Sunday, November 26, 2006
Green v. AG - Round III: Getting into it
To: American Guy
From: Green
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2003
Subject: The debate continues
AG
Glad to hear you all are bearing up well since your mom's passing. It's good that your dad was able to come down there for an enjoyable visit. Hope his flight home was safe and sound.
---
Who do you say Jesus is?
While you think about that, let me ask you a few follow up questions to yourlast email: (please use #2 pencils only)
You say you die and your dead -- that's it. Sounds pretty definitive, to me. Then you say you don't really understand death and that as a species we're not evolved enough to. So I ask you, if you don't fully understand death, how can you be so sure that death is the ultimate end of the human existence and that we have no soul?
If we, like cows in your example, have no other purpose for existence than to propagate the species, then why do humans have societies with laws that govern our behavior? How can we know what is right and what is wrong? Why then, for example, was our going to war with Iraq wrong? Why then, since we both have "propagated the species," just go out and kill ourselves because we've accomplished all we've "evolved" for (unless you plan to have more children?). For that matter, why don't we purchase some guns and start shooting people at random, because everyone else's existence threatens our own and that of our brood, since once we die we're dead without any "god" or"higher power" to hold us accountable?
I'll agree that all religions (with the exceptions of Judaism and Christianity) in existence were made by man to explain and make sense of the world. Ancient history is full of cultures that had a god for everything, Egypt, Greece and Rome to name a few.
Tell me, how many different answers there are to this mathematical equation: 2+2?
It's interesting that you used the phrase "willful blindness" to describe me if I'm the kind of person who will discount science if I denounce evolutionin favor of creationism. For the record, I do wholeheartedly denounce evolution in favor of creationism but I do not discount science because of it. Science is wonderful and the evidence of what we as a species have discovered through it is too large and obvious to ignore. To me, science helps to confirm the existence and majesty of God who created everything out of nothing with infinite attention to detail.
For example consider these:
At any given time it is estimated that there are 1,800 storms operating in the world at any one time. The energy needed to generate these storms has been estimated at 1,300,000,000 horsepower. By comparison, a large earth moving machine has 420 horsepower and requires 100 gallons of fuel a day to operate. Just one of these storms, producing a rain of four inches over an area of 10,000 square miles, would require energy equivalent to the burning of 640,000,000 tons of coal to evaporate enough water for such a rain. To cool those vapors and collect them in clouds would take another 800,000,000 horsepower of refrigeration working day and night for 100 days.
AND...
Agricultural studies have determined that the average farmer in Minnesota gets 407,510 gallons of water per acre per year, free of charge. Missouri is about 70,000 square miles in size and gets an average of 38 inches of precipitation a year. That amount of water is equal to a lake 250 miles long, 60 miles wide and 22 feet deep.
IF THAT WEREN'T ENOUGH...
The earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, weighs 6 septillion, 588 sextillion tons, and hangs unsupported in space. It spins at 1,000 miles per hour with absolute precision and careens through space around the sun at the speed of 1,000 miles per minute in an orbit 580 million miles long, while maintaining an average distance from the sun of 93,000,000 miles.
To deny the existence of God, is "willful blindness", as you say. It is inconceivable that such power, intricacy and harmony could have developed by any means without a Master Designer who rules the universe. It would be infinitely more reasonable to think that you could take a bunch of springs and gears, put them in a bag and shake them all up and eventually come out with a dependable timepiece than to think that the universe could have evolved by mere chance.
Without a doubt, life on this planet is too diverse and the universe in general is too awesome be credited to random chance. Look at all the wonders and intricacies of nature, both animal and non-animal. Like that huge waterfall in Africa that you visited, or the Grand Canyon in Arizona, or that there are 10 million species of insects living on the planet, including about 2,500 varieties of ants to name a few.
Looking forward to your comments.
Respectfully,
G
Within a day, the response came:
From: American Guy
To: Green
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2003
Subject: The debate continues
Hi Green:
And so the debate continues (though I note that we never did complete the last topic...)
