Faith versus Faith

I find it annoying sometimes when some theists state that "it takes faith to be an atheist". But then I realized that the statement can either be right or wrong depending on the definition of the word "faith".

What is faith? There are a few definitions in my version of Webster's dictionary:

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in god, religious tenets, etc.
3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance
6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty

Among these, definitions #1 to #3 define the religious faith the theists have. Devout theists follow their religion without question and it is a well-known fact that they don't bother searching for real evidence other than the contradictory statements of their sacred books.

Atheist faith, or my faith at least, however, falls under the fifth definition. I, as a human being, will have to trust another in order to get by in life. Of course, atheist faith isn't anything like in the first definition as trust is normally gained through evidence and time. Though, this deal about faith and trust might not be the case for unreasonably paranoid skeptics who go as far as to not believe that the floor they're standing on is solid.

As an atheist, I do have faith and by faith, I mean trust, confidence, and reliance on other humans. There are times that I trust others and there are times that I don't. I'd rather put my faith on beings that I can see, hear, and touch rather than an invisible being whose existence I don't even have proof of.

"Irreducible Complexity"

"Irreducible Complexity" is a concept mainly used by the advocates of Intelligent Design aka Creationism. It states that something complex, like a bacterial flagellum (which is the advocates' favorite example), can't function the same way if some parts are removed from the whole, thus it can only be created through design, thus disproving evolution.

Take a significant part from the whole and the system ceases to function. Take the wheels out of a car; it wouldn't work the way it is intended. Take the engine out, it still wouldn't work. The car will only work if all the pieces are in place. The car is irreducibly complex.

I don't subscribe to this belief. Why?

The concept of irreducible complexity is an insult to amputees, the mentally challenged, the disabled, and anyone lacking fully functional organs or appendages that would deem you complete. More often than not, these individuals with disabilities can perform just as well or even better than people who have no disabilities. Artists without hands, athletes without feet, idiot savants... we all heard of these. They don't consider their disabilities as hindrances.

Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity opposes the concept of "Multiple Intelligence" wherein humans are classified according to their talents and abilities, which obviously differs from each human. Someone may be good at music and be bad at math. That doesn't make them less of a human being than someone bad at music and good at math. From what standard do we get the "control sample" of the "normal" intelligence and talents of a human being?

From this, I can say that Irreducible Complexity is definitely incorrect. The existence of disabled humans doing well with what they do is the hard evidence against it.

What if humans can see into the future?

Humans, some of them at least, have dreamed to be able to see into the future. History tells us that humans in the ancient times had been fixated in knowing the future: oracles of Delphi, the Norns, the prophets in the Abrahamic religions, and even until today. These so-called fortune-tellers and soothsayers dedicate their time (or maybe even their lives) to impart amongst the common humans the knowledge of the future. This act is regarded by the modern age as a lie or a mere hobby, but what if humans can actually see into the future?

Adherents of the horoscope hobby merely match up any events to the vague prophecy if hearing the prophecy comes later. Since horoscopes are made to be vague, there is a large enough chance that some event in the person's day is coincidentally similar to the prophecy. However, if the hearing the prophecy comes first, it might as well become a self-fulfilling prophecy when the adherent uses it as a guide to his life.

But what if humans can actually see into the future? If there is only a fixed future (a prophecy wherein foreseen events cannot be changed), then they will have to act accordingly and whatever action they do to act against this destiny will still coincide with the prophecy, like the story of Oedipus Rex. If the visions granted are those of possible futures, the adherent will just pick the one that is most desirable and follow the steps that leads to that outcome.

In this world where humans can see into the fixed future, the concepts of risk, accident, prevention, precaution, choice, chance, luck, et cetera will be abolished. They will be thrown into complacency and helplessness since decision-making will also be discarded. Any emergencies that will occur won't. They will literally have no choice but to follow their unchangeable destinies.

But if that had been since the beginning, life in that world would be linear and monotonous. "Development" and "progress" will also be illusions since they're predetermined. In that world, games and adventures don't exist; their fun must be derived somewhere inconceivable in this world.

However, in the scenario of humans being able to see possible futures, they will have to live in a meta-life instead of the actual life. Instead of deciding what choices to make in a real life situation, decision will be escalated into choosing what possible future will be more desirable. Life itself would be meaningless since the focus is shifted to religiously choosing futures; since humans will be fixated in the future, they will forget to live in the present.

