for the existence for each of them lacking, there is really not much reason for me to pick one over the other. Thing is though, since I started off with the presumption that I agreed with the Wager, I have to make a decision. And this is where the problem lies. If I make a wrong decision, I'm quite obviously screwed. Because I'm committing idolatry by worshipping a false God. If a God in fact exists, and I didn't pick him, and he happens to be the vindictive sort (kind of like the one found in the Bible and Qu'ran), then picking the wrong God is probably even worse than simply not believing in any God. Because unlike atheism where you simply do not believe, idolatry is a constant insult to the one true God (assuming he exists). It can be expressed as such: Atheism is neutral in the sense that it doesn't choose between Gods, and doesn't single out and hate other Gods, but choosing the wrong religion more or less means that you believe all other Gods are necessarily false. You've thrown your hat into the ring, so to speak, and chosen sides. In that sense, choosing a religion is already taking up arms against all the other religions out there in terms of believing what is right and true.

And as I've explained, this could quite easily be construed as being worse than mere disbelief.

Belief is no longer real
This is probably the simplest rebuttal one can use against the Wager, because it is so at odds with the fundamental belief that lies behind the Wager. For purposes of simplicity, let's assume that the God at the centre of the Wager (as Pascal intended) is an omnimax one. Do theists actually think that he will not be able to see through the facade of believing just to be safe? I find this extremely contradictory, because the entire premise of the Wager lies on God being omnimax, yet the advertising which theists promote to atheists often takes the form of 'it's better to be safe than sorry', which basically assumes that one can outsmart God. I would think that anyone who uses this line doesn't believe that God is omniscient, which basically means that the Wager more or less crumbles.

It must be noted, however, that to discuss the Wager requires that the existence of God be a question that is up for debate. If one were to assume that the existence of God is a given, than the Wager would be in fact airtight. If God were known to exist, then there would be no need for a wager at all. Of course, in an argument, if someone were to actually assume from the outset that God exists, then the entire wager commits the fallacy of begging the question, and there would be no point debating whatsoever.

Thanks for reading.

Backpacking pictures from Japan!

2006-11-07T15:43:00.000-08:00

http://benisonp.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php

We have moved!

2006-08-30T06:31:00.000-07:00

To any OSCians, or whoever else may still be reading this graveyard of a blog, I'd like to inform you that I've moved all my musings to www.atheisttoolbox.com .

Set up by 3 people located around the world, hopefully one day it can be a good resource for reliable information and a centre for atheistic discussion. Enjoy your stay there, and feel free to post your thoughts. New members are always appreciated, even if you aren't an atheist.

Would religion be as popular if there were no promise of heaven?

2006-04-01T19:01:00.000-08:00

Just think. Imagine if at the end of your lifetime, when Death takes your hand in hers, you go to meet your maker. And he tells you "If the 10,000 years before thy death did not bother thee, neither shall the 10,000 years after thy death.", and simply vanished you into nothingness.

I have no doubt that religion (I use this term loosely, since not all religions promise an afterlife) would be far less widely practised than it currently is. The only thing that distinguishes religion (benefits wise), from any other social construct, is its promise of the afterlife. Humans seem to have an innate fear of death and the unknown, and religion allays this fear by dealing with both issues at once. It removes the fear of death by promising something even better afterwards, and by knowing what comes after, there is no longer the fear of the unknown. One of the best marketing lines in history.

What else does religion have to offer, really? Social togetherness? Join a salsa club. Doing good works? Join World Vision or the Red Cross. There is virtually nothing religion has to offer, apart from the afterlife, that cannot be easily replaced by some other secular social construct. Churches and religions may market themselves differently, appealing to a young person's natural desire to be part of a group, but the fundamental issue behind religion, the only key idea it promotes, is the afterlife. Everything done on this Earth is tailored for the afterlife. Do good, and you get rewarded. Religion, despite all its talk about sacrifice and good deeds, primarily appeals to a person's sense of self-interest. Nothing more, nothing less.

In a sense, one might argue that most theists are in it for their own selfish interest. If there weren't a promise of Heaven, what incentive is there to worship God? To subjugate yourself to a deity who is completely unwilling to reward you?

Another interesting question: Would you be willing to give up salvation if it meant that 10 other people could be saved?

Does logic apply to God..? Part 2

2006-03-06T22:36:00.000-08:00

A friend posted the following as a supplement to the post before this, regarding logic not applying to God.

"I think most people simply do not understand what logic is. They immagine it to be some esoteric, unnecesary thing that the layman need not worry about.
You made the statement "The thought process of looking at something, and then linking it to something else, is based in logic.", I would take this further and say that the very fact that you can look at something and recognise that it is a thing automatically implies logic, these are the simple axioms from which we derive logic.
Something to which logic does not apply, we wouldn't be able to have a concept of, we wouldn't be able to speak about it or even hypothesize it's existence. The mere fact that theists can say "God exists" requires the truth of logic with regard to every part of the statement, particularly the subject. It is so disshonest to holf that God is not subject to logic because to even hold this statement you jave to hold that the statement is logical, and for the statement to be logical it has to have a subject that can be deal with through logic.

