Good thing I got back on this camel. Its the first hump I've had in nearly two months. Yeah, it was a cheap joke (though, sadly, based in reality). I expect better from myself, but you know, I really have no basis for doing so. Anyway...

As I sit here on top of Old Smokey (that's what I named my camel being as that he has a mountain on his back and he is covered with cheese (long story having to do with nachos and Jack Daniels (who knew camels couldn't hold their liquor (these parenthesis are starting to get ridiculous (its like tunneling down to the core of the sentence (I wonder if I will encounter the mole people soon (Anyway...))))))), I realize that a blog like this, where I confront beliefs that people have, for some reason, designated as special in that questioning them is taken to be an attack, could be interpreted as mean spirited. So, I thought I should take this opportunity to give a few reasons for my confronting these beliefs instead of respecting them, as we are often told we should do. There will be nothing funny in this post past this point... not that there was anything funny in this post before this point... but there was intended funny... which there won't be anymore... past here... starting now... Okay... go.

There are a few reasons I speak out against belief in a supreme being. While some may see me confronting their beliefs as mean or bigoted or disrespectful, I contend that though everyone has a right to believe what ever it is they wish or think to be true, and no one should be forced to believe any certain way, beliefs, religious included, are not beyond question and deserve no special pass from being taken into the public forum and examined for validity, and for the benefit that they may or may not offer to a society. For too long people have left religion unchecked and unquestioned for fear of offending and this unspoken policy has led to what I consider undesirable circumstances. That being said, I would like to take the time to outline my reasons for confronting theistic beliefs, and why I consider having such a discussion to not only not be disrespectful, but to be a vital step towards building a better society.

The first and most obvious reason I consider it important to confront religious, or theistic, belief is because it is an inherently dangerous ideology. If one can be convinced that a god, who holds their eternal fate in its ethereal hands, desires them to do something then no matter what that thing is or how it may be counter to their natural inclinations, it not only becomes very easy to rationalize doing it, but it becomes ridiculously self destructive not to. If there was a god who could torture you eternally, and someone convinced you that it wanted you to kill every blond haired baby, then for you not to attempt to do so would be utter stupidity. Flying planes into buildings, shooting doctors who run clinics, condemning condom use and assisting an epidemic in all but eradicating a continent of people, shunning, condemning, and at times physically and mentally torturing those whose lifestyle differs from your own; these things, while horrific acts through secular eyes, are only steps towards a glorious destiny, and reward worthy to the tune of eternal bliss in the eyes of one who has come to hold certain religious dogmas as truth. This reason alone is enough that everyone who has a concern for the well being of one's self and one's fellow man should speak out against such ideologies. But, I will continue with more.

Second, such beliefs, which aren't supported by evidence and therefor hold no reliability as truths, are fundamentally flawed foundations on which to build societies. When moral and legal systems are built upon false realities we have no reason to expect them to conform to what is actually best for society. By continuing in the centuries old cycle of allowing religious doctrine to be a factor in our moral and legal systems we have no reason to expect to ever be able to achieve a better society and free ourselves from the tribalistic tendencies that are the basis of most human conflict. Only through striving for a true depiction of reality, and accepting ourselves (human beings) for what we are and reality for what it is, can we, as a social species, expect to be able to arrive at a clear and socially applicable understanding of right and wrong and how best to deal with the problems that arise from a social lifestyle.

Thirdly, theistic belief is completely unnecessary. Belief in a supreme being adds nothing to a society. Anything positive that can be achieved through a god belief can be achieved through a secular understanding of the needs of a society. For people to hold to a dangerous and inherently flawed ontology which is not only unsupported but completely without unique benefit should be considered, by all people with a social conscience, to be completely unacceptable.

And last but not least, belief in a god is simply unfounded and therefor, regardless of whether it were beneficial or not, regardless of what makes one feel warm and fuzzy, regardless of whether or not one wants there to be a god, it is a ridiculous belief, and for that reason, not one that should be held. No one would suggest we should encourage people to believe in invisible giants or talking cows or space rabbits simply because it makes them feel good to do so. There is no good reason to believe in such things and that in and of itself is good reason to discourage belief in them. A belief in a god is no better supported and no different.

So, that is the reason for this caravan. Hey, nobody said this trip was going to be fun. I will try to make it at least mildly entertaining from time to time though. For now, who wants a slightly furry nacho?

This is a continuation of the caravan that I started here some time ago. For those familiar with what this trip is about, you should be able to grab a fresh camel and fall right back in line. For those new to the caravan, come along and see what happens when you follow a mentally questionable guy with a non-linear sense of direction across a spiritual desert atop a blind dromedary. Anyway, that will have to do by way of introduction to the caravan. Now, let's head vaguely in those directions.

