Wednesday, 01 December 2010

Ah…so here we are at the final month of the year. I’ve written a post for each day of the year so far – 336 total.

This evening, before bed, Owen and I were reading books together as we often do. Tonight, he selected a book about the universe. I told him the book was too long to read cover-to-cover, but that we could just read some excerpts from it.

Among other things, I turned to a page that showed a picture of Isaac Newton sitting on a bench in the classic thinker position. We read about how Newton realized that the same force that keeps the planets tethered to the sun is the same force that makes fruit fall from trees.

While I was reading those paragraphs, Owen asked: “But how do you know if your idea is right?”

I wasn’t sure what he meant, so I asked for clarification. He said: “Because if you think your idea is that the sun goes around the earth, then you are wrong, but how do you know you are wrong?”

I told him that was a good question (you know, to distinguish between that and all the stupid questions). I tried to explain that people used to just come up with ideas that explained what they saw (or what they think they saw). For the most part, I said, that worked out okay, but in time people decided to test their ideas.

We talked more about the sun going around the earth: we agreed that it certainly seems like the sun goes around the earth. After all, we see it move across the sky, and we don’t feel the earth moving. And we also agreed that saying the sun ‘rises’ and ‘sets’ is a pretty useful way of describing what we see.

But then I told him how people noticed that Mars, Venus, and Jupiter did not move in predictable patterns, and so people sought to find better ways of explaining things. We talked about how we need to do tests to check on our hypothesis, and to find better ways to observe our world, such as by sending up spacecraft to get a better view.

Owen agreed that Newton was pretty smart for coming up with the correct answer. There was a box below the one about Newton that discussed how Einstein figured out that Newton wasn’t exactly right…but I figured it was best to skip that box for today. It was bedtime, after all.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

So, a few weeks ago, I received a brief note in the mail. It was from someone on the Board of Directors at Minnesota Atheists. He wrote on the note “This came in the mail, and I thought you might be interested in responding.” His note was attached to a letter, and that letter had been sent all the way from Massachusetts by a guy named Jason.

It turns out, Jason is a Jehovah’s Witness. And he decided to get several copies of the latest Awake! issue (that’s a Witness periodical; it’s like the Watchtower, but even simpler) and mail copies of them out to various free-thought organizations around the country. Here’s the cover of that magazine:

When I mentioned this to an ex-Witness friend of mine, he said, “Who would do something like that?” Good question. The answer is: Pioneers. I used to be a pioneer, too. It meant I had to get in a ridiculously high number of hours each year (1,000) going door-to-door or standing on the street corner passing out tracts. Since that was really a drudgery, I was always looking for other ways to accumulate hours. One day, for instance, when the Awake! cover story was about animal rights, I wrote out a letter to several local humane societies and zoos telling them that they might like to look at the articles, as they hold out a hope for a better future for animals.

Jason, however, operated differently on three counts: For one thing, he wrote to free thought organizations. Yikes. Bad idea. Second, he didn’t enclose a polite, tactful letter as I did, he wrote a letter that said the magazine “would point out some of the flaws in atheist reasoning.” Again, yikes – that’s a bit confrontational, don’t you think? Maybe it would’ve been better if he’d said, “This magazine will give you some things to think about.” Third, he included his home address, phone number, and email address. And this is why I was given his article – I guess they felt I’d be the best man for the job.

I’m not gonna paste in all the emails that transpired between Jason and me, because this would quickly become the longest post ever. The correspondence included discussions on evolution, the origin of life, Noah’s Flood and the Witnesses basis for saying 1914 is the start of the Last Days. In fact, the emails got so long that Jason decided to splinter our conversation into three separate emails; he’d write me three emails, then I’d respond to all three.

As it turns out, Jason could only point out one ‘flaw’ in atheist reasoning, and when I responded, he admitted that it wasn’t really a flaw after all. Our last couple of emails detailed the question of where did God come from. In his final email, Jason included answers to that question from two of his friends. While I appreciate his efforts to bring in other sources, I think it’s funny that he had to find two friends to help prove the existence of his best friend (would I need help from other people in proving my wife’s existence?).

