MLK shoots Einstein...but he lives

Reading A Briefer History of Time has provided a base for ideas from atheist writers I have been reading. My past few months of atheist thought has been without and idea from Martin Luther King that religion and science are dissimilar because religion deals with values and science deals with knowledge. I've read this idea a few times in King's book Strength To Love, a collection of his sermons, but I had forgot about it till it surfaced in my inner-dialogue recently.

All reading I've done in atheism thus far has been based around the idea that rational thought could not lead 2 God. Rational thought is represented most often, though not exclusively, by the scientific method. Science is the most rational aspect of modern society.

I would agree, at this point, that religion is always irrational but is an entirely rational world desirable? Is it even sustainable? If the answer is no then we could entertain King's idea that science and religion are not at odds.

The negative products of religion are answered by the negative products of science and vice verse. There is much more 2 develop in this line of thought. I hope 2 maintain continuity though it will be tough.

"Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."--MLK

Einstein Shoots Jesus

I am little over half way through Stephen Hawking's A Briefer History of Time. It's made me feel like a little kid with a new chemistry lab ready 2 blow stuff up. I am definitely going to re-read the book immediately. This information must be part of my working knowledge.

The atheist authors/philosophers I've been reading lately have all commented on the complexity of the universe fulfilling a persons emotional space for God. I don't believe I've ever internalized this until reading Hawking.

After finishing this book the question left is do people replace religion with science? If so does science become your religion? At which point I pick back up with Bertrand Russell. I will also need a strong theist's perspective 2 this question.

You Can't Start Rationalist Philosophy Without Science

I finished my first set of readings by Bertrand Russell. He breaks religion in three parts; the personal or emotional, the theological and the institutional (i.e. churches). He leaves the institutional consideration to historians and deals with the personal and theological. These two parts connect outside of the institutional. The emotional space we hold for religion is fulfilled most generally and historically through theology. This first paper of his was a summary on how religion has evolved and is highly pragmatic. Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, writes that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. This pragmatism eludes to how religion does in fact evolve which for me blows any question of doctrinal loyalty out the window.

You can definitely see the shadow of Dawkins as you progress through Bert's philosophy.

I checked out a copy of Hawking's A Briefer History of Time tonight because I need that general background to start understanding much of what I will be reading. While I'm pretty grounded in humanities my scientific knowledge is slush. I don't plan on extrapolating super string theory next week I just want a general understanding on the development of a unified theory. If this doesn't provide me the confidence to plow through Bert and move on to Leibniz then I may pick up The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

The Calm Before The...

In 10 days it will be one year since I woke up on my good friend's couch 2 a man charging through the front door. The next clear moment I had was raising my head above the sink. A few moments ago I was finishing an article I've been putting off and I heard a sound outside my window. I went downstairs, open the front door, walked 2 my office window, looked around, "is there anyone out here?", all of this as natural as if I was putting on shoes. A few weeks ago around 4:00 a.m. there was a knock at my front door. My dog automatically jumped from the bed and ran 2 the front door. I opened the door, looked right, looked left, yelled at Charlie 2 come back inside. Both episodes were probably animals, maybe the few random dogs that roam the neighborhood freely. My dog is 2 lazy and friendly 2 provide any protection (he takes after his old man). I have no intentions of painting a tough image for myself, primarily to avoid anyone relying on me for physical safety. The lesson reached from last year's experience is that rare susceptibility 2 misplaced physical harm is weak when contrast with everyone's frequent susceptibility to emotional harm. Place your fear carefully.

Let Me Explain Something...

10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract

Larry David Christmas

This didn't work last time. Lets try again.

Obstacle Course

Last Saturday I had 2 Mormon missionaries visit my house. While I did not have time 2 entertain their mission I can't help but hold a certain respect for their faith. I recently listened to an interview with Noam Chomsky regarding faith. Chomsky tries 2 not have faith because he believes in a position enunciated by Bertrand Russell 2 keep away from having irrational beliefs. He further clarifies that what we believe should have some evidence. So equality, justice and peace are not principals we have faith in but commitments we hold supported by evidence. The respect I've held for people very disciplined in their church doctrine has recently been shaken. Most of my concerns come from the political arena of the past 5 years. The major issues being war, gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and 9/11. I formerly thought the largest obstacle 2 stability in this world was education and poverty but as I see educated people, bred in comfort, flying planes in2 buildings I'm lead 2 believe that faith might be a larger obstacle than I had considered.

In Praise of Me

I was preparing 2 write this long reflection on the holiday season being/becoming/having been pretty bogus, but as I began 2 write I saw the task 2 laborsome and instead found this quote 2 support such laziness.

Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for the others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish for ever.
—Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness, 1935

I will seek more of this man who writes In Praise of Idleness.

FIRST POST

Here is my introduction.

"Conscience does make cowards of us all"

Stolen from Shakespeare but rest assured in all other mediums I am equally unorigional.

One positive attribute you will find here is an ability 2 admit error that I believe is without precedent. I've seemed 2 have found a thin line between self-reflection and self-loathing.

Conclusions, I feel, are overrated.

Contentions I allow.