Is ‘Freethinker’ Synonymous with Nontheist? Well, no. It isn ‘t. Atheists need to drop the sham; I am a freethinker by definition, and am positive that there have been numerous deists, theists, supernaturalists, pantheists and polytheists that have come to their conclusions on metaphysics as freethinkers. There were long expanses of time when pre-scientific answers were reasonable (case in point, animism at the ‘Dawn of Humanity’) or when the existence of a philosophical First Cause/Unmoved Mover God as ‘essence’ (think deism at the turn of the 18th century) just worked. Of course, being an atheist, I think those arguments have been undeniably refuted as science has continued to explain much of the mysteries of the universe. But still, if you embrace theism as a freethinker and can demonstrate how you came to your conclusion, I salute you. Isn’t that a good part of what this site is about? Discussions on matters of truth, critiques of argument, debates on important questions, tentative vindications of worldviews? Yet, I think the disparity of belief between scientists and the public (.pdf) says a great deal about free thought and science.

I. It’s not just angel books, astrology, and acupuncture.

A front-page article in the New York Times of October 22, 1996 (subscription required), delved into the ‘conflict’ between two views of where Native American populations originated—the scientific archaeological account and the account offered by some Native American creation-myths. According to the former, humans first entered the Americas from Asia, crossing the Bering Strait more than 10,000 years ago. This answer, I should hope for most readers, provides an authoritative, extensively confirmed, scientific answer.

Some Native American creation accounts hold that native peoples have always lived in the Americas. That is, Native Americans have been present ever since their ancestors first emerged onto the surface of the earth from a subterranean world called the Lower Regions. If there’s anything we know, it’s that some things are definitively wrong.

That’s one of ‘em.

Yet, the Times noted that many archaeologists, torn between their commitment to scientific method and their appreciation for native culture, ‘have been driven close to a postmodern relativism in which science is just one more belief system.’ Roger Anyon, a British archaeologist who has worked for the Zuni people, was quoted as saying: ‘Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world. … [The Zunis’ worldview is] just as valid as the archeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about.’

Continue reading Postmodernism in a Theocracy

I’m no theologian, so I only understand (and read) a bit of theology. What I see is that many theologians take as a premise the existence of not just a god, but the god of their birth or culture: prima facie belief.

Those theologians that have attempted to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural — of a god — of the god — have provided far more interesting questions than (and I hate to be so harsh about it), those that pontificate not just on how many angels may dance on the head of a pin, but those who try to discover if angels engage in bowel movementsAn aside: Of course, if ethics that stem from belief in the supernatural work for you, that’s wonderful. Perhaps, if you believed otherwise, you would maim, steal, rape and murder others; thus your belief is a necessary thing, albeit unjustified in my eyes.
But I don’t think that’s true. I hope you can be just as ethical without a system of ethics that relies on, what seems to many nonbelievers, as magic beans.. (Of course, I’m speaking of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.)

If you’d like to work through, as one would with a scientific hypothesis, several of the classic ‘proofs’ of the existence of (1) the supernatural, (2) a deistic god, (3) a theistic god, let’s talk it outAnother aside: Of course, if any of these proofs should fail, that does not mean that the god you believe in does not exist. And if your proof should succeed some serious scrutiny from doubters, then it is a powerful argument. Either way, believers in this situation will not be put on the spot. If an argument doesn’t work, it doesn’t work; nothing more.
But if an argument works….

I realize now that my past few posts have been a bit off. Here’s one that begins at the limits and hopes to bring it back to a basic point.

I.

I hope it’s clear from what I initially wrote that in a tradition of poetry, the audience loses itself. One cannot pull back and see with a critical eye. What is required is a distance. Thus, this becomes a meta-conversation about distance and observation. We rely on eyesight, not listening. We don’t listen to the poet tell a story of a triangle and imagine; we discuss the triangle, an open conversation. We observe triangles, close our eyes, and think. This does not mean that listening or empathy is irrational while eyesight and discussion is rational, but this distance is one of critical thought and analysis. This is the Socratic method.

