Enlightenment

Here, in my usual nutshell form, is my reason for thinking that atheism is actually the true path to "enlightenment".

"You already are one with the universe, you just don't know it.  Enlightenment is realizing it."

Atheists know this, though I don't know how many of them have actually realized it consciously.  If they give it the thought it deserves, I think they will see that this is true.  We are all simply a manifestation of the universe.

We living beings are what happens in the universe when the conditions are right.  In some of the instances of life, a lifeform may become sufficiently aware and intelligent to realize what he or she truly is:  A bit of dust granted the temporary privilege of consciousness; the universe waking up to take a look at itself.

Once one realizes this truth, the petty struggles of mankind seem foolish at best, monstrous at worst.

Newton, the Fanatic

I recently published two posts concerning Isaac Newton's character and proper place in intellectual history based on the BBC documentary, Newton:  The Dark Heretic, about his life and less well known works.  Often held up by believers as an example of a "smart" believer, Newton actually illustrates some rather disturbing things about religion and the harm it has done over the centuries.

Much of what Newton accomplished can be attributed to his religious fanaticism.  Apparently, he worked on his academic pursuits every waking minute as a way of keeping his mind off temptations of the flesh.  This propensity of his is very common amongst the most religious (the fanatics).

This is where the "smart" believers originate.  Generally, they are not so much intelligent as very well educated.  Their achievements come from their complete dedication to academic pursuits.  They achieve this complete dedication by pouring all their sexual energy (and their egos) into their studies.

This is one of the dirty secrets of religion.  Religions achieve power both by numbers of adherents and by the positions those adherents occupy in their society.  Teaching that sexual urges are inherently evil causes many in the flock to sublimate those urges and use them to drive other achievements that can help the church.

Those who cannot resist the urges are encouraged to marry and have as many children as possible.

Thus, the church uses the most powerful of urges to further its own cause at the expense of the members of the flock.  They are convinced to either dedicate their entire lives to achieving power on behalf of the church or to raising more members for the church.  Either way, their entire lives are essentially taken by the church--to the detriment not only of the church members but to the detriment of society as a whole.

Those who achieve power are there largely to engage in systematic discrimination in an effort to further the interests of the church.  Those who become breeders have caused our world to become overpopulated, which threatens the well-being of all of us.

This relentless, remorseless, manipulative quest for power helps explain why so many religions are obsessed with sex.  Religions obsessed with sex are more likely to survive and achieve power in a society for the reasons I mention above.

Believe In Nothing II

In my previous post on this topic I suggested that one response to the charge that "atheists don't believe in anything" is to say that we believe in reality.  It occurred to me recently that this response lacks sufficient emotional punch, in part because it is circular (i.e., assumes that atheists are right and that our view is reality) and, more important, because it lacks a moral aspect to counter the moral condemnation implicit in the "believe in nothing" accusation leveled at us.

So, I would like to suggest that a better response is:

"Atheists believe in the truth."

That is our primary concern:  Is the assertion at issue true.  Concern for truth is moral and is morally superior over any view that does not concern itself with the truth.  Of course, if you continue the conversation with a believer after using this reply, you will have to explain to him why this is an accurate statement about atheists but not about religious people. 

Accepting a proposition on faith is, by definition, not a determination based on an assessment of its truth.

What's Wrong With Theocracy?

Many times when I mention the threat posed by the religious right in America, I get a dismissive response.  The thinking usually seems to be that if we just give the theocrats some school prayer and vouchers and overturn Roe v. Wade for awhile that will keep them happy.  This seems quite bad enough to me, but even more disturbing is the full implication of tearing down the wall of separation between church and state:  We must remember that religious notions of power are universal.

So, if you meet someone who doubts whether separation of church and state is really that important, just point out:

"Once you give someone arbitrary power, you have given him all power."

Religion is a limitless theory.  It covers whatever the members of the religion say it covers, and does so in the way they say is right.

That's bad enough for a supposed hypothesis of fact, but when you turn it into a political theory, it's clear you are proposing giving someone arbitrary and capricious power over all aspects of your existence.

Newton, the Narcissist

In my earlier post on the many disquieting things one learns about Isaac Newton from his private writings I provided a link to a BBC documentary regarding his life as revealed in his private writings.  One of the things revealed was the extent to which Newton was a classic case of religion as an expression of pathological narcissism.

Newton, it seems, was convinced that he was chosen by god to learn god's secrets.  Thus, his obsessive study of alchemy, mathematics, and the solar system were a product of his devotion to the god that had "chosen" him to perform these tasks.

In the link provided in my previous post, there is a quotation from the producer of the documentary that is quite revealing but not contained in the documentary itself:

"Producer Malcolm Neaum says: 'Newton prayed daily for the end of the world which he believed would herald the Second Coming of Christ. This would usher in the 1000 year rule of the Saints and Newton believed he would then take his place as Chief Saint.'"

Newton, the Heretic

In their vain attempts to prove that religious belief isn't limited to those with limited intellects, religious people often point to Isaac Newton to prove their point.  As I pointed out previously in my post on this subject, Newton had to be religious because he lived in a time and place that was wildly intolerant of those who were not.

For this reason, it was inevitable that any early scientist in European history would be religious.  It was virtually impossible to survive at all if one were not--much less get an education and be able to publish one's works.

In fact, Newton lived in an age where even disagreements that seem minor to most people living today could result in the ruin of a career or a life--and could even result in the death penalty.

Newton himself provides an example of this.  He came to believe that the doctrine of the Trinity was untrue, a later imposition upon Christianity by the early Catholic Church.  This made him guilty of heresy (which is just Greek for choosing to think for yourself).  He had to keep this opinion to himself until he was on his death bed because revealing it would have ruined him or even resulted in his death.

Newton was also a dedicated alchemist.  One might even say that he was obsessive in his pursuit of alchemy.  These aspects of Newton's life are explored in the BBC documentary "Newton:  The Dark Heretic".

The documentary explains that Newton's hagiographers convinced the world that he was the first of the age of reason.  This was only possible, however, because most of his writings were in his own secret code and kept from the public.

In 1936, many of his previously unpublished (and perhaps never even previously read by others) were sold at auction.  The economist John Maynard Keynes bought a large number of them.  After breaking Newton's code, he was shocked to discover that Newton was not the man of reason that Keynes and many others thought him to be.  Keynes said of him:

"Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians."

Overpopulation

Today is Earth Overshoot Day.  For those who haven't heard of it, Earth Overshoot Day is the day in the year on which human consumption of the earth's resources exceeds the amount the earth can replenish within the year.  In other words, the day on which we began to consume our children's legacy, the very future of the planet as a viable home for mankind.  With each passing year, this day comes earlier and earlier, which bodes ill for the future of mankind.

Once again, I am wondering how anyone can claim to be pro-life when he or she supports practices and policies that threaten the very future of mankind.  It seems to me that those who seem to be working toward the extinction of mankind (not to mention a huge number of other species) cannot accurately call themselves pro-life.