His final email is copied below. I responded to him but, as of today, it’s been three weeks since then and I don’t think he plans to write back, despite the fact that he already agreed that refusal to answer difficult questions is a sign that a religion is false. Anyway, here’s his email:

Hi again James,
I asked a couple of my friends the question of ‘who created God?’ and here are two of the responses:

RESPONSE ONE:
Richard Dawkins has asked the same question in his published writings. No doubt his followers think that he is on to something. But is he?
As has been pointed out, the question of who or what created the creator leads to an infinite regression and an infinite regression of questions cannot answer anything as it simply raises more questions. Moreover, an infinite number of creators would lead to an actually infinite quantity – which cannot exist. As such, any answer that provides a reasonable stopping point to an infinite regression is far more plausible than positing an absurdity in its place – which is what an actually infinite quantity is. So when an atheist argues that ‘who created the creator’ requires adopting a many creators hypothesis they are, in fact, answering with an absurdity.
Usually, however, the atheist will use the question of ‘who created the creator’ with the intent of showing that because the question leads to absurdities then there must be no creator(s) at all. Since atheism argues for existence by means of non-existence, which is itself illogical, then all one needs to define is a more logical answer to the question of existence. To my mind the Leibnizian argument from contingent existence answers this question nicely. Neither Dawkins nor any of his cronies have adequately grappled with the problems this argument creates for their position.

RESPONSE TWO (from my Spanish friend):
Evidence points to a creator. That’s the subject you’re discussing. Whether that creator has always existed, or whether it was created by a wiser and older and more powerful being is irrelevant. It doesn’t affect at all the question that universe asks for a creator, and any arguments in that sense are only trying to distract attention from the main point.
I don’t care whether God was created by a higher god (well, I’m sure he wasn’t, but anyway 🙂 ), what I know is that evidence points to an intelligence creating the universe.
Don’t you think so?
===========
As for the points you raise in this e-mail, perhaps I’ll write back at another time.  But as I’ve said before it’s best that you speak with a Witness in person to have your questions answered.

Monday, 29 November 2010

Here’s an article that my wife wrote for BirthActivist.com: CLICK THIS!

My wife worked very hard on that article. I think it excels because it not only gets people to think, but it gets (many) people to think in a different way. It’s very scholarly; she pulled in information from various sources and brought up data from various authorities in the field. She also anticipated and responded to a few objections or concerns people might have. Also, it appears someone very intelligent must have checked it for spelling and grammar, ’cause man, it’s awesome.

Anyway, if you haven’t read it yet, go there now. It’s more engaging than anything I’m gonna write here.

One of the commenters there said: “I guess what you missing in this article is the importance of intent, and I think that might be one of the most important aspect of the debate!”

That’s a fair concern, but I think it misses the point.

I think the intent is more similar than we might like to think: in both cases, the rapist is seeking to control and dominate the victim.

Regardless, Jennifer is here speaking about the effect on the victim. Let’s compare this to another crime: Burglary.

First, a thief steals my wedding ring. He maliciously waited until I left home, and broke into my house just to steal something of value to pay for his drug habit.
So then I get a replacement wedding ring.
But then I am robbed again. This time, my wedding ring is stolen, again. But this time, the thief needed the valuable in order to sell it for cash to feed his starving children.
In a court of law, a judge and jury may (and should) judge these cases differently. However, the effect on the victim (me) is identical. In both cases, I lost something of value that needed to be replaced. In both cases, I am right to term it “theft” and voice my desire to have recompense.

Sunday, 28 November 2010

Ah, yes…another day without leaving the house!

Turns out, there was a contest that aired on the television this afternoon, and my son is very interested in these types of contests, so we watched most of it. Well, it’s not like I sat there and stared at it the whole time, I was doing other stuff, too.

In this particular battle of wits and strengths, there was one group of Native Americans, evidently from the mid-Atlantic seaboard, and they were fighting against a bunch of Scandinavians. The reporters continually referred to the Native Americans as “red skins,” which I thought was an outmoded and offensive term, but maybe it’s coming back in style. I don’t know.

Anyway, the contest proceeded exactly as this type of war has always gone between Native Americans and the descendants of Europeans:  the ‘white skins’ invaded the Native Americans’ territory. At first, it seemed amicable; it appeared there were some gestures of goodwill. There was some posturing, but I think it was just for fun.

But then the battles began.

Early on, the Native Americans held their ground very well. For a time, they even appeared to be winning. But those relentless white skinned warriors (who were at a disadvantage having recently fired their Commander-in-Chief) would not give up – they kept taking more and more land. It seemed anytime the Native Americans would give them an inch, they’d take a yard. Indeed, it seemed they were measuring their success in yardage, rather than in diplomacy.

About midway through the war, it was a done deal: the Native Americans were at the mercy of the white skins. All that was left was to see how bad the Europeans would dominate over the natives, and what they would, in a hopeful display of mercy, leave for them.

The war did not even play out to its expected end date. The white skins were so far ahead, they spent the final few moments of battle celebrating and gloating.

Vikings: 17, Redskins: 13