"Who do you say Jesus is?"
I say he was most likely a historical figure (there is far too much evidence that there was a historical Jesus to argue otherwise), around whom later myths coalesced. He was a religious man no doubt, a prophet in the usual sense of the word, but was he supernatural, the Son of God and all that? Not on your life. Was he born in a stable because there was no room at the inn? Possibly. Was it a miraculous virgin birth? No chance.
"You say you die and your dead -- that's it. Sounds pretty definitive, to me."
It is.
"Then you say you don't really understand death and that as a species we're not evolved enough to. So I ask you, if you don't fully understand death, how can you be so sure that death is the ultimate end of the human existence and that we have no soul?"
What I mean is that the finality of it is beyond my (and humanity's) understanding. I, and most people understand that it is inescapable - that we all go sometime, but it's a difficult concept to grasp that there is no 'what comes next'. This is why we have created the concept of an afterlife(whether the christian concept or any of the myriad other models out there.)
Let me ask you a question - How can you be so sure (beyond simply your faith) that there IS an afterlife and that the soul continues to exist? Personally I find the concept of 'everlasting life' - of eternity to be equally as unfathomable as death.
"If we, like cows in your example, have no other purpose for existence than to propagate the species, then why do humans have societies with laws that govern our behavior?"
We are not alone in this trait. Ants (all 2,500 species of them as you point out) have highly complex societal rules that govern their behaviour. It's a survival trait. Any animal that lives within a social structure must develop rules for how they interact with others of the species. Interestingly, most other animals are much better at following these rules than people are. Murder is extremely rare in the rest of the animal kingdom.
"How can we know what is right and what is wrong?"
This is due to our being highly evolved (more on evolution later). Our set of morals is simply a refined system of making sure that we don't do anything that harms our survivability. The problem arises when we don't follow our conscience and do things that are immoral. Most of us know that killing another is the wrong thing to do, but some will do so anyway (aside - I know it's all the thing to say that we all support the soldiers in Iraq, but for the record every one of them who pulled a trigger in the streets of Baghdad and killed an Iraqi is as guilty of murder as anyone who does so in the streets of Los Angeles.)
This has been another role of religion through the ages - to enforce our moral code. It's much easier to tell people "thou shalt not kill" because God will condemn you to eternal suffering (the classic 'putting the fear of God' into someone), then it is to tell them that killing disrupts the social cohesion of a society, thereby reducing our overall ability to survive as a species.
"For that matter, why don't we purchase some guns and start shooting people at random, because everyone else's existence threatens our own and that of our brood, since once we die we're dead without any "god" or "higher power" to hold us accountable?"
Some people do - we call them sociopaths. And sociopaths are found in every sector of society, among both the religious and non-religious. And all this is not forgetting of course how many people have died throughout the ages 'in the name of god'.
"Tell me, how many different answers there are to this mathematical equation: 2+2?"
One. Although to mathematically prove it takes approximately 400 pages. (I'll spare you).
"It's interesting that you used the phrase "willful blindness" to describe me if I'm the kind of person who will discount science if I denounce evolution in favor of creationism. For the record, I do wholeheartedly denounce evolution in favor of creationism but I do not discount science because of it."
For the record - are you saying that that the fossil history that incontrovertibly proves that humans evolved from other, lower order species is false? Or are you among the 'intelligent design' camp - believing that evolution happened but it was guided by God? Your later comments make me think you're more in the second group, but I'd be interested to hear your definitive answer. If however, you feel that all we were created by this God (were we created by the Christian God even though he didn't come on the scene in our religious life for millennia after humans were around?) and created as we currently are (that is as homo sapiens) is this true for other animals and plants? Were they created, or did they evolve? Before you answer, remember that scientists have watched (and in some cases guided) the evolution of some species in labs. And what about viruses? Viruses can evolve quite literally before our eyes. Or do you believe that God woke up a month and a half ago and said - 'ok folks - here's SARS, good luck!'?
