"Offence is what people take when they can't take argument" - Richard Dawkins

Well, I'm about halfway through The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. Definitely a good read, very illuminating - a clarification is probably in order. He is not writing about religion in particular, just about the lack of science and skepticism among people in the USA. For obvious reasons, though, he's touched on religion a lot.

Anyhow, he presents more information that points to an anthropogenic origin for the Judeo-Christian Bible, mostly from things he mentions in passing that I then go on to research on my own. An aside, every time his statements have been confirmed by what I read from reputable sources at large. In particular, I learned some interesting things about the book of Deuteronomy (writing style, form, history about it's "discovery") that strongly point to it having been created during King Josiah's reign to bolster respect and obedience to his rule.

Growing up, I was taught that a world without a god and a book of revelations from that god was a world that was empty and senseless. This has been the complete opposite of my personal experience though - setting aside an assumption of a god or an absolute supernatural authority of any sort, I am finding more meaning in this world. Things are making more sense, things fall into place, priorities are clearer, and I honestly think that I am more moral (and/or ethical) than I was before. Maybe particular to the branch of Christianity that I grew up in was the doctrine that all Christians have true joy, and without their faith, there is no true joy and happiness in life. I have found this to be false, as well. I'm at least as happy as I was, and apart from struggles with dogmatic emotional extended family members, life is much more meaningful, and therefore much more joyful.

I watched a video of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton, and ran across this interesting quote:

Well, religion is not the belief that there is a god, after all, religion is the belief that god tells you what to do.

Christopher Hitchens (at the 49 minute 48 second mark)

Can't say I knew much about Hitchens before today, but I agree with this definition completely (I know that it's not a dictionary definition, but its a working definition I can get behind). This clarifies in my mind why (as was debated in response to a previous journal entry of mine, though my entry was not about this) I can't view atheism as a religion (though I don't particularly care if others do - I just don't think it clarifies anything about an atheist at all).

So I just finished reading The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture by Wright, N.T. (it's published in the U.K. under the title Scripture and the Authority of God - I'm not sure why the need for an alternate title... war sells better in the U.S.A.?). This was a much less condescending and dogmatic book than the last one, and therefore much more readable. However, he doesn't set out to address some things that are core issues for me about belief in god in general and about how compelling the Bible can be to a modern rationalist. So, not much for me to dig up in that vein of things, though I gathered he's got a bit of distaste for modernist ontological claims... His modes of understanding the Bible are certainly more fluid and palatable than the brand of fundamentalist Sola Scriptura interpretation that I grew up under. That said, I need to be shown a reason (or a few) to *try* and follow the Bible before a book about *how* to follow it really can illuminate things. If you're already at the trying to follow stage, though, I think this book is well written and thought out enough to warrant a read. (It's a quick read, too)

Re:Oh noes!

As it happens, I have a friend who was a believer, so much so that he learned Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic so that he could read older versions. He ended up concluding that the translators had done so much revising that if god existed, he would have prevented the distortion.

He's a happy atheist today.

For me, this is a fundamental problem as well (I know there are acres of discussion on the nature of inspiration that allow for lots of variance in translation and copying, but I'm speaking about how I feel about the whole matter). If god exists and wants a relationship with me and other people, why does he not directly and clearly reveal himself, or the essentials of what he wants in a relationship, in a way that anyone looking to believe in god can understand without confusion? The revisions that have occurred in copying and translation over time are, for me, significant. Not to mention the effect of decisions about what to include as canon. A system with more robust error checking could easily have been devised by god, and would be magnitudes more compelling to me that current "inspired" texts (Clarification, I don't know any ancient languages, I just know what I've read from respected researchers about specific passages, manuscripts, and whatnot.)

I find it problematic that to proclaim "I believe in {deity}" is a generally acceptable and non-offensive statement, and to proclaim "I don't believe in {deity}" is generally considered an offensive and antagonistic statement.

Everything should open to scrutiny.

Side notes: Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on the last journal - seems to be more of an emotional interchange than I would hope, but I read everyones' responses with interest. Also, this journal is not directed at anyone or any post that I've read in the slashdot journals.

Continuing on from this journal, I'm currently reading "Can I Trust My Bible?" by Moody Press (copyright 1963), and I just finished chapter 7, "Is the History of the Old Testament Accurate?" by Meredith G Kline, Th.M., Ph.D.