You are right, when you say that if God is not subject to logic then any conversation about it becomes completely irrelevant, but I do not think we have to take it this far, the theist has already admitted that he considers God to be subject to logic, by admitting that he considers God at all. The human mind can't compute non-logical concepts, as hard as I try I can't even begin to think of a thing which is not itself, it's just not possible for the human mind to deal with concepts which may or may not be themselves."

Logic and God..?

2006-03-06T22:34:00.000-08:00

I realise that the previous two posts might be challenged on the grounds that 'God is beyond logic'. This post will address that potential rebuttal.

There are a few problems with using the 'God is beyond logic' line. If God is indeed beyond logic, then no doubt, any logical contradictions would not apply. No disproof could ever be found, in any circumstance. I'll get more into this later.

It is a double-edged sword for a theist to use such a line. Certainly, all possibility of criticism is removed, but so is all possibility of positive evidence. If indeed that were the case, then there could be no positive proof of God, too. Forget Intelligent Design, forget any of the holy books, forget ANY form of evidence of God. Everything is based in logic, evidence included. The thought process of looking at something, and then linking it to something else, is based in logic. Once the famous line is invoked, then all this becomes irrelevant. Then religion boils down to 100% faith, with absolutely NO reason whatsoever to justify the belief.

The alternative, is to subject God to the laws of logic, to ensure that the current system of 'evidence' of God is relevant. However, such a move would effectively ensure that theists would be forced to accept a much reduced notion of God. For example: If God is subject to the laws of logic, is he then truly omnipotent? If he is subject to logical contradiction, then many logical criticisms can arise, such as the critique of omnipotence and omniscience co-existing, among others..

Not to mention, who defines the concept of God? Humans. Who awards the attributes of God, to God? Humans. If I wanted to ensure that an idea I thought of could never be disproven, what better way to ensure it by defining it from the outset as 'supernatural', and 'beyond our understanding'?
It's funny how some theists can claim that God is so beyond human understanding, yet are able to rigorously defend his actions as if they understood his thoughts, and are also able to accurately know his attributes..Would the same reverence be given to Santa Claus, if I were to say that he was a supernatural being beyond our understanding?

The problem of definition, and self-defeating concepts

2006-02-02T06:07:00.000-08:00

1. Omnipotence
Omnipotence is a self defeating concept. While the specifics of the definition maybe vary slightly, a common phrase that occurs, in reference to several dictionaries, is "all-powerful'.

The idea of 'all-powerful', the crux of the omnipotence concept, is self-defeating. If something is all powerful, then it encompasses everything, including the logically impossible and the fallacious, and the contradictory. An all-powerful God, would then, be able to, for example, create a square circle. Illogical? Yes. Applied to God, it means that there are no limits whatsoever. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God simply cannot have any sort of limitations, else it would be in direct contradiction to his given attributes.

A more likely explanation would be that God is NOT all-powerful, but powerful within logical limits. In other words, he would still be subject to limitations, but within those limitations, he can do anything.

2. The definition of the God concept
When confronted with a logical refutation of the nature of God, or of the God concept itself, or maybe simply uncomfortable questions, some theists tend to resort to the cop-out answer of 'well, you can't analyse God using mere human logic. He's supernatural.'

I question then, isn't defining something as beyond logical understanding, winning by definition? I'll illustrate the problem of this definition with a simple analogy.

I define Santa Claus as a magic man beyond human understanding. Now, refute the hypothesis that Santa exists. I could save you lots of time, by telling you that any possible refutations, regardless of how logical, could be rebutted with a simple 'Well, he's magical. You can't understand magic.'

This sort of rebuttals are not based on logic. And they are pointless, because they do not answer any questions or give any answers. It is simply the most convenient way to get out of answering a question.

The pointlessness of thanking God.

2006-01-09T07:08:00.000-08:00

Something that has always irked me, when debating with theists, is their constant insistence on crediting God for good things, but insisting that evil is due to Man. Two objections are as follows.

1. The infinite regression
When good things happen, theists will thank God for the blessings he has given them. Here, I will hopefully demonstrate the inherent silliness of such an action.

Does it make sense for me to thank a single indirect cause which led to something good? And the indirect cause which led to that indirect cause? And the indirect cause which led to that? An infinite regression simply doesn't make sense here. You'd have a virtually infinite number of circumstances to thank, for event A happening.

Yet, this is what thiests do every time they thank God for something good that happens in life.

To illustrate, imagine that a person helped me up, after I had fallen down. Naturally, I would thank him for helping me. He would be the direct cause, leading up to event A (In this case, him helping me, but event A can be changed to anything suitable). Now, here's where it starts to get complicated. Should I then be thankful that his parents inculcated in him a charitable nature and a willingness to help others? Assuming I do, should I then thank his grandparents for raising his parents to be good parents? This process can go on forever. Does it make sense whatsoever, from a practical perspective? I would highly doubt so.

Another scenario would be the hypothetical 'butterfly effect'. Under chaos theory, it is possible that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China, would eventually lead to a hurricane in New York. Now, technically speaking, victims of the hurricane should then blame the butterfly, for starting it all. In fact, it could be charged with genocide! But this simply does not make sense!