"For example consider these: At any given time it is estimated that there are 1,800 stormsoperating in the world at any one time..."
Nature is a truly amazing thing isn't it? You site quite an array of facts and figures. I'm hoping you looked these up - if you have that kind of data at your fingertips, I'm suitably impressed! What you have to remember is that the planet (and to an even greater degree the universe) is a massive system. It is precisely BECAUSE "the earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, [and] weighs 6 septillion, 588 sextillion tons" that it can produce storms that generate 1,300,000,000 horsepower. If we could build a machine the size of the earth (I know, I know, where would we keep it?) we could generate that kind of power. Unfortunately, it would take the birth of a star and billions of years to do so. Don't forget - this is what I spent 4 years at university studying. Oh, and as a sidelight - your assertion that earth "hangs unsupported in space" is factually wrong - it's supported by the forces of being in orbit around the sun (that is gravity and centripetal motion. Tie a ball to the end of a string and swing it around your head to see the same effect - the string simulates gravity - keeping the ball from flying away, and the centripetal motion keeps it in orbit -balancing out the gravity so it doesn't crash in on you (until you stop swinging)). That's the end of today's physics lesson.
"To deny the existence of God, is 'willful blindness', as you say. It is inconceivable that such power, intricacy and harmony could have developed by any means without a Master Designer who rules the universe."
Hogwash. Science explains this all quite nicely, and without introducing a fudge factor. "hmm, we don't know why this happens - must be god's work."
"It would be infinitely more reasonable to think that you could take a bunch of springs and gears and put them in a bag and shake them all up and eventually come out with a dependable timepiece than to think that the universe could have evolved by mere chance."
You're forgetting about time and the law of truly large systems. Given enough time, the most extraordinary of events can and do happen. And given the size of the universe, there's plenty of raw material from which just such an extraordinary random occurrence could occur. As an example, think of the old expression of something being a 'million to one' chance. Let's say that on any given day, the odds of a person being hit by lightning are a million to one (I don't know the real odds off hand, but you get my drift). With 6 billion people on the planet, on any day, some 6,000 of them will be hit by lightning. Now, consider that over a year, this would mean 2,190,000 hits. In my 33 years on the planet, there would have been 72,270,000 occurrences of this supposedly 'highly unlikely' event. Now realize that the universe is approximately 15 billion years old and is immensely huge. Even if the odds of life occurring by chance were much longer, say 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1 or some other inconceivably large number, given enough time and enough space, chances are ripe that it could happen.
We obviously hold very different views on all this, and we're not likely to convince one another, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.
Stay well.
AG
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Green v. AG - Round II: A follow up
From: Green
To: American Guy
Subject: greetings
Date: Tue, 29 April 2003
Hello AG:
How's life down under? I can't believe it's almost May!! How's that crisp autumn weather?
How are your dad and sister doing these days, since your mom's passing? How are YOU and your family doing in that regard? I think about you and your family often.
Your mom was a very special woman. She was always nice to me and one of the few people who could get away with calling me (an annoying variant of my real first name) and not have me tell them not to or get upset about it.
Do you have any kind of spiritual belief?
I've been wondering, since your mom's passing, if your viewpoint on death and what happens to your soul after your body dies has changed? The last time we talked about it, you said that you believed when you die that's it. You're dead, end of story.
G
and AG replied:
To: Green
From: American Guy
Subject: Re: greetings
Date: Tue., 29 April 2003
Hi Green,
Thanks for your concern and kind thoughts.
We're all doing okay - or as okay as can be expected. My dad's actually been down here on a visit - he flies back home tomorrow but has had a great trip.
My beliefs have not changed. When you die, you're dead. That's it.
Look, religion (and I'm not just talking just Christianity - any religion) is designed to help us make sense of our world. It has always been thus. Crops failed? The gods must be angry. Win an important battle or war? It's because god was on your side and your cause was righteous.
