Monday, March 01, 2010

Thanks

I was responding to another blogger on his site. He'd given what I thought was a poorly argued post on the kidneys and how they represent God's many kindnesses.

I thought immediately to remind him of the very recent earthquake in Chile as a counter example - after all, if God is responsible for the kidneys, according to his theory, then God should also be responsible for disasters such as earthquakes. I pointed out, too, that perhaps God should be held responsible for the congenital kidney problems many people suffer, but this person is impervious to dealing with these elements in his theory.

His predictable tactic was to brand me an ingrate who should donate his two kidneys if they weren't so great. But this is the sort of person we're dealing with, a man who sincerely believes that the Holocaust is an example of divine benevolence to the Jews.

What's the proper response to such intractable lunacy? Why doggerel, of course....
Thank you, god, for the kidneys,
Thank you, god, for the quakes,
Thanks for the Nazi stormtroopers
Impaling our children on stakes.

Thanks for disease and thanks for our health,
It don't make no difference,
To us it's all wealth.

And because I say thanks,
It puts me in bliss,
And I'll just go on and ignore
The feeling you just don't exist.

27 comments:

  1. Unless you enjoy it, there really is no point in arguing with him. He's a disgusting person and an embarrassment to Orthodox Jews everywhere. I used to see him as just a nuisance, a troll who wrote insulting but ridiculous comments on other people’s blogs and who’s nonsense was so over-the-top that it was often comical. Then a few months ago he left one of his usual sex-obsessed comments on a twenty-year-old girl’s blog. Within a few exchanges he was suggesting that she was skeptical of religion because she needed a man, and would she like his ****. Then he started calling her at home. At that point he went from comical to creepy to criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. G*3 - That's a rather serious charge you are making, and I'm not comfortable leaving it on my blog unless it can be backed up better. Is there something publicly available that verifies your claim?

    I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I feel that it would not be ethical of me to leave up a serious accusation that is not substantiated.

    In any event, you are correct that I should re-think my participation on the blog of the 'Jewish Philosopher.'

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Read through the coments on this post:

    http://righteousrasha.blogspot.com/2009/10/jew-president-two-patriots.html

    I can't verify his offline behavior, but the comment thread speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to admit that I'm shocked at what I read on that link. Even for JP..

    Thanks for informing me. I don't plan on going back there again either to read or to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. > I have to admit that I'm shocked at what I read on that link. Even for JP..

    That was exactly my reaction when I first read it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm 21, actually - not 20. ;)

    Stein has been lying about me this very day, as a matter of fact.

    His accusations against atheists, agnostics, skeptics and non-believers make me ill just as they do you two. But I mainly read his blog for the comments, as his opponents are usually quite intelligent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shalmo5:24 PM

    Larry I actually do enjoy your debates with JP and I don't think you should quit so easily

    and to answer your topic question the earthquake in Haiti was God letting the world know he does not want missionaries going to third world countries to preach their garbage (yes that is a comical rebuttal to Pat Robertson's views on Haiti!)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Johan3:46 PM

    A relevant hymn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaGhYFHIzg

    ReplyDelete
  9. The truth is... everything "God" does is good. Human perspective makes things good and not good.

    To God, life and death are equal and good, suffering and joy is equal and good.

    To humans, we don't like suffering, we don't like death. We see these things as bad.

    If our perspective changed to divine love and acceptance, we could see natural phenomena and the destruction it may cause without anger, but as a process.

    If all of us were filled with the same love as God, there would be no fear, no need for rules, no lust for power. It's humans who pervert things "God" intended for love, created from love.

    Life is a gift we all share, it's fragile and beautiful. We just start to forget. We complicate ourselves.

    But God isn't a far away idea. He is not someone who sits in the clouds with a beard. He is our breath. Our unfathomable spirit.
    We just forget.

    ReplyDelete
  10. L,

    Thanks, but I'll call "bullshit" on your entire comment unless you cn back it up with something more than just your opinion.

    Where and how does one get to know the "truth" as you explain it? Or is it something that you alone know?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The truth is in all the things you take for granted. In all the miracles we've found scientific explanations for. Where does the essence of life come from?

    Can you point to it?
    Can you physically recreate the point at which an infant takes it's first breath? Is it up to you, to anyone to give life? or merely cultivate it?

    I've always been curious: What set in place the physics of our world, our universe? What do you attribute that to?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "What set in place the physics of our world, our universe? What do you attribute that to?"

    I cannot answer these questions better than a cosmologist or physicist. There are plenty of searches you can perform to get the latest thinking on these questions of yours.

