My friend the catholic

Heated conversation yesterday with a friend. He is a moderate catholic. I guess he would say a progressive catholic. But in this case I would add a not very involved catholic. He does not go to church, not event at Christmas. I did lent (as a challenge and because I love ritual), he barely followed me by not eating pizza. He have read the bible up to babel tower. He claims to love Christ message but does not seem to remember most of the new testament. He did not even know who that Paul guy was - he thought I was talking about one of the gospel, the one according to Paul.

In every aspect of his life he claims to be progressive: for gay rights, for women equality, agains racism and discrimination, for social programs, etc.

What bothers me is that he thinks his values are directly from the bible - or at least from Jesus teaching - and does not credit humanism by itself. He does know that humanism played an important role in shaping the world as we know it, yet he does not acknowledge the fact that humanism is a way of thinking that was developped against religion not in continuation.

Another thing that botters me, is the obvious I pick what I like. If there are very good and inspiring christian that claims that their faith made them be good, then it is a case for catholism. Yet, the opposite does not stand. Bringing atrocius case done in the name of faith does not hold against catholicism. He sais something along the fact that if someone claims to be good because of his religion, he will not judge that. So he would not listen to my claim that good people do good thing and the fact that they are religious has nothing to do with it. He seems to believe the ludicrous theory that some prisonner finds God in jail and thus turns themselve into good beings. Maybe I should force him to watch Clockwork Orange again. Beside, what are the evidences for this claim? Is there a serious study that shows that faith turns vilain into honnest citizen?

Islam serves as the worst case scenario in terms of religion and for some reason that makes catholicism better - I do have that argument with another of my friends who is pretty much involved in "fighting" islam. The problem is not that islam is worst, the problem is any ideology that claims truth without evidence and that despise critical thinking.

The best part of our argument was when he said I should ask for an official apostasy from the church. I tried to explain to him that I would not bother. That would give them credit. I don't acknowledge my membership. It was put on me without my consent hence it is de facto invalid. I was a minor when they made us confirm our faith. As an adult, I never claimed to belong to this club and therefore I don't.

Am I arrogant? Why is it arrogant to ask a catholic to explain why he associate with a group that is in such obvious contradiction with most of his value (equality between sex, gay rights, etc.)? In the end, I was sarcastic telling him that obviously he knew the real catholic message and all of those who upheld other value had read it wrong - at least they had read it...

I think we must fight this. So call moderate christian have to stop thinking the bible is the source of moral value. They have to realize they are glamourizing a book that has no real value.

Was he really an atheist?

My response to http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism ( I don't feel like registering and since it is all written...)

My road to atheism has been very slow, painful, hard and very spiritual. I am quite upset to be called materialist because I am an atheist. I do experience like any believers the wonders of my imagination and my intuition. Mr Nelson never was an atheist. An atheist don't reject religion or faith in a midlife crisis. Being an atheist is not about a feeling nor a sudden conviction - that is the realm of faith. No. An atheist sincerely confront his feelings and his though and his leaps of faith, all of them, including the one of non believing.

The hardest is to be an atheist while remaining spiritual. Too many atheists - the less convinced actually - tend to display an exaggerated incline to science and reason. But nature gave us intuition and imagination as tools to experience the world. We should not deny ourselves these because we realize that God is a myth.

I see no contradiction into practicing spiritual rituals - I was born catholic and I am the only person that do lent in my family - and being atheist. I just do it for the feeling they bring, the sense of connection to myself and a community of people following the same ritual. I even feel "god" not as a natural entity but as a feeling that comes from my irrational self. Yet, I don't need any false construction and deformation of truth to be spiritual. I don't need any celestial dictatorship, as Hitchen says, to rule my life.

Another foolish attack against atheism

My answer to: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowder/2009/03/24/lonewolf-diaries-why-atheism-is-mentally-handicap/

Being atheist does not mean I can do anything I want. We are bound by the law of nature - I just can't beat gravity. We are limited by our genes - I feel guilt at the idea to hurt a fellow human, this is part of our biology. I am part of the process of making rational laws as a member of a democracy, laws to which I abid.

Science explains a lot more than religion does and is much more efficient - I have a cancer, I run to my physician not to my local church and so do most believers.

The point is not if it is better or not for God to exist. The idea of a "daddy in the sky" watching over you might be sound "better" for you. For others, it is the idea of 12 virgins waiting for them after a martyr death. For others, the idea that they are likely to improve their lot in another life is "better". You can't deny that your notion of what is better only stem from the fact that you were born in a certain place in time. So because you are so limited to your geographical upbringing, you clinge to your conception of God as meaningful.

Yet, that is not the point. The point is does God exist or not. This is about reality, not fantasy (the latter being a more definit sign of mental illness by the way). The more you look into evidences, the more you get that God is a useless creation of the human mind.

Now you talk about mental illness: believing in a talking snake, a talking flaming bush, virgin birth, man walking on water, and so on, this is pretty crazy.

The point is that you are scared to confront the idea their might be nothing.

Meaning? What is meaning? How meaningful is a God? God does not provide meaning of any sort. God is just a happy feeling one bring into his / her mind to avoid anxiety or to replace drinking to much. It has no meaning at all. Prove it. Explain meaning and then, explain how God brings meaning to life. For me God only bring submission, immaturity and irrationnality. But not meaning. There is as much meaning in nothingness than in the hypothesis of God.

A video

Nothingness

I find some comfort now in the thought of nothingness. The idea that the after death would be better if there was something is kind of ridiculous when you really think about it. Many religious people don't seem to worry much about the life before this one. I do. I feel there was nothing before my birth, else birth would not make sense.

Nature might be cruel to give us consciousness and take it away from us at death yet that would be giving to nature malign intentions whereas nature is only a set of laws, a bundle of principles, nature itself has no consciousness.

Notice I did mention after death, rather than after life. There is a moment of death following life, an infinitively small moment where we stop being, a terrible moment of anxiety for most dying. Thinking about it makes me uneasy. Nevertheless, I don't want to be a coward that will believe into anything to calm me down. So there is after life death, that moment you stop thinking, that moment you stop to be, that moment you will know it is over that nothing exist anymore.

This made me think that anything that existed before me and anything that existed after me is not real. Only what exists now is real. The past we cannot visit anymore so it can only be a fragment of our imagination, not much better than a tale. Despite all the evidences and the truth we find in these evidences, anything that has existed before me can only be visited through my imagination. We can see the big bang explosion but not the first man or woman who utter a sound that turned out to be a word.

When I will die the universe will stop existing, this will be my own personal Armageddon.

Therefore, the meaning of life lies between the beginning of my life and its end. The soul emerge out of nothingness and disappear in nothingness.

words

Scientist have to stop using the word God and to claim they are believers. They are creating confusion. Dawkin is right when he says people claim they believe without really believing. We need a whole new vocabulary for the wonders and awe with which we experience science. How many time do I have to hear about Einstein as a believer when he was not really, not in the biblical sense? Some people even revive their faith when they hear such claims. Let be straight about what we believe as scientist and make it clear to people in general. We must stop this confusion of the words. There is a time for poetry and metaphor and there is a time for clarity.

To investigate

A question to investigate. Why do people want to believe that there is a conspiration, that there is a big lie out there? Some could argue that this is a matter of communication but I am more interested in the genetic par of this question.