Sunday, October 21, 2012
Out of touch!
Maybe I should have started writing a pro-god and pro-religion blog. It's so much easier! The problem with Christian and religious reasoning is that it has no overlap with objective reality. You can't test for the existence of god, but there are ways to evaluate the proposition. We are intelligent agents operating in an environment that we do not have complete information about. So assumptions are used to balance the lack of information. If you adopt the christian world view your set of assumptions are influenced by it. And that explains the last 2000 years of human error. I'm not blaming Christianity for all of the failures of human civilization, I'm blaming stupidity. And you could say that religion is a subset of stupidity.
If you want to write a blog to promote reason you need to know stuff in order to accurately represent reason. Plus, you need to be reasonable. I can make half thought out attempts at simple insults to religion, but that won't help anybody. I can try to promote science but I am not a scientist. I read a pro evolution blog-post written by a person who accepts evolution but doesn't know the first thing about it, it was painful. A person who has made the right choice in accepting evolution but missed the point that it's not a matter of choice. I don't accept evolution because I want to, I accept it because I understand how the world works. I don't accept string theory, I don't understand string theory.
And this is today’s contention, being religious puts you out of touch with the real world. Let's say that all religion is creationism, as it actually is! Then we have people with competing views on reality, some will accept the methodology of creation as explained by science. Some people will want to be literal and will attempt to chuck science out the window. The first group will argue who sparked the big bang, Elohim, Mithra or Cthulhu. The second group rejects the big bang as it's not described in their texts. So we have a discussion on reality, but not on reality's terms. If we accept that type of discussion it doesn't matter who wins, because reality has lost. I have seen a lot of debates about different topics, I have never seen a debate on gravity. If we have these debates on things from the realm of science, will we have the same debate in the realm of philosophy. Lets take Islam, there is currently a debate about Islams views on society. We know a lot about human behavior, and how individuals fit in a larger group. And we know that by studying societies. But by studying Islam people get to positions on social issues that are demonstrably wrong. The most obvious one is the women’s rights issues in Islam. It dictates that a woman is not equal to a man. On the other hand women are more than capable of outperforming men. A society that doesn't utilize half of the assets available is crippled compared to an open society that does. Another issue shared in Islam and Christianity is homophobia. Homosexuality occurs in nature and has no adverse effects on species. It also has no adverse effects on societies. Leaving aside the utilization of assets argument. There is actually a social issue that occurs from homosexuality, and that is homophobia. It is a product of religious social engineering. It promotes hate and violence against a segment of the population. And if we look at it on the individual level it is demonstrably immoral. All religions have a sexual repression element, the most unforgivable one is circumcision. Circumcision is the act of mutilation of the genitalia of children. And just in case you are retarded look up mutilation in the dictionary. Religion has taken a position that sexuality is part of a dark side of people that needs to be conquered. This is why religions have provisions to control behavior that occurs naturally. Children's genitalia maimed to suppress pleasure from the sexual act. Teenagers that are genetically programed and hormonally controlled to start having sex A.S.A.P. are kept in the dark about contraception and STD's. And it is carved in stone, teenagers will have sex. There is no running and no hiding from it. Biology explains that behavior and society can make sure that when they do, they are protected from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. But you go explain that to the religious.
The world makes sense when analyzed objectively. And it makes sense with a little effort to understand it. The world makes no sense if you look at it and try to interpret it with the religious context. It is obvious that religion was not made to have a healthy society, but to dictate what somebody wanted society to be. On top of that some good ideas that religion had adopted from society centuries ago no longer apply. And yes, we can't disprove god. But we can positively prove that the proposition of a divine arbiter for humanity isn't compatible with reality. And we can do that simply by arguing how broken the dictates from the divine are.