    But I see no reason to credit the Abrahamic god with "setting in place" - if that phrase even applies -- the physics of our universe. What is the physics based evidence for doing so?

    ReplyDelete
  13. L,

    "Where does the essence of life come from?"

    Excuse me? What essence of life? What does this even mean, and why would we think it is anything other than a humen concept?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, things are alive, correct?

    Or can you deny that, too?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes, some things are indeed alive. I hope now that we have that out of the way you'll hone in on what this essence of life is. Please do try to be specific.

    And please note the question I had before for you: "But I see no reason to credit the Abrahamic god with 'setting in place' - if that phrase even applies -- the physics of our universe. What is the physics based evidence for doing so?"

    ReplyDelete
  16. And I'm not asking for a cosmologist's or physicist's answer to this question. I'm asking for yours.

    Or at least provide me a link that backs up your belief.

    I do believe in the existence of God, but if you can sway me otherwise, I'll reconsider.

    I have another question, really, just because I am deeply curious, but, do you believe in love?

    I'm sure you may find a way to skirt this question to, or may not publish my comment or respond at all, hey, you have the power. It is your blog. But I am looking for answers, too. I enjoy talking to people with different views beyond my own... so please, if you could, answer me that.

    Do you believe in love?

    ReplyDelete
  17. well.. I never did credit the "Abrahamic god" for setting in place. Those are words you are putting in my mouth. I just merely posed the question to you, because I was interested in YOUR answer, which you merely skirted.

    And yes, again, the universe operates under a standard of physics, right? Planets revolve certain ways, we operate under the notion of gravity... and such and such. I was just asking you what you believe instated these things. But you cannot tell me what you believe in this matter either.

    The essence of life, Larry... what makes something alive, where that breath comes from. Again, I am wondering what you believe in this matter. And you have no response.

    I myself, attribute these mysteries to God. A God, in which you don't believe in, thus, I presume you have an alternative to answering these questions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Do you believe in love?"

    I believe that people do love one another and fall in love.

    I don't know what "set in place" the physics of our universe. In fact, I am not sure that "set in place" is the right expression to use. The expression is a bit misleading in that it already assumes that a "something" did the setting, and we don't know this to be true.

    Based on my (admittedly limited and partial) understanding of such things, I find it very improbable that the Abrahamic god is somehow bhind it all, very improbable that any deity at all was involved, and only slightly more probable that a living (possibly intelligent) agent had a role, and so on. I think a very cool natuarlistic explanation will eventually be found to be the best answer.

    But I always ask and never get a good answer as to what the physics based evidence is for the Abrahamic god specifically.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ugh. Now I'm going to have the Huey Lewis song trapped in my head.

    ReplyDelete
  20. L,

    "well.. I never did credit the 'Abrahamic god' for setting in place. Those are words you are putting in my mouth. I just merely posed the question to you, because I was interested in YOUR answer, which you merely skirted."

    I did put words in your mouth, so to speak. Sorry. I dislike when it's done to me.

    I trust you find I have now answered your question directly?

    "And yes, again, the universe operates under a standard of physics, right? Planets revolve certain ways, we operate under the notion of gravity... and such and such. I was just asking you what you believe instated these things. But you cannot tell me what you believe in this matter either.

    And have I responded directly to this item now, also?

    "The essence of life, Larry... what makes something alive, where that breath comes from. Again, I am wondering what you believe in this matter. And you have no response."

    My response is that "essence of life" seems to be a made-up term. It seems to be a human invention. That's where it comes from. What tests does one perform to establish the existence of this essence?

    "I myself, attribute these mysteries to God. A God, in which you don't believe in, thus, I presume you have an alternative to answering these questions."

    I've given my answers. That's fine that you attribute these things - which you oddly call "mysteries" -- to God (who in many traditions is inscrutable). But why do you attribute so? What evidence leads you directly to the God so often worshipped in American religious congregations?

    I have answered you directly. Can you please return the favor at some point?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is there physics-based evidence for love?

    Is there something solid you can point to that shows anyone other than the person feeling love or in love that it exists?


    So, you don't like the use "set in place" Which means the physical standards of the universe have always been and will always be, which means they are infinite. Or do you believe in a beginning? In which case, I ask, where do you believe this beginning came from?

    You say that you feel like a "very cool natuarlistic explanation will eventually be found to be the best answer"

    So what if these two things coincide? What if the naturalistic explanation IS God? Would you even be open to that idea? Or are you just adamantly denying only the existence of the "Abrahamic god" as you so refer?

