tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post116386314516578823..comments2024-03-28T03:10:51.807-05:00Comments on Julia Sweeney: Julia Sweeneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02459682985438227986noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164488247812306232006-11-25T14:57:00.000-06:002006-11-25T14:57:00.000-06:00Julia, As I read your own simple way of "giving th...Julia, <BR/>As I read your own simple way of "giving thanks" and struggling to redefine this in my own way each year on this holiday, it reminded me of a recent writing I came across by Daniel C. Dennert titled "Thank Goodness" written from the hospital as he recuperates from major heart surgery. Responding to the question as to whether he may have had an epiphany along the way to change his long held atheism, he wrote the following: "Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now.<BR/><BR/>To whom, then, do I owe a debt of gratitude? To the cardiologist who has kept me alive and ticking for years, and who swiftly and confidently rejected the original diagnosis of nothing worse than pneumonia. To the surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, and the perfusionist, who kept my systems going for many hours under daunting circumstances. To the dozen or so physician assistants, and to nurses and physical therapists and x-ray technicians and a small army of phlebotomists so deft that you hardly know they are drawing your blood, and the people who brought the meals, kept my room clean, did the mountains of laundry generated by such a messy case, wheel-chaired me to x-ray, and so forth. These people came from Uganda, Kenya, Liberia, Haiti, the Philippines, Croatia, Russia, China, Korea, India—and the United States, of course—and I have never seen more impressive mutual respect, as they helped each other out and checked each other's work. But for all their teamwork, this local gang could not have done their jobs without the huge background of contributions from others. I remember with gratitude my late friend and Tufts colleague, physicist Allan Cormack, who shared the Nobel Prize for his invention of the c-t scanner. Allan—you have posthumously saved yet another life, but who's counting? The world is better for the work you did. Thank goodness. Then there is the whole system of medicine, both the science and the technology, without which the best-intentioned efforts of individuals would be roughly useless. So I am grateful to the editorial boards and referees, past and present, of Science, Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and all the other institutions of science and medicine that keep churning out improvements, detecting and correcting flaws." Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now.<BR/><BR/>To whom, then, do I owe a debt of gratitude? To the cardiologist who has kept me alive and ticking for years, and who swiftly and confidently rejected the original diagnosis of nothing worse than pneumonia. To the surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, and the perfusionist, who kept my systems going for many hours under daunting circumstances. To the dozen or so physician assistants, and to nurses and physical therapists and x-ray technicians and a small army of phlebotomists so deft that you hardly know they are drawing your blood, and the people who brought the meals, kept my room clean, did the mountains of laundry generated by such a messy case, wheel-chaired me to x-ray, and so forth. These people came from Uganda, Kenya, Liberia, Haiti, the Philippines, Croatia, Russia, China, Korea, India—and the United States, of course—and I have never seen more impressive mutual respect, as they helped each other out and checked each other's work. But for all their teamwork, this local gang could not have done their jobs without the huge background of contributions from others. I remember with gratitude my late friend and Tufts colleague, physicist Allan Cormack, who shared the Nobel Prize for his invention of the c-t scanner. Allan—you have posthumously saved yet another life, but who's counting? The world is better for the work you did. Thank goodness. Then there is the whole system of medicine, both the science and the technology, without which the best-intentioned efforts of individuals would be roughly useless. So I am grateful to the editorial boards and referees, past and present, of Science, Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and all the other institutions of science and medicine that keep churning out improvements, detecting and correcting flaws." <BR/>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html<BR/><BR/>Discovering your CD and Blog has been a treat. Having been raised in a Mormon family but a long time athiest, your story of the Mormon missionaries made me really laugh. <BR/><BR/>Thanks, for your humor and thought!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164477942919512242006-11-25T12:05:00.000-06:002006-11-25T12:05:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lori Doyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17106140519336778658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164047781196148052006-11-20T12:36:00.000-06:002006-11-20T12:36:00.000-06:00i think people can be converted, i like my toaster...i think people can be converted, i like my toasters. of course nobody is going to <I>say</I> 'you're right!' on here, but i think we all walk away with some holes poked in our armour, holes that can grow, or that we can find patches for.<BR/><BR/>i wouldn't call it prostlytizing. more like polemics, but it's an important part of human progress, on an individual and global level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164045543406511562006-11-20T11:59:00.000-06:002006-11-20T11:59:00.000-06:00I would answer that it's not prostlytizing.I'd ans...I would answer that it's not prostlytizing.<BR/><BR/>I'd answer that if you can't tell the difference, you're already in an ossified mindset.<BR/><BR/>Proselytizing is selling. You're trying to get a buyer to commit. "What do I have to do to have you drive off the lot in this beauty today?"<BR/><BR/>What you're doing is wanting people to understand YOU.<BR/><BR/>At least, that's my feeling when talking to people. I just want other people to understand me. I want them to understand who I am, where I come from and why my reasoning and understanding has brought me to my current place in my journey.