In all honesty, I can't see why humans are fixated in knowing future events supernaturally when living life is more fun when you are fixated in the present and oblivious to an extent to what will happen to the future. A subjective view, yes, but I'm talking from the side of beings that live in a world where premonition is impossible. Aren't we all?

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

Supply and Demand

The world of humans is governed by the Law of Supply and Demand. But I will discuss it from a different light.

If the demand for a commodity increases, consumers take more of it and the supply decreases. Therefore, the producer must increase the supply in order to meet the ever-increasing demand. As supplies decrease, the demand for it grows even more, thus creating an "upward spiral" that will cause unpleasant results.

Equilibrium is only met if the cycle of supply and demand is stable - causing no upward spirals. In an ideal state of equilibrium, supply always meets demand. There may be some fluctuations to this balance but not enough to create an upward spiral.

Humans need the planet's natural resources. Nothing can be done to change this fact.

In this planet where supply isn't infinite, an upward spiral would be inevitable. Supply will run out and it wouldn't be enough to meet the demand. The consumeristic instinct of humans drive them to create more of this supply but at this rate, the resources needed to achieve this is running out. So how do we solve this?

Eliminate the demand. If the demand is lessened, there will be enough supplies to satiate it. Whatever supplies that are left will be given to the remaining humans who deserve it.

Eliminate the population. Achieve equilibrium.

Talk about morals

Some theists point out how atheists don't have an objective basis of morals. Well, I think that is true. Indeed, atheists mostly have subjective morals instead of a single organized checklist of dos and don'ts. The reason is pretty obvious: atheists don't have a single "atheist leader" who dictates what they're supposed to do, basically because Atheism isn't a religion to begin with.

So what if Atheists don't have objective morals? Would that make them any less moral? Depends on what "moral" is. Trying to define what "moral" is already causing problems.

Is killing another human being downright immoral? Some would definitely say yes to that. How about killing as a result of self-defense? How about killing in the name of religion? Sacrifice? Righteous punishment? From just this, controversy already creates wildfire. All is subjective. It is only objective when talking to someone in the same religion but sometimes, it isn't even the case, hence the formation of divisions and sects.

More likely than anything else, the people who established the religions have made the moral guidelines from their own decisions. Faithfuls would argue that the rules were given to their leader by their gods, but I wouldn't delve deeper into that issue.

Where do atheists get their morals? From thinking, just like the founders of religions. Theists would probably be appalled by the idea but it's just the way humans are. Humans have minds and consciousnesses so they can think and be aware of the universe.

What is moral? What is not? You can ask. You can seek answers from yourself. It's all up to you.

A Few Little Taboos

Before the time of Jesus Christ, working on the Sabbath day was strictly forbidden. But according to the stories, he broke the taboo by doing something, which in his case, healing.

Prior to Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the black people, it wasn't accepted for them to become members of society. Nowadays, they become athletes, artists, musicians, and even leaders. Despite some people still refusing to accept this change, the culture of black people has, without a doubt, gained acceptance to the world.

Before Copernicus and Galileo, people belived that the sun revolves around the earth. Nowadays, people use the globe for obvious reasons.

Previously, it was taboo to cut up a corpse since a body is considered sacred, even after death. But if it wasn't for Andreas Vesalius, who studied and dissected human cadavers, the field of Anatomy wouldn't exist. Without his contributions, the medical field will still be in the Dark Ages.

Previously, it was forbidden for people to think against the teachings of their religion. But today, it is this rational thinking that brings us technological advancements that seemingly make life better and makes us discover what is beyond the world we live in.

Break a few rules, a few little taboos. You'll probably get farther than not. Don't worry. It's not cheating.

Evolve

I'm not saying that all believers in a religion don't believe in evolution, though, but I don't find it strange that people who reject the idea of evolution are the ones who do not evolve.

Surely, evolution doesn't work that way. Everyone and everything is subject to change, good or bad. Evolutionists and people who accept the fact that the theory of evolution is a possible explanation for the origin of life are open to the change. They are liberal and open to most, if not all, ideas. People who reject evolution wholeheartedly, on the other hand, have a deep-rooted conservative sense.