Some people still need religion to make sense of the world. My world makes a lot more sense without it. As a species, we have trouble with the finality of death - at least when it comes to our own species anyways - we all know that when you slaughter a cow you have nothing left but hamburger.
But being that we're the highest order organism (that we know of anyways) we must be different. There has to be an afterlife, our soul must survive - otherwise what meaning does our life hold? I'll answer that - the same as any other living thing. We're here to propagate the species. If we are aware of our existence, that is the main difference. We have no soul. Or at least not in the sense that most people define it. Maybe soul is just another word for consciousness. In any case, it doesn't survive after death.
I don't really understand death - I don't think we're evolved enough to. But then again, at one time people didn't understand genetics or evolution (and some people still don't - I hope no matter what your views on the spiritual side of life you're not among those who discount science and say that we were 'created' and didn't evolve, because that is just willful blindness). So maybe, as the species develops we will learn to understand death. When that happens, I don't see there being a need for religion at all.
Some people say that religion offers more comfort. And if it comforts you that's fine. Personally, I take more comfort in knowing that my mum's death was a natural event (that can be explained and understood), not a supernatural one (the old 'god works in mysterious ways' routine).
Stay well.
AG
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell
Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why am I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens: "Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue because blue is the color God wants it to be.
My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't speak to that answer.
Before we understood Rayleigh scattering, there was no scientifically satisfactory explanation for the sky's blueness. The idea that the sky is blue because God wants it to be blue existed before scientists came to understand Rayleigh scattering, and it continues to exist today, not in the least undermined by our advance in scientific understanding. The religious explanation has been supplemented--but not supplanted--by advances in scientific knowledge. We now may, if we care to, think of Rayleigh scattering as the method God has chosen to implement his color scheme.
Right now (2005) there is a federal trial under way in Dover, Pa., over a school policy requiring teachers to tell students about "intelligent design" before teaching evolution. The central idea of intelligent design is that nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way. This is not an assertion that can be tested in a scientific way, but studied in the right context, it is an interesting notion. As a theological idea, intelligent design is exciting. Listen: If nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way, then, by looking at nature, one can learn what it is that God wants! The microscope and the telescope are no longer merely scientific instruments; they are windows into the mind of God.
But as exciting as intelligent design is in theology, it is a boring idea in science. Science isn't about knowing the mind of God; it's about understanding nature and the reasons for things. The thrill is that our ignorance exceeds our knowledge; the exciting part is what we don't understand yet. If you want to recruit the future generation of scientists, you don't draw a box around all our scientific understanding to date and say, "Everything outside this box we can explain only by invoking God's will." Back in 1855, no one told the future Lord Rayleigh that the scientific reason for the sky's blueness is that God wants it that way. Or if someone did tell him that, we can all be happy that the youth was plucky enough to ignore them. For science, intelligent design is a dead-end idea.
My call to action for scientists is, Work to ensure that the intelligent-design hypothesis is taught where it can contribute to the vitality of a field (as it could perhaps in theology class) and not taught in science class, where it would suck the excitement out of one of humankind's great ongoing adventures.
Now for my call to inaction: most scientists will concede that as powerful as science is, it can teach us nothing about values, ethics, morals or, for that matter, God. Don't go about pretending otherwise! For example, science can try to predict how human activity may change the climate, but science can't tell us whether those changes would be good or bad.
Should scientists, as humans, make judgments on ethics, morals, values and religion? Absolutely. Should we act on these judgments, in an effort to do good? You bet. Should we make use of the goodwill we may have accumulated through our scientific achievements to help us do good? Why not? Just don't claim that your science tells you "what is good" ... or "what is God."
Act: fight to keep intelligent design out of science classrooms! Don't act: don't say science disproves intelligent design. Stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science, and should be taught in theology, not science classes.