This is an odd chapter for me, as I have not supposed that the Bible is, in its entirety historically inaccurate, so this chapter was more of a curiosity for me than a burning question. (There are parts of the Bible, i.e. a singular worldwide flood, that due to our scientific understandings of the world via geology and archeology I know *cannot* be true. If you believe these texts, it must be allegorically at least partially, or you are being intellectually dishonest. On the whole though, dates of rulers reigns and conquests and all were not something I am criticizing). However, though this chapter did a reasonable job of proving a select set of historical accounts in the Bible to be true, it raised more profound questions about the legitimacy of the claim that the Old Testament was to any degree spiritually generated. Here are some specific quotes that raised those questions:

Furthermore, the religious ritual required by the Pentateuchal laws is now seen to be similar in outward form to that in the cults of Israel's neighbors in the mid-second millennium B.C. The pattern of the tabernacle and its furnishings corresponds strikingly with that of contemporary non-Israelite sanctuaries. There is, for example, the fourteenth century Canaanite temple uncovered at Hazor, with its court, main hall, and holy of holies. This sanctuary design is seen from excavations at Byblos to be at least as old as 2000 B.C. (pp.146-147)

Comparison of Ugaritic and Mosaic ritual reveals such similarities in terminology, sacrificial procedure, and sacred personnel as to render Wellhausen's viewpoint obsolete. (p.147)

Shockingly, I had not known this, and it does, significantly in my mind, erode the claim of special revelation and inspiration made by the Mosaic texts. Also, this is where the author leaves a rational viewpoint behind and starts betraying a heavy bias, with the phrases like similar in outward form to try and minimize the de-inspirational effect of these facts. The author also realizes that my realization is a very rational and logical way of understanding of this information, since the line immediately after the above quote is as follows:

Indeed, with the varieties of ceremonial symbolism found in the Mosaic legislation being traced in the pagan world to even pre-Mosaic times, the strategic situation in the modern debate is radically changing. The question of the historical genuineness of the Mosaic ceremonial system is yielding to the more basic question of the spiritual genuineness, that is, the divine origin, of the religion which the Mosaic ritual enshrined. (p.147)

The author's counter to this question of spiritual genuineness is, simply put, "You must have faith in order to see that it is from God". I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me at all. This really looks like a smoking gun of anthropological, as opposed to supernatural, origins of the Hebrew religion.

Continuing on from this journal, I'm currently reading "Can I Trust My Bible?" by Moody Press (copyright 1963), and I just finished chapter 6, "How Reliable Is the Old Testament Text?" by R. Laird Harris, Th.M., Ph.D.

I really just have a short comment on this one - it had the opposite effect than the author intended. Also in brief, chapters 2 - 5 provided nothing compelling.

Background - due to a change of perspective on my part, and the necessity of sharing that with family, I now have a stack of reading. It is fair that I be reading to seek answers to the questions I have, but I'm not excited about doing so. I feel like any substantive answers would already be forthcoming and apparent, and wouldn't require a great deal of searching. Anyhow, in order to give everyone a fair hearing, I'm reading what people recommend. This has not, however, been fruitful in convincing me of what I don't believe, and it's often-times raising more critical and harsher questions than I had even raised. So, on to the actual topic.

I'm currently reading "Can I Trust My Bible?" by Moody Press (copyright 1963), and I'm on the first chapter, "How May I Know the Bible Is Inspired", by Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D. Here are a few excerpts that are telling of what I'm struggling with in this book.

Therefore the doctrine of inspiration, like every other Christian doctrine, cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a clear thinking unbeliever. (p.24)

Okay - so if they (and I) are clear thinking, and you can't demonstrate it, doesn't that preclude that your position is clear thinking and rather suppose that it must not be? Not a good start in my opinion, but well supported later on.