This overly conservative mindset is what hinders them to accept change, to accept new ideas and methods. They prefer doing things in an old-fashioned obsolete way. There isn't a problem with just that but fixation in old methods will lead to refusal to accept change, which in turn would lead to hindering of the human's evolutionary process.

It's not wrong to use old ways in the present time but in this ever-changing universe, we would have to cope up with the changes and sometimes, we would have to discard the old methods entirely and embrace the new. That is what it means to evolve.

Evolution isn't entirely progress with purely positive results; it is more of a trade-off. Amphibians traded off their gills for lungs. Creatures living in the dark traded off their eyes to utilize their other senses. In the same way, humans will have to discard one thing, whatever it may be, in favor of another.

Liberal humans evolve. Conservative humans do not. Evolution occurs only to those who acknowledge it. Halting this natural process would be for the worse.

Subjective Heaven

Assuming that Heaven can be experienced fully by the five senses and isn't just some elated level of "existence", it must be a state of absolute contentment and happiness. Many describe heaven as a place of eternal and absolute beauty but that wouldn't seem to be the case anymore - the ever-so-unfalsifiable Bible being retconned several times.

Given that addiction to chocolate isn't a sin, a Heaven-bound person who's addicted to chocolate would experience Heaven as a place filled with his vice. But since not everyone likes chocolate, there wouldn't be a single objective experience of this so-called Heaven. Other heavens would include whatever the Heaven-bound person likes.

But here's an extreme example. Suppose there is a Believer Girl A and an Atheist Guy B who love each other despite their beliefs. When they died, the Guy is sent to hell while the Girl, to Heaven. The Girl's innermost desire is to be with the Guy for eternity. What kind of Heaven will the Girl experience?

Would the god bend the rules for the girl so she can be with her lover? That would be unfair for everyone else. Would the Girl be ineligible to go to Heaven for loving an Atheist? That would be petty. Would the god create an illusion of the Guy that the Girl will love? That'd be cruel. Will the god strip the soul of its senses so that it can only experience unconditional bliss? That'd be even worse.

Here's the easiest way to get to "Heaven". Take Acid.

Suffering Honesty

A child breaks his mother's vase. The mother tells the child to become honest and asks the child. The child admits to his fault. The mother scolds the child. The child gets scarred for life.

This is a typical scenario in almost every household - no doubts about that. But as the child grows up, the negative reinforcement had already made a mark in his mind that honesty would yield bad outcomes. As a result, the child lies to escape punishment.

In the world today, there is no such thing as an "honest politician". People have to lie to get on with their lives because of this. Honesty doesn't yield anything other than suffering. An honest person is always the martyr.

Chaotic Universe

Theists usually say that explosions do not create order, referring to the Big Bang theory. Atheists counter the statement by stating an example of an explosion that creates order. But before anything else, what is order? What is chaos?

Say a child was brought up in an environment filled with love and care; he will perceive the world as a harmonious one with positive aspects. As for a child brought up using violence and punishment, his way of living would revolve around violence and punishment. He will perceive any violent act as a natural thing to do.

Humans are born in this universe and assimilated themselves into it, seeing beauty in its asymmetry. But is this really "order"? What kind of order is this, anyway? Total order would only be total absence of existence, which isn't the case of this universe. There is too much variation and conflict. Humans are no different from molds growing on stale bread; the molds grow and thrive on something that can exist peacefully without it.

What if this is actually "chaos"? No. This universe is indeed chaotic. Humans are chaotic beings living in a chaotic universe, thus their senses have been accustomed to this chaos and interpret it as "order". Mix in some awareness and you'll get conceit that this order is specifically made for them.

Some people think that the night sky is beautiful. Some see beauty in the rings of Saturn. Some, in death, blood, and gore. But looking at it from an extraterrestrial perspective - no, an extra-universal perspective, everything in this universe would seem pretty ugly. Humans just pick out what they think is orderly and beautiful according to their preference. That alone makes the definition of "order" pretty vague and ironically, pretty chaotic.

The theists are right for once. Explosions, indeed, do not create order.

Analysis: A Christmas Carol

In the story "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, the main character Ebenezer Scrooge had been shown three different scenarios of the past, present, and yet to come. Each scenario was shown with the hope of making Scrooge change from his selfish ways, with the last scenario finally succeeding.