<BR/><BR/>I recognize that everyone's journey is different, and everyone has different places they're journeying to and from. I acknowlege that some people might seek me out for their own journey. I know full well that other people's journey includes my writing, my thoughts, my understanding as I share myself.<BR/><BR/>But the difference is, I have nothing to sell. If a christian is a salesman, I'm ralph nader. I'm the Consumer Products Safety Commision. Or maybe I'm just the guy who rides a bike to work and says, I don't need a Ford Pinto, thanks very much.<BR/><BR/>I don't CARE what other people believe. That's their life and their journey and the sum total of their experiences. I don't get a gold star or a toaster for every soul I unwin for God.<BR/><BR/>I'm here to tell my story and see if I can get people to understand me. I'm also here to listen to other people's story and see if I can understand them, people of faith very much included.<BR/><BR/>But I've never turned anyone, I don't intend to turn anyone, and I don't really believe that anyone changes beliefs based on external people pressure anyhow. I know too many atheists married to believers to have the hubris to assume that a guy on a website (or a woman with a play) can exert any appreciable influence at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164033367646641752006-11-20T08:36:00.000-06:002006-11-20T08:36:00.000-06:00Scientist are learning more and more and getting s...Scientist are learning more and more and getting smarter every day. Then one day they got so smart they decided they did not need god anymore so they told god that they could create life, stars, galaxies and everything without him. God said that is fine, but what are you all going to make your stuff from? The scientist said, we don’t need anything, we can make everything from scratch, hydrogen, dark matter, etc, nothing else. God said; “O no!, that is my stuff, you get your own!” He then took back his Big Bang.<BR/><BR/>ETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164031854861865082006-11-20T08:10:00.000-06:002006-11-20T08:10:00.000-06:00Movie thought: Have you considered not doing it as...Movie thought: Have you considered <I>not</I> doing it as a monologue, but use the monologue as the basis for a biopic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164011745105650432006-11-20T02:35:00.000-06:002006-11-20T02:35:00.000-06:00I want to see you dress up as Father Tom and say "...I want to see you dress up as Father Tom and say "wellll you know, the Old Testament..."<BR/><BR/>You could do the characters by cutting away to an appropriate backgrount (coffee and doughnuts table here) and in costume, after filming the main show with the audience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164007730273985382006-11-20T01:28:00.000-06:002006-11-20T01:28:00.000-06:00Hey Julia,Truthfully, your idea may be so brillian...Hey Julia,<BR/>Truthfully, your idea may be so brilliant that we just need to see it to understand it. Some of the most beautiful art takes time to understand...and then it becomes more powerful than anybody can imagine. <BR/><BR/>Have you ever tried to explain Seinfeld to somebody? An explanation does not do it justice...it just sounds like a show about nothing. But, when a person watches Seinfeld, he/she realizes that the show is really about everything. It's about all of the intricacies that happen or that don't happen but that we imagine could happen. Therein lies the beauty and the magic.<BR/><BR/>So is your idea ambitious? Perhaps, but you will be communicating images that help people like me connect to the content.<BR/><BR/>At the risk of offending some individuals who I'm sure have noble intentions, is there a way you can encourage people to NOT write 6 page blog comments? I find it a bit silly that the comments are longer than the BLOG itself. Although I love discussions, is there a way you can start another thread for those who want to continuously address one another? Do you guys really think we are going to convince one another that there is a God or there is no God over this internet machine?<BR/><BR/>And here I go...typing a 6 page BLOG and starting a debate. Hypocrisy at it's finest. As my football coach used to tell me, "Do what I say and not what I do."<BR/><BR/>Much loveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164006021058625392006-11-20T01:00:00.000-06:002006-11-20T01:00:00.000-06:00I loved "Letting Go of God" and I would encourage ...I loved "Letting Go of God" and I would encourage you to shoot it in a way that detracts the least from you and your words. Some of the ideas seem gimmicky to me. It doesn't need gimmicks. Just shoot it like Al Gore's movie, maybe.<BR/><BR/>Just discovered this blog!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1164004872062085742006-11-20T00:41:00.000-06:002006-11-20T00:41:00.000-06:00Michael:You asked if I had read the Wilkins quote ...Michael:<BR/><BR/>You asked if I had read the Wilkins quote regarding how the scientific community treats supernatural events. I have, but I believe it's a red herring. "Supernatural" is one of those really squishy words that can mean any of several things, depending on what the arguer finds most convenient. Does it mean "magical"? Does it mean "impossible"? Does it mean "beyond our knowledge"?<BR/><BR/>A lot of things have been outside our knowledge before; many of those are now understood. Were they supernatural before we understood them? Will the things that you're claiming are supernatural now be no longer supernatural when we can understand them? If something occurs, are we not supposed to study it to try to understand it?<BR/><BR/>In other words, if something occurs with no ready or easy explanation, Wilkins would have you believe that science is at fault for not immediately going "oooo, MAGIC." And that's just silly.<BR/><BR/>You also refer to Denton; his personal beliefs are not something I have readily at hand, though I do know he has been a contributor to the odious "Discovery Institute"---which make his claims of being an evolutionist somewhat baffling. I have also read his book <I>Evolution: A Theory in Crisis</I>. Granted, I read it around 1990, and my memory of it is no longer crystal clear, but I do remember it being a book with, shall we say, a ton of factual problems.<BR/><BR/>You ask <I>is any scientist who has the courage to point out the flaws in Darwinian evolution a creationist?</I> Of course not; that's a straw-man argument, so let me knock it down for you. Loads of scientists have challenged Darwinian evolution, some of them successfully. The current theory of evolution is no longer strictly Darwinian as a result.