In modern physics textbooks, there usually is in the introduction a definition of ‘physics.’ It usually goes along the lines of, ‘Physics is…’ and then there is a list of things the class will cover, such as the study of light, sound, or movement. This means that physics is generally considered to be what physics do.

Continue reading The Outer Banks: A Follow-up

I. Prologue

Plato once wrote a text called The Republic, and it is commonly used today as an introductory text to political thought. It’s a heavy analogue, where a man says to Socrates, ‘What do you think of this?’ and Socrates says, ‘Well, this is what I think…’ and continues for eight or so pages. Then, another man says to Socrates, ‘What do you think of this other thing?’ and Socrates continues. And so it goes.

There are ten chapters, ten books, of this, and it’s very difficult to read. It delves into all manner of politics and social theory, how the heavens are arranged and how humans should be, but the last book, the last piece of ten, is strangely enough, on poetry. Eric Havelock’s amazing Preface to Plato makes clear that since this stands so far out from the rest of the book, that this chapter made people so uncomfortable, that for hundreds of years, a small piece was usually inserted in the margins of the chapter, going along the lines of, ‘It is unclear that this is part of The Republic’. In fact, some printers were convinced that this was not the work of Plato, and did not publish this last chapter, this 10th book.

What Plato said was that in the ideal society, far more nuanced than a mere utopia, there would be no poetry. This was not a totalitarian demand for the elimination of art; far from it. A far more plausible interpretation of what Plato meant is a matter of Homer and his antecedents. In Plato’s analogue of The Republic, in this last chapter, what Plato asks us to think of a society heavily indebted to the poet/leader. Has there ever been a moment in time where a John Wayne was a poet?

There has been, and everyone knows who he is. His name is five letters long. It’s easy.

Continue reading The 10th Book: Reason and Un-Reason

You can find few people quoted and mis-quoted as often as Einstein on the internet. He was the catalyst who divided an age for us. His brillance began a galactic morph from a fixed, clock-work universe to one dynamic and shifting, and in so doing forever changed science and life on planet earth. No wonder people are quick to stand up Einstein and put words in his mouth — a ventrilaquist’s dummy for their rhetoric. And because of this, it is increasingly important to talk about what Einstein really said and meant, reviving the real person and letting him speak for himself.

Continue reading Einstein and the Mind of God

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

This is the second and final post of my two (and a half) part series on naturalism, and why I reject the existence of the supernatural. My atheism, my unbelief (or disbelief, or rejection, if you will) of the existence of the Christian (or any other, for that matter) god is the result of my naturalistic worldview, specifically, the end result of accepting the scientific method, then methodological naturalism, and then philosophical naturalism. This post is a bit long, but I’ve tried to keep it straightforward in its presentation. I hope you enjoy!

Continue reading Naturalism, pt. II

Drunkentune has done a good job articulating his own naturalism. I thought it might be interesting to hear from a renouned pyschist and reluctant Noble laureate on the matter. I’ve posted here a Google educational video of some interviews of this interesting man, his contributions to physics, and his view of how life ought to be lived [49 mins]:

Continue reading RP Feynman Interview

(Que announcer) Producer James Cameron, creator of Titanic, is teaming up with provocative director Simcha Jacobovici to bring to light a startling new discovery that will shake the very foundations of Christianity. Deep in a hidden cave, 10 stone coffins tell a shocking tale about Jesus of Nazareth — founder of the Christian religion. Did Jesus really rise from the dead like the church says? (Tone of voice hints no.) Was there something going on between him and Mary Magdelene? (Tone hints yes.) And is it possible Jesus had a son? (Hinting yes again.) Cameron is willing to boldly dig up the truth in this daring documentary and peal back church cover-ups and a conspiracy that has ruled the world for two thousand years. Watch the Discovery Channel to find out about these amazing new discoveries….

Continue reading Jesus is dead?

Sometimes I try to tell stories in a roundabout fashion in attempts to explain what I mean. This is one of them.

Continue reading Naturalism, An Intermission