    But before you get to that... show me the physics-based evidence for love

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Is there physics-based evidence for love?"

    Yes. Brain chemistry. We can do all sorts of scans and images to establish patterns that correspond to love and to make love "visible" to others.


    "So, you don't like the use 'set in place' Which means the physical standards of the universe have always been and will always be, which means they are infinite. Or do you believe in a beginning? In which case, I ask, where do you believe this beginning came from?"

    No, I never said that "the physical standards of the universe have always been and will always be, which means they are infinite." What I said that the anthropomorphic phrase "set in place" was probably inappropriate. I already told you that I don't know where "this beginning came from." I don't think you know, either.


    "So what if these two things coincide? What if the naturalistic explanation IS God? Would you even be open to that idea? Or are you just adamantly denying only the existence of the 'Abrahamic god' as you so refer?"

    Sure, I'm open to the idea that "the naturalistic explanation IS God." I think there's an equality probability that the explanation is Zeus or Odin or Allah or you and your dad or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Puff the Magic Dragon. I'm open to the idea, but you should recognize two things:

    (1) There is no reason to believe that it is God.

    (2) There is very good reason to believe that God is man-made.


    "But before you get to that... show me the physics-based evidence for love"

    Already done.


    Now, L, you have some questions of your own to answer. Are you going to answer me or do you feel you don't need to? Or, are you going to stonewall and act as though my answers aren't good enough. Before you do this, I'll ask you to do some research on love and the brain. There's plenty of research available from neuroscientists that talks about the brain and love. You have all that you need to find out about the topic.

    Now, you have made some grand claims for God:

    (a) "To God, life and death are equal and good, suffering and joy is equal and good."

    (b) "But God isn't a far away idea. He is not someone who sits in the clouds with a beard. He is our breath. Our unfathomable spirit."

    You have yet to explain the source of your knowledge of God. I wonder why this is?

    You also seem to like the feel-good woo:

    (c)"If our perspective changed to divine love and acceptance, we could see natural phenomena and the destruction it may cause without anger, but as a process."

    (d) "If all of us were filled with the same love as God, there would be no fear, no need for rules, no lust for power. It's humans who pervert things "God" intended for love, created from love."

    (e) "Life is a gift we all share, it's fragile and beautiful. We just start to forget. We complicate ourselves."

    (f) "The truth is in all the things you take for granted. In all the miracles we've found scientific explanations for. Where does the essence of life come from?"

    Not one of these statements, a through f, says anything of substance as far as I can tell. You abdicate yourself from condemning the awful deeds attributed to this God, you attribute great power and authority to this God with no apparent reason, and you talk about life in vague terms to make it seem all mysterious and mystical.

    I'll ask another question, but you already seem to have a track record for not answering. Why did you respond to my post? If you are not going to say anything, what can you possibly hope to accomplish?

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are talking about Brain scans that show that someone is feeling love. There are also Brain scans that show that someone is connecting to the spiritual.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104240746&ps=rs

    and also: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

    So if brain scans are your basis that love exists, then brain scans should be your basis to prove that people are connecting to the spirtual.

    I am looking for the questions you'd like me to answer. I am unclear as to what you are directly looking for but the only thing I see is you repeating what I've said and calling it unsubstantial. That's fine, but that's not a question.

    I responded to your post because I feel like we are both seeking understanding. I can't imagine what life looks like without faith and belief... the more I try, the more I come back to it, yet you seem to be fine living without it. Or maybe not, considering you have spent a considerable amount of time on this blog arguing against it. And what am I trying to accomplish? Further understanding. I am always trying my own values and always open to learning and listening to what others believe.

    I don't have all the answers, I don't feel like I need them for myself because I believe in a higher power... whether you call this God, Zeus, Allah, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it is what it is and in the end, it's just a name. I don't believe that we as humans have everything we need to be able to understand the spiritual realm. Imagine how silly some of the thoughts of a 5 year old can seem. Our logic may not be the same logic of God, so how can we expect to find him there?
    When you look at a leaf, do you see green? You think you do, but what you are really seeing is everything except the color green. Imagine what the world may look like without our human receptors, our human brain to interpret it. Are you able to even imagine stepping beyond your own humanity in this way? Or, again, is this concept too ridiculous for you that you believe the world only exists if you can touch it and feel it, which means that, before you were born, the world didn't exist.

    And yes, I am abstract in my answers. But as I see it, we are dealing with an abstract concept. I don't feel like the experience of God can be fully explained through science or physics. The same way that people aren't going to feel or believe in love any more or less by looking at a brain scan, it is something that has to be felt and experienced.