<BR/><BR/>You also ask, <I>are you really advocating the position that it's almost impossible to see how a cell could not come together by chance?</I> As to this, the only thing I can really say is that you don't seem to have a clear grasp of the scale of the problem, in spite of my attempt at an analogy. Let's go back to my example.<BR/><BR/>Remember how it went? Instead of one blind person, you take ten billion blind people. Instead of being utterly without cues to how to assemble the Cube properly, they can sense a single color. Instead of making one move a second, they can make a million moves a second each.<BR/><BR/>Why did I choose those figures? They're arbitrary, I grant, but it does try to ineffectually reflect (a) just how many proteins and protein fragments we're talking about, (b) the natural tendency for molecules to be attracted to other molecules in certain ways, and (c) how fast chemical reactions occur. It doesn't factor in how long the time scales we're talking about are. In fact, in real life, here's how it goes:<BR/><BR/>Let's take adenine. It's a purine nucleobase which joins up with thymine via two hydrogen bonds to become part of DNA. (In RNA, it binds to uracil.) Adenine is only 15 atoms big, and it's made up of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. <A HREF="http://www.ca.uky.edu/agripedia/GLOSSARY/adenine.htm" REL="nofollow">Here's a diagram</A>.<BR/><BR/>Carbon is, you might note, quite common on this planet. So is nitrogen. So is hydrogen. In fact, there are a ridiculous number of these sorts of atoms available on the planet at any point, and it only takes 15 of them to make adenine. And the adenine molecule is pretty small: one gram of adenine contains 4.5 thousand million million million million of them, and every single one of those can have millions of chemical encounters per second depending on the conditions.<BR/><BR/>Are you getting the scope of the issue yet? We're talking about huge numbers. Huge, huge numbers.<BR/><BR/>Let me put it another way. Say I showed you an undoctored videotape of me describing a trick I was going to do with a tennis ball. I recite to the camera that, blindfolded, I was going to throw it over my shoulder, where it would hit a buffalo on the head, bounce directly onto an oversized mousetrap which would loft the ball so that---still blindfolded---I could strike it with a bat and send it flying through a small hole in a barn which would set off some fireworks. And then, I DO IT. On tape. It's amazing.<BR/><BR/>You might still be amazed if I told you that I'd filmed over 500 attempts over the last year before I got one right.<BR/><BR/>You probably wouldn't be so amazed if I told you that I'd filmed 600 billion attempts over the last 20,000 years, and this was the one that worked. You'd be even less impressed when you found out that I was one of 4.5 million people all attempting to perform the same trick, and this was the one attempt that worked.<BR/><BR/>And that is so many orders of magnitude lower than the actual problem we're talking about. The numbers are huuuuuuge. And it's all common chemicals. Nothing exotic. All using common chemical bonds. Lots and lots of atoms that naturally want to combine in all sorts of different ways, over lots and lots of time.<BR/><BR/>One of the problems, it seems to me, is that creationists suffer from a failure of comprehension. They want the Universe to fit neatly into the same box they've created for God. The Universe, I'm happy to say, has other ideas.<BR/><BR/>So, no, I don't think my analogy represents incredibly infinitesimal odds. I think it understates the odds rather badly, but I was still trying to make it comprehensible. If the impossibility of attempting a million combinations a second is too hard to imagine, then set it back to one combination a second, but increase the number of people to ten million billion. Either way; I don't care.<BR/><BR/>You asked if Hawking has repudiated what you quoted. Not overtly, admittedly, but certainly the flat universe theory has been thrown into doubt with the discovery of dark energy, which means that his line about "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way" falls apart when "just this way" no longer appears to be how things are. In fact, when you read the context of his quote, it is clear that he is expressing a doubt about the current theories applied back to the beginning of time, precisely because of such an implication. It is disingenuous to take it out of context and use it as some sort of indication that even Hawking wonders if there is a God. It is even more disingenuous to say that you didn't take his quote out of context: the way you used it was out of context.<BR/><BR/>You cap off your post with this gem: "However, it cannot be denied (unless one wants to ignore unpleasant facts) that he has struggled with the perfect design found in the universe. It's easy to sling insults without support. The fact that you chose to do so indicates to me that your defenses have been raised and it is you who is uncomfortable when confronted with facts that do not support your paradigm."<BR/><BR/>Michael, this is utter horseputty, and it seems to me to be a childish retreat as well. There are no unpleasant facts to ignore; Hawking didn't "struggle" with "the perfect design," and no amount of whinging will support such a ridiculous statement. Projecting your own issues onto me doesn't exactly bolster the credibility of your case, either.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, however, this is how most creationists "debate" the issue, so I suppose it's not really your fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163968171187268462006-11-19T14:29:00.000-06:002006-11-19T14:29:00.000-06:00For what it's worth, I'd like to say that I can mo...For what it's worth, I'd like to say that I can most easily envision your movie shot very simply with you just speaking on a stage. Just tell the story and let it speak for itself. <BR/>Last night I watched the old Dick Cavett interview with Katherine Hepburn (who, by the way, virtually said she didn't believe in God). She was speaking about acting and said that when you are speaking the truth it doesn't need any embroidering. There is a pureness to it and you just hand it to the audience and they just reach for it. A very simple and pure act. Just handing them the truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163965590442198272006-11-19T13:46:00.000-06:002006-11-19T13:46:00.000-06:00Shellyd said "I wish a strictly secular worldview ...Shellyd said "I wish a strictly secular worldview wouldn't be so depressing at times."