Of course Adam did not have a written Bible, but he was the recipient of a revelation. God spoke to him. How then could he attribute authority to God's commands? Was it possible in the garden to do what is impossible now, to demonstrate God's authority? Evidently not. To suppose so would be the same as supposing that Adam could deduce the axioms of geometry. (p.28)

How are those two (geometric axioms and God's authority) suddenly analogous? I think that it would be reasonable to say that if God walked with Adam, God would be able to easily demonstrate that he was at least capable of being the creator of the world. All it would take would be a demonstration of some small creation, or control on such a scale that control of the whole world is feasible. Honestly, if someone makes a claim of power that *can not* be deduced from axioms that I accept, I think it should be pretty clear that they don't have *that* power. On the other hand, if they do have that power, especially to that magnitude, it should be trivial to deduce. If God's authority is axiomatic, this begs a multitude of questions - does God exist, what is God like, what is the claimed authority over...? A multitude of questions also follow, primarily what can be *deduced* from that statement, and do those deductions lead us to contradictions? I am willing to make the claim that geometric and mathmatical axioms do not beg questions - they are truly the start of their systems of logic - and the things that can be deduced from those axioms are *not* contradictory, and (most importantly) are useful in an evident way in the world.

We'll see if I come across anything truly useful and compelling in my readings, but it's not looking promising right now...

:(

Yeah, I spent 4 hours talking to my wife this afternoon. Very intense discussion. The upshot of it all? I can't reasonably be a Christian or such any longer. I've settled to what could be called atheist leaning agnosticism. And secular humanism. Perhaps I'm a naturalist (philosophically, not in terms of studying plants and animals). Anyhow, I know what I'm not now - for a lot of reasons, mostly due to the fact that I don't think Christianity (or any supernatural religion) makes its case well enough or provides sufficient evidence for its astounding claims.

Vatican Says Alien Life Plausible - Re:Mythbusters

Personally I got tired how all the good things that happened in my life were God's blessings and how all the bad things were just part of some incomprehensible plan. A lot of non-believers like to talk about how religion is popular because it gives people hope, but for me it was a millstone around my neck. Imagine the kind of self-esteem issues one develops after being repeatedly told that you didn't really earn the good things in your life, and that the bad things in your life happened for some reasons beyond your comprehension.

Confirmation Bias

Morton's demon
Morton's Demon was devised by Glenn R. Morton in 2002] as part of a thought experiment to explain his own experience of confirmation bias. By analogy with Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon stands at the gateway of a person's senses and lets in facts that agree with that person's beliefs while deflecting those that do not.
Morton was at one time a Young Earth creationist who later disavowed this belief. The demon was his way of referring to his own bias and that which he continued to observe in other Young Earth creationists. With time it has become a common shorthand for confirmation bias in a variety of situations.

'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Two weeks ago, The Observer revealed how 17-year-old student Rand Abdel-Qader was beaten to death by her father after becoming infatuated with a British soldier in Basra. In this remarkable interview, Abdel-Qader Ali explains why he is unrepentant - and how police backed his actions. Afif Sarhan in Basra and Caroline Davies report

Fun times - I just found a script for giving Selected songs in iTunes an additional half a star, and then made two versions of it to give the currently playing song plus or minus half a star. Made a keyboard shortcut to them, and now I have all the rating granularity I desire, right at my fingertips!

Up

var iTunesApp = WScript.CreateObject("iTunes.Application");
var currTrack = iTunesApp.CurrentTrack;
if (currTrack != null)
{
try {
var currRating = currTrack.Rating;
if (currRating {
currRating += 10;
currTrack.Rating = currRating;
}
} catch(er) { }
}

Down

var iTunesApp = WScript.CreateObject("iTunes.Application");
var currTrack = iTunesApp.CurrentTrack;
if (currTrack != null)
{
try {
var currRating = currTrack.Rating;
if (currRating > 9)
{
currRating -= 10;
currTrack.Rating = currRating;
}
} catch(er) { }
}

Save the above into two .js files, and click away, you should see the ratings on the currently playing song change.

I'm too uninterested to try and indent the code blocks properly...
Update: I Just noticed "Down" doesn't work on a 5 star song. Not sure why. I'll post a solution if I find one.
Update 2: All's well.

Some of your past moderations have been meta-moderated by other Slashdot readers. Here are the exciting results:

* "Vista again?" from the discussion "Vista SP1 Is Even Less Compatible" which you moderated as Troll was voted Unfair.

Summary of your recent moderation: 80% Fair

Thank you for moderating.

Huh - Considering the article title, this guy was clearly a troll, and with +5 insightful, he deserved a few down-notches on what was, unless the definition has changed, not really an amazing insight at all.

Maybe I'll keep getting down-metamodded, and then I won't get stuck with annoying mod points every few weeks. That'd be nice.