    So, in your world, I am assuming that you have never felt or experienced God, or never allowed yourself to, in the same way that people can deny having ever felt love. But just because you don't personally feel it, or admit to it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and doesn't mean that you can't tap into it if you want to.

    I can deny love up and down and attribute those brain scans to the same thing I'm sure you will attribute the spiritual connection brain scans to, but when it comes down to it, the experience of God (the divine, whatever you want to identify it as) is personal and intimate. And if you don't feel any connection to what we refer to as God in your life, then you are right. For you, he (she, it, that) doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  24. “You are talking about Brain scans that show that someone is feeling love. There are also Brain scans that show that someone is connecting to the spiritual.



    So if brain scans are your basis that love exists, then brain scans should be your basis to prove that people are connecting to the spiritual.”

    But there’s a difference here. Love is a subjective state. I have not claimed – and you did not ask – that love exists “out there” apart from people. People may experience spirituality or transcendence or whatever, but that does not mean there is actually a spiritual or transcendent realm “out there.”



    “I am looking for the questions you'd like me to answer. I am unclear as to what you are directly looking for but the only thing I see is you repeating what I've said and calling it unsubstantial. That's fine, but that's not a question."

    Here are the questions I asked you:

    Question 1: Where and how does one get to know the "truth" as you explain it? Or is it something that you alone know?

    Question 2: What is the physics based evidence for crediting the Abrahamic god with "setting in place" – if that phrase even applies – the physics of our universe.

    Question 3: Your term "essence of life" seems to be made-up term. If not, what tests does one perform to establish the existence of this essence?

    ReplyDelete
  25. L,

    “I responded to your post because I feel like we are both seeking understanding. I can't imagine what life looks like without faith and belief... the more I try, the more I come back to it, yet you seem to be fine living without it. Or maybe not, considering you have spent a considerable amount of time on this blog arguing against it. And what am I trying to accomplish? Further understanding. I am always trying my own values and always open to learning and listening to what others believe.”

    In fact, I have spent more time on this blog as a theist (although a half-hearted theist is perhaps more accurate). I make no apologies for “arguing against” faith and belief, as you say. It’s an interesting subject. It’s not the only thing I talk about, but for right now it’s where my interests lie.



    “I don't have all the answers, I don't feel like I need them for myself because I believe in a higher power... whether you call this God, Zeus, Allah, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it is what it is and in the end, it's just a name. I don't believe that we as humans have everything we need to be able to understand the spiritual realm. Imagine how silly some of the thoughts of a 5 year old can seem. Our logic may not be the same logic of God, so how can we expect to find him there?”

    What I don’t understand is the basis from which you claim that there is a “spiritual realm.”



    “When you look at a leaf, do you see green? You think you do, but what you are really seeing is everything except the color green. Imagine what the world may look like without our human receptors, our human brain to interpret it. Are you able to even imagine stepping beyond your own humanity in this way? Or, again, is this concept too ridiculous for you that you believe the world only exists if you can touch it and feel it, which means that, before you were born, the world didn't exist.”

    I have quite a healthy imagination. I indulge that imagination frequently. I also feel emotions as strongly as anyone, even you. But just because I can imagine something doesn’t mean it actually exists.



    “And yes, I am abstract in my answers. But as I see it, we are dealing with an abstract concept. I don't feel like the experience of God can be fully explained through science or physics. The same way that people aren't going to feel or believe in love any more or less by looking at a brain scan, it is something that has to be felt and experienced.”

    Fine, but you are indulging here in an emotional shut-down. You are invested in feeling that “the experience of God” and “love” are beyond all current and future tools of the scientific method and of technology. You are walking away from science because you want to keep a special feeling you have for God, love and like concepts. This tells me that you are not really looking for understanding but rather a reason to keep believing in the things you want to believe.



    “So, in your world, I am assuming that you have never felt or experienced God, or never allowed yourself to, in the same way that people can deny having ever felt love. But just because you don't personally feel it, or admit to it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and doesn't mean that you can't tap into it if you want to.”

    Untrue. I have certainly had moments when I felt aware of God. I have certainly been in love. I certainly do feel love. I am puzzled as to why you would try to make me out to be passionless.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Question 1: Where and how does one get to know the "truth" as you explain it? Or is it something that you alone know?

    I think currently, this truth is something that I feel, but I'm not the only one. And yes, there is little scientific information on the matter, but that doesn't mean that maybe someday there won't be. I don't need to wait until then to believe what I already feel.