<BR/><BR/>This is interesting because it reminded me of something that happened to me the other day. I was driving home from work and John Lennon's "Imagine" came on the radio. After listening to the song, I decided to take him up on his suggestion and imagine a world with no religion. I found myself imagining a world with no terrorism. I didn't find that very depressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163957696132363362006-11-19T11:34:00.000-06:002006-11-19T11:34:00.000-06:00Hi Julia,You mentioned how cruel evolution is, and...Hi Julia,<BR/><BR/>You mentioned how cruel evolution is, and that humans are narcissistic. I've been thinking about this too because, although a naturalistic worldview makes the most sense to me, sometimes it feels unbearable. <BR/><BR/>It's so painful to think that this unfair world is all there is. I really miss the comfort of faith and frankly, I wish a strictly secular worldview wouldn't be so depressing at times. (By the way, what CNN show are you on?)Fargofan1https://www.blogger.com/profile/14969896918488396447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163956562440144482006-11-19T11:16:00.000-06:002006-11-19T11:16:00.000-06:00Julia,When the question first came up about scienc...Julia,<BR/>When the question first came up about science being anti-god, it struck me as an odd way to characterize science, because just stating that it is anti-god seems to affirm, albeit in a sneaky way, that there is a god to be anti- about. Science seems to me completely neutral on the question of god. There is no rational, scientific evidence of god, so god's existence or non-existence is irrelevant as far as science is concerned. If I believe in the Keebler elves and I think bakers are ignoring the possibility that Keebler elves are involved somehow in how cookies came into existence, it suits my purposes to say that the baking establishment is anti-Keebler Elf. Other Keebler Elfists will agree with me, and now there is the widely-held belief that bakers only see the world through the anti-Keebler elf paradigm.<BR/> <BR/>Schopenhauer said something like "The world shapes itself chiefly by the way in which it is seen." Seen through the anthropocentric eyes of western theology, the world was created solely for the benefit of man, and is merely a stage on which our ultimate fate is played out.<BR/>But nature as revealed to us through science is an impartial, elegant and intricate system within which man stands and falls equally with all other life, unique only in the quality of awareness and the responsibility of intelligence. Of this magnificent universe it is quite as possible to be reverent as it is to be reverent of the various intellectual constructs we have invented for man's reassurance and glorification (read, gods). If some people find their egos deflated viewing the universe in this way, others are exhilarated and find new grounds for wonder. <BR/>I find it absolutely childish thinking to believe that whatever you imagine god to be would suffer no regrets in sending those who don't believe in "him" to an eternity of torment. If you find this belief congenial to you Michael, and it is sufficient to your understanding, that is your right and prerogative. Personally, I find such a god neither credible nor worthy of veneration. <BR/>Norma, you do go on, but I have really enjoyed reading your posts. Keep on going on...<BR/>Hope everyone has a safe and happy Thanksgiving.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163954913521906272006-11-19T10:48:00.000-06:002006-11-19T10:48:00.000-06:00A communicant asked Julia to whom she directs her ...A communicant asked Julia to whom she directs her thanks at Thanksgiving.<BR/>I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself but: <BR/><BR/>"Our supper is plain, but we are very wonderful," is what the poet Kenneth Patchen, American as apple pie, atheist, said before a meal with a lover.<BR/> <BR/>Always sounded good enough to me, and I adopted it for my own Thanksgiving dinners....<BR/>And always, always, aware that the bounty on the table was a bit of luck not shared by too many of my fellow homo sapiens , god fearing monotheists or anthing otherwise: there are a lot of hungry people there to whom neither god or random fortune have been generous.<BR/>I like it so much that I say " Our dinner is plain and we are very wonderful" when I am eating a solitary meal including take-out from the " Smiling Buddha." in my neighborhood, (And what HE has to smile about remains a mystery to me.)<BR/>Sometimes I say it as I am munching on a Snickers Bar.<BR/>One doesn'r really have to ponder, one way OR another, god's presence for every gesture man makes in this life.<BR/>If I have a question about our amazing bounty at Thanksgiving it's "what prayer of Thanksgiving does a Native American, particularly the descendent of a New England Indian tribe, say when he sits down to HIS holiday meal?"<BR/>And to whom does he say it?<BR/>And , for god's sake, WHY? <BR/>NMBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163951819469472242006-11-19T09:56:00.000-06:002006-11-19T09:56:00.000-06:00Hi Julia,I'm going to try to make this short. I ju...Hi Julia,<BR/><BR/>I'm going to try to make this short. I just saw you on CNN and I'm sure there will be a deluge of letters.<BR/><BR/>You get a compliment and a question.<BR/><BR/>I just want you to know that I've always observed you as being a different type of celebrity. You've always appeared to be very unaffected and pure which is an unusual characteristic for a comic entertainer. Usually comics and actors must spend a great deal of energy drawing attention to themselves (I know it's their job) but your classic unassuming presence has always made me take notice. I've always known that there was something different about you and your latest efforts have reminded me that my feelings were accurate. <BR/><BR/>I've always struggled with the difficult "nature of being" vs. my faith. I'd like to thank you for sharing this difficult internal dialogue. <BR/><BR/>Now the question:<BR/><BR/>You've mentioned Thanksgiving a few times recently and I'm just curious to know - to whom or what do you offer "thanks" and why you still observe this tradition?<BR/><BR/>This is NOT intended to be sarcastic and I mean that.<BR/><BR/>Although I do believe in an intelligent higher order I have a great deal in common with you. I'm a baptized Catholic who refused to be confirmed. More on that later for your amusement.<BR/><BR/>Thank you!