My value judgment is that further progress in science will be good for humanity. My argument here is offered in the spirit of trying to preserve science from its foes--but also from its friends.
My only addition to this essay would be this:
Science, in its most basic definition can only tell us about phenomena that we observe today. Science tells us how things work, not how they got here. Since evolution offers only speculation (and false speculation at that) regarding the origin of life, evolution should not be taught in science classrooms, either.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Green v. AG - Round I: How it all began
His reply to me was very casual as most conversations usually are at the beginning.
From: American Guy
To: Green
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002
Subject: Re: Fw: Cool Master Card
Hi Green
Since I haven't been much of a correspondent, I thought I'd take a few minutes and just give you a little update on our lives.
We're all still alive.
OK, now that you had the update, things are going well here. I'm enjoying my time here in OZ, hard to believe its been 3 1/2 years, but hey, if you're happy ...
M and the kids are doing great. J is in Kindegarten and liking (for the most part - there are some days he doesn't want to leave the fun home). T is being a typical two year old - talking up a storm and throwing tantrums. She's just so cute, except when she makes you want to scream.
I'm enjoying my work, working with long term unemployed people. It's challenging, but rewarding. Plus I have a great staff working with me.
So that's the 3 minute version of our life. Suffice it to say we're pretty content.
Just one little thing. I know you're just being friendly passing along these inspirational messages and all, but as a favour (note the wacky Australian spelling I've had to get used to), could I ask you not to send any more of these to me? To be honest, I've moved away from religion, and don't find these messages inspirational, as much as cloying. I've taken the view that while people are entitled to their faith, I am entitled to my lack of it and prefer not to have (well intentioned) Christian messages thrust at me. Thanks for your understanding.
So that's about it from here. Let us know what's up in your life. Give my best to K and the kids.
AG
To which I replied:
From: Green
To: American Guy
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002
Subject: Howdy!
Hello AG!
Staying alive is good!
I'm glad to hear that you and the family are doing well. Give my regards to M and hug your kids for me. I LOVE getting hugs from my kids. I'm sure you do too.
V will turn 5 next month and is finishing up pre-school in June. She will go to Kindegarten in September. M turned 2 last October and is a typical cute kid, talking more and more each day and becoming more understandable.
K started her new job today. She is still working at Southern NH Medical Center, but now she is working on the Labor and Delivery floor instead of Medical/Surgical. She used to take care of patients coming out of surgery. She had a good first day and will be back at it tomorrow. She is orienting for the new job on the day shift (she has worked 3rd shift all of her career) and is going to work three 12 hour shifts per week.
I am unemployed again. Have been since Feb. 1, 2002. I'm trying to find a new career other than collections. Not an easy thing to do when you work in a field for 9+ years. I spend a lot of time with the kids, which is great.
I will not send you any more religious based emails. I apologize if I've offended you in any way. However, I am curious, now, in what has caused you to become less religious than you were previously. Was your background growing up Catholic, Protestant, or other? I don't believe we've ever seriously (or not so seriously) talked about this subject, so I really don't know your views at all. However, as you say, the emails were sent with good intention, not to be cloying...
G
and AG replied:
From: American Guy
To: Green
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Subject: Re: Howdy!
Hey Green, good to hear from you. Sorry to hear that you're out of work, but as you say, it's great to be able to spend time with the kids. I was fortunate enough to spend about 4 months being a stay at home dad with J shortly before we left the US. Of course, being that that was by choice made a difference. But hey, if you can make the best out of a bad situation... So do you have any ideas on what kind of work you want to shift into?
Good luck to K with the change to day shifts! It may be a bit of a shock after working nights so long. I remember when my dad went from working nights for many years to working while the sun was up. It took a bit of time.