    Question 2: What is the physics based evidence for crediting the Abrahamic god with "setting in place" – if that phrase even applies – the physics of our universe.

    well.. first of all... I'm not crediting anything to the "Abrahamic god" and second, Aren't there a ton of things so far that physics and science don't have the answers for? Just because we don't currently have scientific answers doesn't mean that we won't, or that things don't exist... it just means that WE haven't scientifically discovered them yet.
    Isn't that kind of akin to being able to see/feel a chair in front of you, but not believing it's there until it's been weighed, until the wood has been identified, until you know how it got in front of you until you confirm that it's indeed a chair? And yes, these things can be tested, but we don't find them necessary. And before we had access to scales and the knowledge of research of all the different woods, this information was a long process to come by.


    Question 3: Your term "essence of life" seems to be made-up term. If not, what tests does one perform to establish the existence of this essence?

    Ok, then let's just drop "essence" and call it life. There is something that makes things alive and they continue to be alive before they die. I am curious as to what that is. I think the tests can be seen if you take a living thing which obviously is walking around, responsive to it's environment and so on, and destroy it so that it no longer breathing or responsive. What is different? What was there that is now gone? At what point does it leave and how did it get into that being in the first place. This is a mystery to me. Does physics give you an answer for that?

    "I have quite a healthy imagination. I indulge that imagination frequently. I also feel emotions as strongly as anyone, even you. But just because I can imagine something doesn’t mean it actually exists."

    I wasn't talking about imagination in general. But based on your response you are saying just because you may be able to imagine a world outside of yourself, doesn't mean it exactly exists. So, basically, you believe the world doesn't exist without you?

    "Untrue. I have certainly had moments when I felt aware of God. I have certainly been in love. I certainly do feel love. I am puzzled as to why you would try to make me out to be passionless."

    How can you feel and be aware of something that you don't believe in?

    ReplyDelete
  27. L,

    “I think currently, this truth is something that I feel, but I'm not the only one. And yes, there is little scientific information on the matter, but that doesn't mean that maybe someday there won't be. I don't need to wait until then to believe what I already feel."

    So if someone doesn’t feel the truth, s/he’s out of luck? What if someone feels the truth is different than what you feel it is? How do you tell who has the true truth?


    “well.. first of all... I'm not crediting anything to the ‘Abrahamic god’”

    Oh, so you don’t claim that God created the universe now? I thought this was what you were claiming.


    “and second, Aren't there a ton of things so far that physics and science don't have the answers for?”

    Yes, absolutely.


    “Isn't that kind of akin to being able to see/feel a chair in front of you, but not believing it's there until it's been weighed, until the wood has been identified, until you know how it got in front of you until you confirm that it's indeed a chair? And yes, these things can be tested, but we don't find them necessary. And before we had access to scales and the knowledge of research of all the different woods, this information was a long process to come by.”

    I don’t think this is a good analogy for several reasons. As you state it, I can see and feel the chair. You can see and feel the chair. Anyone can see and feel the chair. All of us can agree that there is something there, whether we call it a chair or not. We don’t have to do any testing because we all agree that it exists. But consider this with God: (1) We all do not agree that God (whether a specific god or an ensemble of gods/angels/demons) exists. (2) For many of the things we attribute to God, such as life, we have naturalistic and scientific answers that tie to evidence and offer predictability and explanatory power: in other words, we already have a better explanation than “God.”


    "Ok, then let's just drop "essence" and call it life. There is something that makes things alive and they continue to be alive before they die. I am curious as to what that is. I think the tests can be seen if you take a living thing which obviously is walking around, responsive to it's environment and so on, and destroy it so that it no longer breathing or responsive. What is different? What was there that is now gone? At what point does it leave and how did it get into that being in the first place. This is a mystery to me. Does physics give you an answer for that?"

    I’m curious, too. As I understand it, life and death are biochemical and physiological processes. You keep mention answers and looking for answers. I don’t think it’s mere semantics to say that we might do better to look for explanations rather than answers. I just don’t think you’ll get the kind of finality that an answer provides.


    “I wasn't talking about imagination in general. But based on your response you are saying just because you may be able to imagine a world outside of yourself, doesn't mean it exactly exists. So, basically, you believe the world doesn't exist without you?”

    No, please do not alter my words and twist the meaning. I perceive a world that exists, but I can imagine lots of worlds that don’t exist. We know that perception can be unreliable. It’s a very simple point I’m making. You don’t have to make more of it than what I actually said.


    “How can you feel and be aware of something that you don't believe in?”

    At the time, I was a believer and had not considered the alternatives.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.