<BR/><BR/>warmest regards,<BR/><BR/>steveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163951431286813932006-11-19T09:50:00.000-06:002006-11-19T09:50:00.000-06:00Wow, 15,359 words already and counting...If Julia ...Wow, 15,359 words already and counting...<BR/><BR/>If Julia actually reads all of this, I doubt she'll ever find time to make a movie, much less even know where to find her daugher.<BR/><BR/>Love the idea of the garage chuch.<BR/><BR/>Andrew in NCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163942394530070022006-11-19T07:19:00.000-06:002006-11-19T07:19:00.000-06:00Just watched your interview on CNN; I've been foll...Just watched your interview on CNN; I've been following your website since hearing your NPR interview a couple of weeks ago. I was disappointed with the way the interviewer conducted the interview; he seemed to treat the topic as some light, fluffy thing that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of the universe. I feel like I'm in the same place you are right now, Julia, questioning the existence of God, the accuracy and origin of the Bible's texts, etc., (although I haven't undertaken the scientific studies you have!) and I gotta tell ya, I DON'T feel like this is some fluffy, insignificant topic. I feel disillusioned, lied to, like I've been played for a fool all these years (having also been raised Catholic myself), like I've lost a best friend, big brother, a parent, or even that type of imaginary friend we all used to talk to as kids...I want to shake people and tell them to wake up out of their dream world, look around and get a grip on reality, that it's time to stop dancing because the Titanic is sinking, that God is NOT in the heavens and all is NOT right with the world!!! I'm angry, I'm scared, I'm overwhelmed at the realization that I can make my own decisions and run my own life without waiting for Divine Intervention, Guidance or Permission...things that I'd sometimes LIKE to have!! Julia, when things get screwed up in your life these days, where do you find comfort? Can you still feel like it'll all turn out alright in the end, or do you just hold your breath, cross your fingers and hope for the best after doing everything that's in your power to do? Having only recently become acquainted with your personal background story (through the NPR interview) and only knowing you before that from your Saturday Night Live body of work, I'm know I'm not as familiar with your journey as some of the other posters on this site are, but I'm looking forward to getting to know you better through your current material. Thanks for saying what you're saying...you make me know that I'm not alone and entirely screwed up for feeling as I do.<BR/><BR/>Oh yeah...I found it somewhat ironic that CNN's previous stories before yours were all about happiness, including how Buddhist monks' meditation techniques allow them to sustain prolonged periods of happy feelings by causing the brain to make more of whatever hormones make that "happy feeling". This all comes back to making me ponder, is happiness just a feeling with no real reason, but when you use intellect and look at reality and the world as it is today, you realize there really isn't a lot to be happy about? It's a lot to digest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163925811660718952006-11-19T02:43:00.000-06:002006-11-19T02:43:00.000-06:00It's one thing to debate the existence of God and ...It's one thing to debate the existence of God and the survival of consciousness with your mind looking inward and your fingers pounding out recipes for disbelief, and another thing altogether to debate those same topics while witnessing "God" or "spirit" entertain you and your frinds with a firework show of fact and faith.<BR/><BR/>Julia, why not rehearse having an audience of 60 people in your home by inviting me and all your atheist and agnostic friends over for a "wine and spirits" party. I am so 100% sure in the existence of the afterlife and my skills to communicate with it, that if I don't bring through hard fact evidence of its existence, I promise to bring Krispy Kremes to your eventual video shoot every day for an entire week. C'mon, I'm talking about Krispy Kremes here.<BR/><BR/>Blogger Matthew Cromer decided to use me as a guinea pig for his own investigation into consciousness survival (see articles here: http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/ ), and I will gladly offer my services to you too, Julia, if you are serious about researching this topic further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163924484383150742006-11-19T02:21:00.000-06:002006-11-19T02:21:00.000-06:00Julia, I like your ideas for shooting LGOG, ambiti...Julia, I like your ideas for shooting LGOG, ambitious though they may be. I must say that there really is no wrong way to do it, since any way you cut it it'll be you on camera doing your thing, which has shown itself very compelling. No wrong way to do that (except maybe by involving circus animals or nudity. Although.. no.)<BR/><BR/>Re: science and god and stuff. I guess I'm still in the "nary the twain shall meet" camp, and by thus compartmentalizing I remain on the fence. I like what sweetthursday said: "I don't know why I have to get off the fence. There are more possibilities up here." And what Whitman said about contradicting himself, being large and containing multitudes. (I am large. I probably do contain multitudes, if intestinal flora count.)<BR/><BR/>The empiricists are likely going to find that a cop-out, and I'm still ruminating on what you said about people who believe science and god can coexist probably haven't thought very hard about either one. To that, I fall back on Einstein's words about the divine, which are closer to my heart than much of the Bible (and I surely hope I am not making the baby Jesus cry by saying so). I imagine he thought more about both science and god than I have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163923791862021292006-11-19T02:09:00.000-06:002006-11-19T02:09:00.000-06:00Michael said..."I readily admit that everything I ...Michael said...<BR/><BR/><I>"I readily admit that everything I read and learn about is filtered through my belief in God. That fact does not make my conclusions incorrect nor does it indicate that I cannot be as objective as a person who does not believe in God filtering their learning through that disbelief."</I><BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't make you incorrect outright...but it absolutely DOES make you less able to be objective. If you were able to do that, you wouldn't come to the ridiculously illogical conclusions you have. <BR/><BR/><I>"If you believe that atheists, including atheistic scientists, do not filter what they learn through the atheistic framework, you are ignoring reality."