Candide

roman catholic by birth; scientific atheist by choice; sinner by merit. blogging on brains, evolution and language. gaidhlig-speaking neuroscience student at oxford. likes to Question Everything!

Tolkien Science: Teach The Controversy!

With the first of three Hobbit documentaries being released this year, it seems an appropriate time to announce the new revolution in the study of origins: Tolkien Science. Though evolution, with all its associated irony may well be the more appropriate word…

Tolkien Science has been brewing in the firey Mount Doom of scientific enquiry for decades and is now as indestructible as the One Ring itself. Yet it is still untaught in our schools, dismissed as mere science fiction, when it is in fact fantasy of the old sort: an imaginative conceptualization. Like Einstein who imagined himself riding on a beam of light and so discovered relativity, JRR Tolkien – an Oxford Professor and founder of our field – imagined himself on a quest to Mordor and, in doing so, discovered the origins of the universe. Between 1937 and 1955 he published a series of monographs synthesising knowledge from many fields into a coherent and, as I shall show, accurate account of the origins of the world. His his papers took the form of epic fantasy novels – befitting a man of such penetrating and creative intellect – but they were appended by detailed notes providing the data underlying the theory, much of which was only published after his death. It is a cause of celebration that his monographs are more widely read than either Darwin or Dawkins, and in the early years of the 21st century were made into a trilogy of powerful documentary films by the renowned New Zealand Tolkien Scientist Peter Jackson, which brought to the world’s attention this exciting new paradigm.

Unlike Darwin, whose theories were invented during the luxury of a round the world cruise, Tolkien’s quest to understand the history of the universe began on the battlefields of World War One. In the same way that humanity’s ego had rent Flanders’ Fields apart, Tolkien surmised that the world was once flat, but that the arrogance of men had caused it to have become round. The evidence for this came from the discoveries of German scientist Albert Einstein – that, when events of such gravity as the Doom of Numenor occurred, space could actually become curved. The stories of Atlantis, Mu and Hy-Brasil – all island nations flooded in a great cataclysm – passed down unchanged over the generations, give the theory that nice, convincing human element that allows it to transcend the Popperian planes to the level of scientific truth. Bearing in mind that geologists have never actually been under the earth’s crust to see if their tectonic plates really do float, the idea that the all-powerful Valar simply caused the shape of the world to change is a far more convincing explanation of continental drift.

Tolkien’s theories, which emphasize the effect of Valinor-based Powers, let us throw out the implausible geological yarns of mainstream science. Ice-ages in the Northern Hemisphere are more parsimoniously explained by the evil wrought by the cold-hearted Morgoth in the First Age and by the Witch King of Angmar in the Third. Nonetheless, like all true sciences, Tolkien science has its controversies. Another hypothesis claims Ice Ages are a figment of geologist imagination. Erratics are rocks found far away from home, usually said to have got there by hitching a lift on a passing glacier. Some Tolkien scientists, however blame erratics on trolls getting caught out in the sunlight. The strength of the theory is in its predictions: trolls are social creatures – as evidenced by Tom, Bert and Bill Huggins, who turned to stone together around a campfire. We would therefore expect to find tall rocks scattered in clusters around the landscape where trolls have frozen together. A visit to Stonehenge should suffice to convert the world’s geologists.

Read More

Creating God In Our Own Image

source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/04/jesus-liberals-conservatives 
jesus

Love thy neighbour, so long as he is not an illegal immigrant. Blessed are the poor, so long as they are deserving. And, though it may be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than to pass through the eye of a needle, multimillionaires should have no problem passing through the door of the Oval Office.

Religion and politics have always made uneasy bedfellows; yet how can Christians from all shades of the political spectrum reconcile their diverse views with the teachings of a single man?

A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. The researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues such as taxation, immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps not surprisingly, Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas the Jesus of Democrat-voting Christians would have had far more liberal opinions. The Bible may claim that God created man in his own image, but the study suggests man creates God in his own image.

Yet both groups recognised that their own views were not always identical to those of Jesus. The researchers divided issues into those concerned with fellowship (wealth distribution, immigration), and those concerned with morality (gay rights, abortion). Conservatives envisaged a Jesus with views close to their own on morality issues; but they recognised that the man who gave all his possessions to the poor would probably have advocated more progressive taxation policies than those of the Republican party. Conversely, liberals saw Jesus as having similar views as themselves on fellowship issues but they believed his views on gay rights would be to the right of their own.

