|
God would be an atheist...
A rational look at religion, morality, politics and daily life |
|
HOME / This Week About GWBAA WEEKLY COLUMNS Previous Print column Why subscribe? Schedule Terms & Rates Subscribe Online column Subscribe BASICS Definitions Atheism Faith God Religion etc Analysis The meaning of life Morality etc NEXT STEPS Buy Discuss Join Read REVIEWS CONTACT Link to this site Your support for advertisers helps to provide an income for this website. All Rights Reserved World Copyright © Martin Foreman PREVIOUSLY... "Surely no theist would choose to stay on this polluted, violent planet when offered eternity in paradise? Foolish me. It takes little effort to find articles on the web where believers tie themselves into tight intellectual knots in the vain effort to prove that delaying entry into God’s kingdom is something that God Himself would approve of." I want to live forever (not) "The fact you do not like something does not mean you can wish it away. I am afraid of violence and cancerous disease but they will not magically disappear if I do not believe in them. Reality exists irrespective of my personal desires. Similarly, the fact that Reich wants God to exist – to protect him from “emptiness, the disconnectedness…” and so on – does not mean that there must be a God." Helping stranded motorists "No further proof of an emotional response is needed than the banning of same sex marriage in the states where such an initiative was on the ballot. This was democracy in action, but it was the same democracy that formally deprived African-Americans of their civil rights for eighty years and informally continued to do so for another century. (Some would say that denial continues today.)" Who won? "Time passed. I believed in God but he did not return the favor. With no confirmation of his existence, the pendulum began to swing back. By the time I left school, I was an atheist again in all but name." The swing of the pendulum "People whose primary motives are altruistic - driven by outside needs - tend to seek out new information and change their attitudes and opinions accordingly. People who are primarily driven by internal needs tend to seek out information that corroborates their pre-existing beliefs. This has nothing to do with political perspective - both liberals and conservatives can be open or rigid in their thinking." Anne Coulter doesn't bother me... |
April - July 2008: Apologies for poor design while this site is renovated. Column 92: A mechanical SQUID, missing cats and the afterlife Deepak Chopra is at it again By © Martin Foreman Word Count: 799 words Publication date: January 14, 2007 Print publications wishing to syndicate the column should click here. Individual subscribers wishing to receive columns by e-mail should click here. As a subscriber to the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society, I get a regular update on the ongoing conflict between reason and the irrational world. This sometimes focuses on religion, such as the breathtaking idiocy of the Grand Canyon National Park promoting Creationist views (see column right). Often it covers the so-called paranormal. In early January it highlighted an exchange of views between Michael Shermer (Skeptics Society Executive Director) and Deepak Chopra (multimillionaire peddler of New Ageism). Their topic was the afterlife. Shermer marshaled evidence to show that there ain’t no such thing. Chopra accused Shermer of ignoring facts staring him in the face. One of the problems of these debates is that the ground keeps shifting under everyone’s feet. A offers points p, q and r. B then attacks p, q and r and / or ignores them to claim that x, y and z prove his case. If the discussion continues, A then drags in l, m and n, while B responds with f, g and h. As evidence and assertions fly to and fro, the focus of the debate dissipates and conclusion becomes less rather than more likely. Which is what happened with Shermer and Chopra. The Skeptic looked at six perspectives from “quantum consciousness” to prayer and healing studies that allegedly demonstrate the existence of an afterlife, then offered a dozen or more examples of studies to disprove them. The New Ager alleged discrepancies in the studies Shermer quoted, and provided other studies to support his point. With which the “debate” ended. With no opportunity to cite the sources of evidence or submit it for scrutiny, the discussion was hardly more meaningful than kids in school shouting “it is” “it is not” at each other. Neither, it is safe to say, was converted by the other. Much of the discussion was devoted to the question whether consciousness exists as some kind of force / energy field / whatever outside the individual’s mind. The assumption is that if our consciousness is part of a greater cosmic community, it is more likely to survive after death. This is not the only option. Theoretically, individual consciousness could be self-contained but still exist after the body has gone. Personally, I am both convinced there is no afterlife and consider the idea of any consciousness surviving for eternity as a contradiction in terms. As I have argued before, no matter where it was spent, eternal life would be nothing but hell. But I’m not dogmatic on the subject. If I see hard evidence to suggest that the day-old deformed baby that was too weak to live, the twenty year old grunt dying in Iraq and the eighty-year woman succumbing to advanced dementia all exist in an afterlife, I will accept it. I will of course be curious to know if the day old baby and Alzheimer’s sufferer remain in those states through eternity? Does the old woman return to lucidity; does the infant miraculously achieve mental adulthood? If individual awareness does not remain but the dead become part of the cosmic consciousness, it means I have no memory of who I was and no ability to develop my personality. I have become transformed; both I and the world I was in have become irrelevant to each other. Whatever it was that survived death was not me. Any discussion of life after death, therefore, is meaningless unless it focuses on the individual consciousness. And for that I want hard evidence. Chopra offers none. Like a magician trying to distract us, he throws statements into the air hoping that one or more will convince us. We get self-styled psychics mind-manipulating a subterranean machine called SQUID, machines that light in a clockwork direction and London veterinarians reporting missing cats. And. of course, Near Death Experiences. The problem for Chopra is that NDEs do not prove life after death; they merely prove that our definition of death does not cover all circumstances. I want evidence that conforms to the laws of science. If something is true it is demonstrably true in every circumstance. Fresh water inevitably boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level. Every time. Give me the same standard of proof for life after death. A genuine psychic could at any time and without notice ask any deceased person where they were born and died. When such a psychic appears and has an accuracy rate of well over 50% I’ll be prepared consider seriously the premise of consciousness after death. It’s a simple test and it is all we need. In the meantime, Michael Shermer. stop wasting time responding to mad theories. Just ask for consistent, irrefutable evidence. And Deepak Chopra, forget woolly thinking and half-baked ideas. When you give us real evidence we will offer you the respect you do not yet deserve.
|
If God existed, he would... If God existed, he would be an atheist. It remains true that the creationist book Grand Canyon: A Different View, by Tom Vail, promoting the idea that every layer in the Grand Canyon can be explained by Noah’s flood, is sold in the Grand Canyon bookstore, but it is apparently displayed under the "spirituality" section. GWBAA.. apologizes for any harm and inconvenience caused. Further information and contact details to protest on www.skeptic.com |
Search this site |