</I><BR/><BR/>If you'll take a closer look at my post, you'll see that I said that scientists (like all humans) have this tendency. I also explained that we do everything possible to fight against it, unlike religious people. And talk about ignoring reality!<BR/><BR/><I>"I could make the same claims as you. You choose to ignore the very real conundrums regarding origins of life and the mathmatical odds against it occuring randomly."</I><BR/><BR/>Are you kidding me with this?! I have spent most of my adult life studying the origins of life, and believe me, you won't find anything useful in that little black book you're carrying around.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"You choose to discount the conclusions of a world reknown astrophysicist who found the odds so incredible he created a new theory - panspermia."</I><BR/><BR/>The theory of panspermia was debunked DECADES ago! And just which "world reknown" [sic] astrophysicist would you be referring to? Hermann von Helmholtz of the 1870s revamping of panspermia, or the man he stole the idea from, Anaxagoras, who was accused of atheism in the 5th century because he refuted the idea that the celestial bodies were divine? (A bit of irony in there, eh?) In any case, there's no unrefuted evidence for such a phenomenon, and your belief in it is simply further proof that you're falling prey to an odd sort of Confirmation Bias.<BR/><BR/><I>"However, it's disingenous not to admit that you are doing so because of your preconceived atheistic bias."</I><BR/><BR/>And it's irresponsible of you to accuse me numerous times not acknowledging something that I DID acknowledge. Honestly, you're making my case FOR me.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11861876430546129295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163920984849125262006-11-19T01:23:00.000-06:002006-11-19T01:23:00.000-06:00science is anti-god because god depends on faith a...science is anti-god because god <I>depends</I> on faith and faith is the opposite of science. Michael, you said when science failed to prove or disprove god, we both have a choice and you choose to believe. that's not true, i didn't choose <I>not to believe</I> in your god, my approach doesn't include that choice. The last step of the scientific method isn't "choose whether or not you're going to believe your unverified hypothesis". <BR/><BR/>I'm an antheist because I reject beleif as an approach to the world. <BR/><BR/>Other than pascal's wager (HA!) what are these great benefits of having god in your life? are they maybe things like complacency? or confidence that you are right and your actions are justified? that you are forgiven for your sins?<BR/><BR/>because, guess what? you're wrong. you're actions are <I>not</I> justified, your sins are <I>not</I> forgiven. you and i, living in the developed world, (i'll assume in america) are commiting mass destruction and mass murder to sate our overconsumptive appitites and maintain an empire of exploitation over the majority of the population of this planet. They don't forgive us, they <B>hate</B> us and want to see us dead. <BR/><BR/>rejecting the comfort of god is an important step to replacing the obsolete system that makes it so easy, indeed, automatic, for us to do these things.<BR/><BR/>or are your benefits of a godly life something else, a different kind of complacency? does the idea that you'll have ice cream on a golden platter when you die help you accept the fact that you are being exploited, absued and neglected by your boss, his boss, and the sharholders of whatever company you work for? Is religion a calming drug for you? the opiate of the masses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163918655790426322006-11-19T00:44:00.000-06:002006-11-19T00:44:00.000-06:00Michael said... Norma,One more post and then I'm ...Michael said...<BR/> Norma,<BR/><BR/>One more post and then I'm done for awhile. (The applause is deafening).><BR/><BR/>*I don't hear applause... why do you imagine anyone would be happy if you stopped expressing yourself?<BR/>That is a conceit that goes with the idea that skeptics find the beliefs of the religious to be too threatening because they are inarguable.<BR/>Now think. Could anything be further from the truth?*<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> Point taken regarding the scientists I cited. I have not performed a full historical study on each and even if I had I could not get in their minds. So, you make a good point.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the cell, my point is NOT that the only possible solution to the riddle is that God created it. Rather, the point is that the complexity of the design POINTS TO a designer as a viable alternative and POINTS AWAY FROM the Darwinian construct. Other theories may be posed at a later time. However, there is no denying that the complexity being discovery at a micro, basic level poses a serious problem for Darwinian evolution. Until a new scientific theory is proposed, what do you do in the meantime? Continue to choose not to believe in a creator? That's ok. However, would you concede that your choice is no more rational than mine? <BR/><BR/>* No, of course I wouldn't concede it because obviously I not only think that the evidence shows you are incorrect, but that I believe that I am, above all, a rational person.<BR/>Besides, the question is ill-put because you don't seem to get it: for me atheism is not a choice, but a function, for good or ill, of my brain, as I think is so for many non-believers, who haven't had epiphanies based on either experience or reading, or simply because of observation., but were simply born without the "god gene." <BR/>As to the challenges posed to Darwin's theories, don't forget that while Darwin was a great innovator and certainly responsible for the greatest upheaval in our visions of ourselves and our habitat in the history of science, certainly even more significant than that of Copernicus or Galilio and even Newton.. astounding really.. STILL, still, we have come a long way since "Origin of Species..." So much exploration and inquiry was stimulated by Darwin's obsservations, so much data has been collected, so many fossils discovered, catalogued, identified, so much proof that even Darwin were he to be watching ( as you must suspect he is) would be startled to see what other, later scientists have done in his name.