The social psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term “cognitive dissonance” for the discomfort felt when we recognise conflict between our ideas and perceptions. He proposed that we tend to reduce conflict by altering our view of reality. This process of “dissonance reduction” (“I didn’t want that job anyway”) has been used down the centuries to reduce the conflict between a person’s religious convictions and their actions. When in the 13th century the Abbot Arnaud Amaury was asked by crusaders what do with the citizens of the town of Beziers who were a mix of both pious Christians and heretical Albigensians, he famously initiated a massacre of all the town’s inhabitants with the instructions, “Kill them all. God will know his own.” Similarly, in the 19th century, Christian slavers insisted that the enforced transport and enslavement of millions of Africans was justified because it brought God to a pagan people.

The researchers discovered that conservatives believe Jesus would have prioritised the moral issues close to their own hearts, and that disparities in wealth or the treatment of illegal immigrants wouldn’t have been high on his agenda. Liberals believed the opposite.

Ross and his colleagues suggest that dissonance reduction takes place not only within the individual, but as a collective enterprise. Preachers, politicians and co-believers tend to emphasise and de-emphasise different aspects of the Christian canon; so conservative Americans study the Old Testament with its homophobic rhetoric and eye-for-an-eye morality, whereas liberals look to the New Testament Jesus who was sympathetic to the poor and the meek.

Evangelical politics is not, of course, limited to the US. Many social conservatives in the UK align themselves with the Christian right, and MPs such as Nadine Dorries take inspiration from US campaigns against abortion or gay rights. But perhaps the most striking aspect of the study is that it turns on its head the claims by many religious politicians, such as Republican nomination candidates Rick Santorum (“I’m for income inequality”), Rick Perry (“Homosexuality is a sin”), or the UK’s Nadine Dorries (“My faith tells me who I am”), that their politics is inspired by their God. This study suggests instead that their God is inspired by their politics.

Miley Cyrus Disses Jesus!

I really love this story. Miley Cyrus tweeted the famous Laurence Krauss Stardust quote that ends with ‘Forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live.” It’s a beautiful passage, but of course she was pounced on for setting a bad example(!). Remember, in America atheists are, alongside rapists, the most distrusted group of people. It takes real guts to ‘come out,’ and, even if she isn’t an atheist, even just posting a quote like that when you’re a famous celebrity is gonna get you in deep water.Miley Cyrus, I take my hat off to you! 

“Twitter may be a direct way to communicate with fan but it can also get you in hot water when you are considered a teen role model, like Miley Cyrus. The singer is getting into some scalding hot water with Christians over an image she tweeted baring quotes from a scientist. 

With millions of young, impressionable followers, Cyrus tweeted what can be construed as controversial quotes from a theoretical physicist who favors science over religion. Keep in mind that Miss Miley was raised a Christian, which turns this into Christian right wing scandal.

Cyrus tweeted quotes from Lawrence Krauss, which essentially proclaim that humans are all stardust created from atoms of many stars that exploded in the universe. Well, that’s at odds with Christian teachings that God created everything in his image and likeness. It’s certainly a controversial theory for those with Christian beliefs.

But it gets better. Or worse, depending on your personal belief system.

Krauss also says “Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could live.”

It’s truly a polarizing series of statements for Christians and people of faith and it’s already causing a stir among the Christian right wing.

Why Cyrus shared these quotes and if they reflect her personal beliefs is not immediately known.”

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/miley-cyrus-tweets-lawrence-krauss-quote-on-starstuff-t29815.html

Quotes

marcescence asked: Heym, just came across your blog on the athiesm tag. I haven't read any of your posts yet, but I also think that "His Dark Materials" was a huge factor in my becoming athiest after 15 years of Catholic school. Glad to know that story has opened up other people's minds as well!

It’s a wonderful, beautiful series.

Your question has inspired me to write up how I rejected God.

Yeah, when I was a kid I loved science, especially astronomy, and geology, evolution and dinosaurs. And I remember really struggling to reconcile what I knew about the history of the world with the story of a Biblical creator. I came to the conclusion independently that it must just be metaphor and was happy to say that til age 9ish. Then I read HDM and it opened my eyes to the idea that, wow, there were people that actually criticized the Church. I was coming from a place where everyone is Catholic and goes to church every Sunday - I had never met a Protestant, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or whatever. I didn’t really know they existed. Anyway HDM sowed the seeds of doubt in my mind and it was a philosophy book called the Philosophy Files that crystalized for me the implausibility of a personal God. I was astounded and excited about this. I thought I’d made an amazing discovery. Age ten I walked into school and during RE proceeded to explain to the teacher that the Bible wasn’t the written word of God, and that the New Testament was cobbled together in the 5th century AD. I told her there wasn’t much evidence for God. And she started crying! I mean actually, crying. She thought I was going to hell.

Then the headteacher came and started shouting at me that I was an arrogant little brat and how dare I think I was right when everyone else in the world believed in God.

My parents didn’t believe me. 

Ever since that day I realized God was irrational. I was forced to go to Church still tho.