As we undulate on our ungulates (only in the appropriate ways of course) let's talk a little about perspective. As an atheist, the perspective from which I view existence is that of a naturalist and a materialist. I see nothing that is super natural and therefor do not include supernatural concepts (if we can even actually classify something undefinable as a concept) in my worldview. But, from time to time, when discussing with other's their worldviews it is necessary to attempt to change my perspective and see things as they are seeing them. Sometimes this helps me to understand the concept they are trying to express, and often it helps me to be able to show them exactly where I find their thought processes to hold flaws.

Being as that this caravan is an attempt to enlighten us all to reality, for today, I want everyone in the caravan to assume the perspective of a god. For those of you who aren't used to being a god this may be a bit difficult. I, on the other hand, have it down to a fine art (just ask my ex-wife).

So, here we are, kicking back in the non-expanse of nothing, as of yet not having gotten our creation thang on. We know that we will create everything and that everything will be good. Well, except for those idiots who take Studio 60 off the air. That isn't part of the plan. We're gonna smite them bastards something fierce. Anyway, where was I? Damn, you'd think I'd have a longer attention span. Of course, I guess since we haven't created time yet my attention span is actually eternal even if it does seem somewhat short. Hey, come to think of it, since we haven't created space yet, size really doesn't matter. Not that I would have to worry about such a thing anyway... Okay, attempting to get back to the point... again.

So, here we are yada-yada, nothingness, thang, pre-creating. He-he. that almost sounds like procreating. Procreating, he-he-he. Crap,...

Okay, let's just get to it. As a god, sitting in all this nothing, what would my perspective be. Well, for one thing, it seems that I am in need of an explanation for my existence. A philosophy, if you will. Pre-creation we are not a creator god and thus our reason for existence is not as a first cause. We are simply an existence without any obvious reason and thus subject to any line of questioning that humans currently hold their existence subject to.

So, why am I (god) here? At this point, when we don't have our creation as our house of cards in need of a foundation, we find ourselves, as a god, in the same philosophical quagmire that religious philosophers claim humans are in. They neglect the fact that, again, as this god, we are an existence in need of explanation. Without that explanation to say that human beings' existence needs an explanation only found in a god is not answering the existence question but merely pushing it back. When we change our perspective, from that of a human who figures it needs a reason to that of a god, who has no reason to not be held to the same criteria, this suddenly becomes clear.

You see, no matter how we, back as human beings, try and prescribe meaning to our existence and try to attribute that meaning to a greater purpose from a greater being, no matter how strongly we proclaim the universe to be unnecessary but a supreme being to be necessary, no matter how incapable we may be of fully understanding the 'how' of our environment, and that the 'why' is not only an unanswerable question, but an incoherent one, when we change our perspective in an attempt to get a less biased view, we see how little sense this whole deity concept actually makes.

Another great example of the effectiveness of this little perspective experiment is examining one of the recent teleological arguments for a god's existence that have been championed by apologists such a William Lane Craig. This type of argument is basically an argument that the universe is fine tuned to support life and thus, they contend, it is obvious, due to the highly improbable nature of such a universe arising by chance, that a god must have created the universe for the intention of supporting human life.

Leaving aside the obvious challenge that, being as that we are here to question why we are here, it is not highly improbable but an absolute necessity that the universe supports our type of existence, and leaving aside any multi-verse hypothesis as well, when we change our perspective and view the argument from the perspective of the existence the argument seeks to establish (a god), we see that this existence isn't actually supported by the argument at all.

Look at it this way. Let's be a god again.

So, here we are once again in our pre-creation nothing. Now, our goal is to create human life (which we will one day kill our self/son as a sacrifice for (okay, so maybe we aren't the bestest planner)) so what is the first step? Well, it seems like it would be a good idea to create an environment in which they might live. This nothing doesn't seem like it would be a very interesting place to exist, especially if you happen to be afraid of the dark. So, what type of environment should we as a god create? Here is where the teleological argument completely loses its goal.

What type of environment we, as a god, create is completely arbitrary. Being as that nothing exists and we must create every single parameter of physical existence, the way they combine to form an environment, and the life form we wish this environment to support as well, there is no reason that any of the supposedly 'fine tuned' physical constants need to be of any particular value. They could all be zero and we could create a nature and a life form that was supported by this value. If we, as the creating god whose existence is sought by the teleological argument, had to 'fine tune' the universe to those specific numbers to support a life form then there is necessarily a set of natural parameters for life that we must work within while creating, which would leave us restricted by nature and thus render us obsolete as a creating god.

So, by changing our perspective what we see is that the teleological argument leaves us with a god who either A.) is subject to the laws of nature, or B.) created completely arbitrarily thus making the existence of these supposedly 'fine tuned' values no more fine tuned than they are as natural properties of the universe in which we came to exist.

That's all for today. My camel is somewhat out of shape after the long caravaning hiatus and, due to my astounding natural navigation talents, we seem to have come to a place that seems just as good as any other place might be for stopping. We will head off again soon, probably in a south by northwesterly direction. Until then, try on a few different perspectives and see how it might change what you have always thought you saw.