<BR/>There is simply no comparison between what we know now and what Darwin was led to suspect in his lifetime.... At the simplest level, think of how primitive was his equipment .<BR/> There was no camera, no electron microscope, and certainly no computer.<BR/>And Physics, Chemistry, Biology were in infant stages.<BR/>The double helix was not even a gleam in the scientific eye.<BR/>Crystallography did not exist.- it is entirely the product of the computer age.<BR/>One can only imagine with some pleasure what Darwin would have thought of the contemporary goings on that he started - it was only near the end of his life that he suspected the stunning earth-shaking impact -even outside of the religious ramifications- of what he started.*<BR/><BR/> Regarding the Rubik's cube, try blindfolding the kid you know so that he cannot see the cube, mix it up, and let him have a go at it. See how long it takes him to solve it by random chance. That analogy was created by Sir Fred Hoyle. He came up with it to demonstrate the odds against life being created by random chance; not me. <BR/><BR/>*I understand that you didn't make up the quote - i am only surprised that you give it so much credence.<BR/>The Rubik Cube was made to be solved, and not randomly, although I'm sure there is a possibility that it could be.<BR/>But why blindfold my kid.. what would be the point? Why try to prove that something can't be proved randomly when no one ever suggested it could be?<BR/>The Rubik Cube is simply not analogous to the creation of life .*<BR/><BR/> He was an atheist and he found the odds staggering that life began by random chance. Therefore, to fit the findings within his atheistic paradigm, he came up with the theory of panspermia, not god, for the origin of life. I offered it as evidence that a belief in the origination of life as random chance as proposed by Darwin is, in the views of one respected astrophysicist, a mathmatical impossibility. So, again, if you accept Hoyle's calculations, what is the basis for your belief about how everything came to be? <BR/><BR/>* But I don't accept the calculations. I'm not saying they are incorrect: I'm postulating that they are irrelevant.<BR/>We don't really have all the answers with absolute certainty on the origins of life, and no one, least of all Charles Darwin, ever said we did...<BR/>Myself? I 'm not so sure it matters, except that further information about the facets of the puzzle, will lead to even more information, and eventually the puzzle will be solved.<BR/>Of that I have no doubt... if our species doesn't destroy itself by either stupidity or carelessness, disregard of the fragility of our eco systems, I have no doubt that one day , not in my lifetime, we will know everything there is to know about the origins of life at least.<BR/>Don't forget it is not very long ago in historic terms that we were certain - we were taught it in school - that the earth was only 6,000 years old, and that the dinosaurs were the contemporaries of our species...<BR/>No one but the most adamant biblical literalist believes that now.<BR/>No one.<BR/>I am certain that you don't... and I don't' quite understand how you decide what to pick and choose among those proofs that you do accept because they have, more or less, entered the public domain.*<BR/><BR/>"why muddy your own waters with such inappropriate references to science and its methodology, and scientists?" You lost me on this one. How are the references inappropriate?<BR/><BR/>*As I described: Hoyle has set up a straw man: the Rubic Cube analogy is irrelevant to the creation of life, n o matter who made it, and what his other accomplishments might be.*<BR/> <BR/> "Why would you, or anybody, spend your only sure-thing life, that right here on earth, so involved in the moment of death?" Assume hypothetically that I am right. If so, then this life is but a mist over the water that melts off by noon. Whereas, the next life will last for as long as the history of this earth and a million times a million longer. Again, assuming my hypothetical, which one do you believe is the most important? <BR/><BR/>*Michael? Are you there? Are you assuming I'm lying to you and am really wrestling with the idea of a god who is going to screw me over for eternity because of my adamant refusal to believe in him/her/it.<BR/>I can't answer your question because I can't assign an importance to an afterlife I don't believe is in the cards, but is a mythology that has, to me, an incomprehensible hold on human imagination without a single corroboration.<BR/>I don't believe it because I can't believe it.<BR/>You are right in that this life is a nano second long in the scheme of history... maybe less.<BR/>And eternity would be long, longer, longest.<BR/>But so what?<BR/>Can that possibly make a difference in a perception of the value of the idea?<BR/>There is no proof that it exists, or that it bodes ill for non -believers.<BR/>Wouldn't it be irrational from my point of view to spend the life I am aware of, my conscious life, absorbed in, preparing for, yet another life?<BR/>That's the point: you can't argue for an afterlife, or for some mythical punishment that will be inflicted on us that will keep us from enjoying this one, or from living it to the fullest.<BR/>It is impossible. The proofs offered of life after death are the stuff of shenanigans, entertainment, the cynical preying on the bereaved.<BR/> <BR/>And then think of it this way - and I am not being facetious but deadly (no pun intended) serious: supposing there is indeed a god, but he is L Ron Hubbard, the deity of Scientology? Or Allah? Or the Hashem, the Yahweh, of the Orthodox Jew.. What if he turns out to be Haile Sellassie, and refuses you entry because you are clearly not a Rasta, or even Rasta enough. What if god is a Seventh Day Adventist Christian who throws you into one of the circles of hell for relegating the Sabbath to Sunday?<BR/>You don't fill any of those guys' requirements for the good life.<BR/>And any one of them could nix your entry into that peculiar heaven that I couldn't begin to envision were you to send me to Abu Graib prison, put a black bag over my head, hit me with an electrified prod, and pull my fingernails out, (which parenthetically seems to be the Christian way).<BR/>My mind would be crying out : MIchael, WHAT are you TALKING about.<BR/>Do you really believe, biology and bio-physics (and what you see around you) aside that your religion is also a superior moral system?<BR/><BR/><BR/> Additionally, as I pointed out to 3boysmom, there are innumerable benefits to my belief here and now that I receive. "I come that you might have life and have it more abundantly" has real meaning to me.