As to the religion thing - first off, don't worry, you didn't offend me. Its just that I find it difficult to live in a society where my views are not widely accepted. I don't need people to agree with my views, I just need them to accept them. I also can't escape from it. Think about how many actors thanked God during the Oscars, or how many subtle references to religion pervade our daily lives (open your wallet and look at how many times you see "In God We Trust", think about people shouting "Jesus" when they hurt themselves) and this isn't even considering the people who see it as part of their mission to spread their belief.
There's also the fact that as an atheist (not a term I usually use to define myself, but the closest that there is.), I am seen as less human by many, or somehow defective, and certainly, not to put too fine a point on it, damned. I get really annoyed at having to tell people I don't believe in heaven and hell, god and the devil, the soul, etc. If I can accept that others believe that after they die they'll meet their maker, why can't they accept that I believe that when you die, you're dead, end of story? They can think I'm wrong, I have no problem with that (just like I think they're wrong).
It's hard to have a minority view. It's really hard when you are in such a small minority. And it's extremely hard when people still feel justified to discriminate against you because of that view. I've applied for jobs where I was told my lack of faith made me inappropriate for the position (which would have made sense if I was applying to be a priest, but that wasn't the case). I've always fancied that I would like to get involved in politics, but could you imagine the outcry? Look at how many politicians beat their chest and talk about how good and moral they are because they go to church once a week, or because they read the Bible. And here's the crux of the matter - you can be moral without being religious, and you can be religious without being moral (look at the Catholic church in Boston these days, but that's another story!), but many people can't see that. I can believe that it's wrong to steal without believing I will go to Hell for it. I can believe that it's right to comfort the sick, help the needy and feed the hungry, simply because it benefits us as a society, not because it will be seen as favourable by a god, or that I'll get my ultimate reward for doing so.
I also have a lot of issues with people using their faith to justify all sorts of inhuman acts. I see no moral difference between an Islamic martyr who blows up a coffee shop and a Christian fundamentalist who shoots up an abortion clinic. Both are examples of a tiny minority twisting their faith's message beyond recognition, but both are examples of people who feel that they are doing God's will.
There hasn't been any one thing that led me to these views (though I've found it very disquieting that we have people with extreme religious views (like John Ashcroft) making decisions that affect all of us). I was raised Catholic but I've always been suspicious of people who told me to just accept something on belief without understanding it (which is probably why I studied science), and over the years I have seen more and more to support my current position. Am I absolutely sure there is no God? No. But if there is a god, is it the Christian God? is it Allah? Is it Zeus? What makes the most sense to me is that in each of these cases, people needed a belief system to explain the world around them. Those lights in the sky must be gods. Unless they're just planets. People were created by an all powerful being in his own image. Unless they evolved from other species the same as all the other animals.
In my experience, anything that can be explained by religion can be explained as well or better by science. There's an interesting scientific principle called Oxam's Razor. Basically, it says that all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So, as I reckon it's a lot simpler to believe that our bodies simply break down into their component chemicals when we die, rather than believing that as our bodies decay, our soul is taken to a new place, not physical in nature, and beyond human understanding, where it exists forever (not just a long time, but forever) either in paradise or in damnation depending on how we lived our lives.
I don't know, I've probably bored you enough with all this, but I hope I've given you a bit of a flavour of my views. Above all else, I'm not indicting all Christians or anything like that. My parents are still religious (and my Dad significantly more so than when I was younger), and while we disagree on our worldview, we respect each other's opinions. More of a quandary is how M and I will raise our kids. She fancies raising the kids Catholic, and I prefer the idea of raising them without what I see as a hindrance to their development (I still have a lot of resentment at what I saw as indoctrination when I was younger). I think if people want to come to religion, they should do so by choice, not have it thrust upon them. And who knows, if I hadn't been forced into Catholicism, I might have a very different opinion of it than I now do. Most likely we'll try and find some middle path, letting them know that different people have different beliefs, and that they'll need to decide for themselves.
OK, this is stating to turn into a rant, so I'll leave it at that for now.
In any case, this is probably more info than you were looking for, but you know I've never been able to keep my mouth shut.
AG
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