In the first place, why complicate the issue, by crediting an indirect cause? Bring in one, and you'd have to bring in all of them. After all, each indirect cause was equally important in the build up to Event A happening. The initial cause is of no special importance in this respect, merely as significant as any of the other infinite indirect causes along the way. Thanking God, then, would be ignoring every other cause along the way, placing one indirect cause above others.

2. The free will argument.

Theists claim that evil is not God's fault, because man, as a result of free will, chose to sin against God, and thus brought evil into the world.

With this logic, can I not then claim that man also brought good into the world, as a result of free will? It does not make sense to argue that evil is from free will, but good is not. The one who opines that evil came into the world from man, must also agree that good came into this world from man. Similarly, the one who opines that good came into this world from God, must also agree that evil came into this world from God. After all, was evil not created indirectly by God when he made the angel who would eventually become Satan?

Homosexuality and unnaturality

2005-12-27T05:02:00.000-08:00

Recently, in the course of several discussions with homosexuality, I've realised that many people tend to discriminate against on the grounds that it is unnatural, or 'not normal'. The following post will address this failed idea.

Deviation from the norm != unnatural. That holds true by necessity: norms are discriminatory by design, i.e., you can't have a norm without also having deviations from that norm.

For the sake of argument, I grant you your definition of unnatural, i.e., 'Anything that is a deviation from the norm is unnatural'. By even invoking 'unnatural', you are establishing naturality as an axiomatic property of all things, which takes universal scope. So: For any thing, XOR(natural, unnatural). Since naturality takes universal scope, everything you ever have and ever will be conscious of (or, if you want to deny atemporal consciousness, everything which has and will affect your genetic memory) has a 'natural' value to it, i.e., 1 v 0. However, in order to take anything as an argument, you are forced to discriminate it from the whole of your experience; universally, an object is an object in virtue of its deviating from the norm of your experiential scope. So, really all you're left with is solipsism, because all things that you can possibly identify except your own consciousness are by definition unnatural.

In context, your definition of unnatural commits you to this statement: "Homosexuals are unnatural... just like everything else."

On a grander scale, it also has the curious effect of commiting you to rejecting any conception of a God greater than yourself.

The paradox of sinful nature, and heaven.

2005-09-20T08:09:00.000-07:00

Current Christian doctrine states that man is born with a sinful nature. This sinful nature is within every human being because of Adam's sin. We live on earth with this sinful nature and by being born again, our sins are forgiven, yet we still have have sinful nature. At the core of this sinful nature is our capacity for free will, which enables us to chose to go left or right. Our sinful nature wants us to commit sin and we have a choice as to whether we do that or not. If we didn't have a choice then we could not be judged. Little of this is disputed by most Christian theologians. This sinful nature also forms one of the foundational elements of our personalities. Our gluttonous pursuits, sexual tendencies, our ego and insecurities all stem from our sinful nature according to the Bible, yet they are part of the core of who we are on earth. Without these "drives" we would be very different people, internally as well as in our practical lives. Almost unrecognizable.

Christian doctrine also states that when we go to heaven we will no longer have a sinful nature or any desire to sin.

Now the paradox is this, if this component is removed and all our selfish drives whether that be sexual, financial or social would be removed. For all intents and purposes we would be similar to a person who has been lobotomised as this component of our personality would have been cut out. We would be similar to worshipping Zombies as we would have no free will anymore. Your desire to do anything but what God wanted would have been removed. Thus you would have no more free will.

The second paradox concerning heaven is grief. If your child was an unbeliever and went to hell, you would naturally grieve for her for eternity. Would you stop grieving after 2 million years? Would you never grieve her at all considering the emotional high that heaven would be? Would you simply forget about her in an instant? Considering the scripture that those in heaven can see those suffering in hell, this question becomes even more relevant, however we are still told about the worshipping masses in heaven, with people dancing and singing on the streets of gold. The only way scripture could be consistent, is if we had no regrets or grief for lost ones that didn't make it.

The only way that this could occur is if we also had a mental lobotomy, removing any memory of our lives on earth. Combining that with the emotional lobotomy of our personal desires, what type of person would we be? No memory and no desire?

Omniscience voids Omnipotence in God's free will.

2005-08-30T22:31:00.000-07:00

Omniscience voids Omnipotence in Free Will

(Note: The God in this, and future posts, is the God in Christian/Islam/Judaism tradition unless otherwise defined)

The issue is not about if you as an individual has free will, but rather if God Himself has free will. If he is All Powerful then he has to have a free will. He would have to have to power to act as he chooses, otherwise he is not all powerful.

However, if he is All Knowing then he already knows what decisions he will make. The problem is that if he is all powerful then he has the ability to change his mind but that implies that he was going to act differently before he changed his mind. Thus he is not all knowing as he did not know that he would change his mind later on.

The essence of this problem is that God himself cannot be all powerful and all knowing at the same time. This would seem to indicate that the people at the time wanted a God with all these wonderful attributes. Under intellectual criticism, however, this concept does not appear to hold.