When I was sixteen I said I was done, and refused to go to mass anymore. My dad said I would go to church as long as I lived under his roof, and that I’d get kicked out if I didn’t. I was banned from everything and ignored. I live in a crazily Catholic community and not going Church is equated with evil. In the end i decided that they were all too childish to change their minds and so, I’m ashamed to say, I caved in and I still grit my teeth to go to mass to keep em happy… I don’t want to fall out with them, as I need to finish my education.

When i turn 18 I’m gonna try again to quit. I’m gonna have a talk with them before my birthday and explain why as an adult I deserve the respect to choose my own views. While I was a kid I ‘respected’ their blind faith, now I ought to get some respect too.

cabaline1:

15 year old Kristy Bamu was brutally tortured for 4 days by his sister and her boyfriend because he was suspected of practising witchcraft. He was attacked with knives, sticks, metal bars, and a hammer and chisel and he “begged to die” before slipping under  water and drowning in the bath during a final ritual of deliverance. He suffered 130 injuries.

The reasoning of his sister and her boyfriend for doing this came from a pastor. A pastor who worked in backstreet churches. There are many of these churches and many of these pastors. Pastors who will meet with a family and convince them that their family’s suffering is because of (most often) a child who is practising witchcraft. These pastors tell the family that this child is essentially evil and that the devil must some how be dragged from them. Some pastors recommend the same rituals that Kristy Bamu was subjected to, while others con the family into paying more money than they can afford for an exorcism.

So Kristy Bamu’s horrific ordeal was not the first and will not be the last. The NSPCC children’s charity warned that this was not an isolated case and that it certainly “is not a one-off incident.”

This is what devout religion does and what it leads to.

It’s disgusting.

Blind faith can justify any deed - good or bad or truly evil. That’s the problem: it can lead to people devoting their lives to caring for the poor, or, it can lead to things like this…

evidence, on the other hand, can justify only the truth.

Candide’s Wager

If God really did create the universe, then it’s those of us who don’t believe in Him who are going to Heaven. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good - and all too clever to believe anything without evidence. If He exists, I’m convinced He’ll reward those of us who came to the conclusion that there just isn’t enough empirical evidence to justify belief in His existence. By my reckoning, the only God befitting of the title is one that created a universe without enough evidence of Himself as a part of test to see whether you could make valid inferences from the evidence at hand. He endowed you with reason and free will, and wants to see you use it. So if you rightly conclude that the universe doesn’t provide sufficient evidence for the creator, then you have passed the creator’s test - you have used your head and you’re going to paradise!

If God really did create the universe, then it’s those of us who don’t believe in Him who are going to Heaven. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good - and all too clever to believe anything without evidence. If He exists, I’m convinced He’ll reward those of us who came to the conclusion that there just isn’t enough empirical evidence to justify belief in His existence. By my reckoning, the only God befitting of the title is one that created a universe without enough evidence of Himself as a part of test to see whether you could make valid inferences from the evidence at hand. He endowed you with reason and free will, and wants to see you use it. So if you rightly conclude that the universe doesn’t provide sufficient evidence for the creator, then you have passed the creator’s test - you have used your head and you’re going to paradise!

Candide, on the only God I’d be willing to (not) believe in…

Abandon Atheism/Give Up God … For Lent!!

Maybe I should stop being an atheist for Lent just to see what happens…

Actually, I’m totally up for this: if a believer agrees to stop believing in God for Lent, I’ll stop believing that the only real world is the material one explicable by science.

Offers in my ask please!

http://candide94.tumblr.com/ask

This, my friends, is why most normal people think bible-quoting fire-and-brimstone preachers are crazy.
Seriously, do you really think believing a 2000-year old carpenter is God makes you in any way a better person than those who don’t? That worshipping this carpenter is an act of goodness that trumps any other?
We had a preacher in school who said all gays would go to hell, and then said the only way you could go to heaven would be if you believed Jesus is God.*
This is why I’m glad I’m a ‘Catholic’ atheist. At least ‘we’ let good people into heaven, independent of their opinion on this bearded tradesman…

*bearing in mind, his Church believes in predestination, which makes it even more illogical, as that means those who go to heaven are preordained before birth, so why bother believing in Jesus or not?

This, my friends, is why most normal people think bible-quoting fire-and-brimstone preachers are crazy.

Seriously, do you really think believing a 2000-year old carpenter is God makes you in any way a better person than those who don’t? That worshipping this carpenter is an act of goodness that trumps any other?

We had a preacher in school who said all gays would go to hell, and then said the only way you could go to heaven would be if you believed Jesus is God.*

This is why I’m glad I’m a ‘Catholic’ atheist. At least ‘we’ let good people into heaven, independent of their opinion on this bearded tradesman…

*bearing in mind, his Church believes in predestination, which makes it even more illogical, as that means those who go to heaven are preordained before birth, so why bother believing in Jesus or not?