<BR/><BR/>*A satisfaction to which you are entitled.<BR/>But that has to do with dogma and not with the actual existence of god, or the promised afterlife.<BR/>And surely you can't help but be aware that while you are spiritually elated by your choice of biblical quote, for others, even other Christians, the Book of Revelation, for instance is not satisfying but is the stuff of nightmares and of madness. *<BR/><BR/> "But isn't a waste to have spent it so prodigally by looking under haystacks for a god, and working yourself up into state over a god who would banish you to eternal damnation simply for not taking someone else's word for his existence?" I'm not looking for a god; I have made a choice to believe in God and have, therefore, found Him. If you believe that reading the Bible, going to Church, praying, etc, are a waste, that is your prerogative. Personally, I think that watching TV for 3 hours a night is a waste. The one has potentially eternal consequences; the other lasts only for a moment and then is gone. <BR/><BR/>* Either/or again.<BR/>Is the only alternative to reading the bible, going to church, praying, etc., watching television for three hours a day?<BR/>Come now.<BR/>Do you think that Julia Sweeney watches television for three hours a day, because she is no longer a practicing Catholic?<BR/>Richard Dawkins?<BR/>Or that that's what Charles Darwin would be doing if he were still alive?<BR/>The validity of modern biological thought aside, you might want to look around you to see that one of the wonders of life on earth in the here and now, the gift of our brain in its evolved state, is that human intellligence has given us many options with which to fill our time... we can play chess, or read in the ideas of others, we can listen to an almost infinite kinds of music on remarkable equipment that enhances sound, we can attend theater, lectures by experts and adventurers who fill in what we are ourselves perhaps missing, we can visit museums, admire monuments, walk and have private moments with our dogs... and we have so many things to take CARE OF...cars, lawns, children, pets, roofs plumbing -as well as our own version of hunting and gathering that still needs to be done so that we can stay alive.<BR/>We can study Sanskrit, or Swahili.<BR/>I'd say it 's remarkable that anyone has any time to watch television at all.<BR/>You're lucky to have that option, should you take a break from church attendance, bible reading and prayer.<BR/>But one would think that church attendance, bible reading and prayer would somehow bring to mind other alternatives for utilizing your extra time.<BR/>Some religious people actually give up TV time to picket abortion clinics, and the Supreme Court.<BR/>And more important, even were people who don't go to church, read the bible and pray, completely slothful couch potatoes, that wouldn't serve to illustrate that Darwin was wrong, and/or that god exists, and/or that there will be an afterlife.<BR/>Completely discrete phenomena...*<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> Take care, Michael<BR/><BR/><BR/>*You too,<BR/>NMB*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163910266666725882006-11-18T22:24:00.000-06:002006-11-18T22:24:00.000-06:00Michael said, "Look at the structure of a cell. Ar...Michael said, "Look at the structure of a cell. Are you aware that "the complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. ... To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I would then ask, why do the vast majority (>90%) of all Ph.D. cell biologists agree that cellular life DID arise by "chance" (i.e., natural processes occurring over billions of years).Why is there is a direct relationship between intelligence scores / scholarly achievement and one's tendency to believe in god? Reading blogs like this is frustrating for biologists like myself, because most posters have only a very limited knowledge of science (including biology). Unfortunately, the frequent answer to my statements above is that there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to promote their "dogma" and hide the "truth" (where truth = whatever religious tradition the speaker subscribes to). It's hard to argue that Satan hasn't taken over the American Academy of Science to people who actually think Satan exists and has the power and inclination to do it. Further, I have to admit that it goes against the a scientific approach to simply accept the word of expert scientists "just because" they are experts. However, I think that if reasonable people are made aware of how much consensus there is in the scientific community about evolution (there is NO controversy), etc., it might cause them to think more about these issues instead of simply rejecting them as "impossible", as Michael does. <BR/><BR/>I think it's sad that most atheists are silent when it comes to discussions of faith. Last year some family friends (the parents of childhood friends of mine, retired now) visited us just before leaving for a 2 year missionary trip to south Asia. They were very very excited about being able to bring god's message to the people there, who "didn't even have a concept of having only one god". I wanted to say that I didn't have a concept of only one god either (or many gods for that matter), but I didn't. I didn't say anything in agreement or in opposition. But I feel my silence was likely taken by them as tacit support for their "mission". In reality, I wanted to vomit. <BR/>I think it's great that Julia is outspoken, because some people may feel more comfortable exploring their own beliefs and world view if they know that there are respectable members of society who are atheists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-1163910204917970322006-11-18T22:23:00.000-06:002006-11-18T22:23:00.000-06:00To Michael,You wrote, "my point is NOT that the on...To Michael,<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "my point is NOT that the only possible solution to the riddle is that God created it. Rather, the point is that the complexity of the design POINTS TO a designer as a viable alternative and POINTS AWAY FROM the Darwinian construct."<BR/><BR/>There are billions of ways to make a living cell. If cells were "designed", why is the basic biochemistry in all cells modeled after a single "design"? A creative designer would have mixed things up a bit, but all cells on Earth use common biochemical processes that POINT directly to evolutionary ("Darwinian") processes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com