I wrote a very recent status post on my Facebook page which has made me think about how religious people claim their particular holy deity is "perfect". Now, I am no theologian or philosopher but I do have a few thoughts on the idea of perfection.
First of all, I think perfection is impossible. Even so much as for the basic concept that to call something "perfect", we must have something dichotomous that "isn't perfect" with which to define what perfection is. Perfection implies something that has no flaws whatsoever. How does one go about deciding that something is a flaw? In most Christian communities, to live a "perfect" life is to live the life that Jesus (if he ever existed at all) led. Yet, differing Christian sects disagree on very basic information about the life of their "savior" and what he taught.
In our daily lives, we are bombarded with what advertisers want us to perceive as the perfect diet, the perfect physique, etc. Sometimes they aren't far off. Science has shown that people that excerise regularly and follow a proper diet have longer life capacities. Yet, even the most athletic and healthy person can't avoid death altogether. I think this is why that when most people define something that is "perfect" it has the attribute of eternal existence. How many times have you seen products that promise to make you stronger, live longer, and become happier? How many times have you heard Christians say that God is perfect and eternal?
Religion promises all of these things, but it comes with a catch. In most cases, especially with religion, the idea is to capture the essence of the fears and insecurities people have and capitalize on them. As I've heard quoted from a few atheists: "Religion tells you you've been doing something wrong and then offers you the cure." It's like those informercials at 3 in the morning that try to tell you you're out of shape and need to buy their exercise machine to get the perfect body. How can you tell that the machine will really give you a perfect body? How do you know religion will make you a better person?
Perfect has never existed. Religion is not perfect or else God would have created everything perfect from the beginning. Perfection is one of those things that truly is relative. This is why I try to live a life based on analyzing the evidence and using science as a major tool to inform by beliefsThe scientific method has never preyed on my fears and insecurities. Science has never told me that I am living the wrong way (it does suggest ways to extend my time here on Earth though) Why would I want to live in a perfect way? Because I can guarantee that I'd fail. Without failure, there is no improvement. With no improvement you can't define perfection. I will keep on failing and I will keep on improving on my own terms. This is a big reason why I am a freethinker.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Another personal seed of freethought.
In my first post, I wrote about seeds of freethought. I figure I'd share another today. I get messages from time to time asking, "Why did you choose to be an atheist?" To me, this implies that the asker thinks I have some sort of agenda. A lot of religious people think that atheists choose to be atheist. I can assure you it really isn't a choice at all. It's usually a long, arduous process where one analyzes the evidence for and against the existence of a deity and accepts the conclusion the evidence suggests. That no god/s exist.
Like many other scientists before me (whether they were religious or not) for the past thousand years have used the scientific method by running experiments to test hypotheses. I remember learning about the scientific method when I was in grade school. It was nothing extravagant to me at the time, but in my current life its implementation means volumes.
I remember when I was in grade school we had an officer come in and teach the D.A.R.E. program. There were statistics being thrown at us left and right: mortality rates, rates of use, incarceration rates and so on.
I wondered to myself, "How and where did those numbers come from?" They could have been just made up to make a point, or there was someone whose job it was to count all the deaths from drugs (which would take a while) each day. I really couldn't make sense of all the numbers, but once I learned of the internet a couple of years later, I decided to look these numbers up. I searched a few websites and found the statistics that the officer had talked about. They were a bit outdated, but they had citations and links to the places involved in doing the studies: and a big one popped out at me, the National Institute of Health. Apparently, they had doctors and other scientists who did all the work and calculations to generate the numbers presented to me in class. Also, I could go to the library and find these studies published. You could say I became the Encyclopedia Brown of drug statistics that day.
Now the part where religion comes in. Religion as it was presented to me growing up only came with one book: the Bible. (I don't count the hymnal.) Here it was presented to me as the "ultimate knowledge", the "guide for life", the "Eternal Word". So, if all the answers were there then why didn't someone use the Bible to explain the drug statistics or any other answer to a multitude of questions I had as a child. I still find today religion leaves me with many questions. If you ask the same question to different sects of any religion you will most likely get different answers from each sect you talk to. (And you'll always hear how everyone else has it wrong.) If the religion is based on one book, shouldn't everyone's answer who follows that book be the same? I can go on ad nauseum with questions.
Yet, almost every holy book presented in the world today has not the single thing that would probably convince me to look a little further into the subject. That one thing is citations. Those little tidbits that say: Where did this information come from? Is that information reliable? Is the holy book corroborated by any outside sources? How was this information compiled? These are questions every religious person should ask about their own holy book and others. If the holy book is the "ultimate knowledge" then it should stand up to honest inquiry. When it doesn't even stand up to even the most basic standards of evidence then one should hold it in suspect and not follow blindly.
Like many other scientists before me (whether they were religious or not) for the past thousand years have used the scientific method by running experiments to test hypotheses. I remember learning about the scientific method when I was in grade school. It was nothing extravagant to me at the time, but in my current life its implementation means volumes.
I remember when I was in grade school we had an officer come in and teach the D.A.R.E. program. There were statistics being thrown at us left and right: mortality rates, rates of use, incarceration rates and so on.
I wondered to myself, "How and where did those numbers come from?" They could have been just made up to make a point, or there was someone whose job it was to count all the deaths from drugs (which would take a while) each day. I really couldn't make sense of all the numbers, but once I learned of the internet a couple of years later, I decided to look these numbers up. I searched a few websites and found the statistics that the officer had talked about. They were a bit outdated, but they had citations and links to the places involved in doing the studies: and a big one popped out at me, the National Institute of Health. Apparently, they had doctors and other scientists who did all the work and calculations to generate the numbers presented to me in class. Also, I could go to the library and find these studies published. You could say I became the Encyclopedia Brown of drug statistics that day.
Now the part where religion comes in. Religion as it was presented to me growing up only came with one book: the Bible. (I don't count the hymnal.) Here it was presented to me as the "ultimate knowledge", the "guide for life", the "Eternal Word". So, if all the answers were there then why didn't someone use the Bible to explain the drug statistics or any other answer to a multitude of questions I had as a child. I still find today religion leaves me with many questions. If you ask the same question to different sects of any religion you will most likely get different answers from each sect you talk to. (And you'll always hear how everyone else has it wrong.) If the religion is based on one book, shouldn't everyone's answer who follows that book be the same? I can go on ad nauseum with questions.
Yet, almost every holy book presented in the world today has not the single thing that would probably convince me to look a little further into the subject. That one thing is citations. Those little tidbits that say: Where did this information come from? Is that information reliable? Is the holy book corroborated by any outside sources? How was this information compiled? These are questions every religious person should ask about their own holy book and others. If the holy book is the "ultimate knowledge" then it should stand up to honest inquiry. When it doesn't even stand up to even the most basic standards of evidence then one should hold it in suspect and not follow blindly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)