The last scene seemed rather off though. Scrooge only yielded to the possible future that he might be buried in an unattended grave. He then changed after that into a generous person.

Why is this though? From my point of view, he changed only to save his own skin and prevent the possible view from happening. In the end, his acts of selflessness can have a reason other than just "wanting to change". In a way, this is a form of "selfish selflessness" and not "absolute selflessness" at all. In the end, one really can't say that Scrooge has fully converted since he converted only out of convenience rather than realizing any wrong in his actions by himself.

This makes the story a weak basis of morals. Rooting good deeds out of threats is negative reinforcement.

Then again, things like these are unavoidable.

Prayer is Evil

The term "evil" has been redefined over ages past. The very first definition of "evil" we encounter is an action or some sentient entity which inflicts harm on another entity (regardless of sentience) or basically something downright immoral. The concept of morality itself is pretty vague because of the issue of subjectivity, hence "evil" is redefined.

The evil of lying and murder can be justified by the reason they are committed, as the concepts of "white lies" and "eye for an eye" stand. Committing such atrocities for no reason other than promoting the life of others is then considered evil. Hence, evil is defined as an act that benefits the minority while oppressing the majority.

By the definition of Christians themselves, selfishness is evil. *

The act of prayer is rather questionable. It is the act of wishful thinking and meditation. A person would usually pray for others to create a good image for himself, showing others that he is doing something when he is actually doing virtually nothing at all. Instead of acting on the problem as directly as possible, the person merely sits down, puts his hands together, and thinks a lot while muttering, giving himself the impression that he is "helping".

What does one get from prayer? A hollow sense of self-satisfaction. What do others get? Nothing. They don't even receive any telepathic consolations or whatsoever. Moreover, these people suffer while the praying people already feel satisfied. This is better defined by the words "hypocrisy" and "slacktivism". What can we conclude from all this? Read the title.

* Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to this belief. I subscribe to this one.

Infinity Paradox

Imagine a circle, for example. Say the circle's circumference is 2m. Take a 2m arc from it and you'll get the whole circle. Now take another circle with a 4m circumference; a 2m arc would be half of its circumference. With 8m, a 2m arc would be a fourth, and so on...



As we can see, as the size of the circle increases, a 2m arc from the circle loses its curvature, approaching the image of a straight line. If we put the earth beside the sun, it would appear that the sun has a flat surface, more so if we put the earth beside VY Canis Majoris, the largest star known as of now.

Let's now think of what would happen if the circle is of "infinite" size. What would the 2m arc look like? A straight line? Logically, yes if we apply basic calculus.

Here's another example. A regular polygon with three sides is an equilateral triangle; four sides, a square; five, a pentagon; et cetera. As the number of sides increases, the more it smooths out to become a round object. Set it to a polygon with infinite sides and it would become a circle, something that doesn't fit into the definition of a polygon.

But as common sense dictates, there is no such thing as a circle with a straight arc or a polygon with a round edge, is there? A circle can only be a single curved line and a polygon can only have straight sides. Moreover, it is hard to visualize "infinite". Visualizing a googol is hard enough, much less a googolplex... but infinite? Something with infinite attributes - size, power, intelligence, or age - just can't exist as far as reality is concerned.

Failure to live in the present

Mankind, in general, is obsessed with the infinite, as I had said in my previous rants. What else can be more virtually infinite than time itself?

People are obsessed with the future. A child is guaranteed a "good future" by his parents and as he grows up, he strives hard to ensure a future for himself and his descendants. Not that there is anything wrong with that, is there? Actually, there is.

The future is a big uncertainty and with uncertainty comes fear. This phobia sends humans into a frenzy that they focus on nothing else but that fear. Instead of overcoming that fear, it turns into some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. To put it simply, as humans live their lives in ensuring a future, they fail to live in the present.

I'm not saying that planning is a bad thing. It's just that humans forget the purpose of life, which is to be lived and enjoyed, not to be wasted on a goal that can't be reached. The future will always be the future; once you move forward, the present becomes past and the future becomes present.

But ahead of you is still another future. Man must not become fixated in living in the future. Instead, man must let the future come to him so that he still lives in the present.

The present is now. There wouldn't be tomorrow if you don't live today. Carpe diem.