Posts by rawe

35

Why I am upset with myself for my atheistic beliefs

by confusedandalone in

yesterday me and the wife were talking about how much better life has become.

she said something that got me thinking and made me a bit sad for a while.

we were discussing where we are at individually in our quest for understanding about the "super-natural" and i expressed i have no belief in it at all and how much i have changed she says, "i don't think you have changed much.

rawe

Hi confusedandalone,

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so hopefully this isn't a repeat. In many ways, how we engaged the faith as Witnesses reflected who we are. Not all of course, not by a long shot, since so much of it is forced. Like you I'm an atheist, but I did learn to enjoy aspects of Bible reading. The history, the philosophy, view points of the authors from the awful to the wonderful. I enjoyed getting into this and analyzing. I also enjoyed the fellowship at the Kingdom Hall.

So... after leaving the faith in 2007, I actually continued our "family study", which by that point was reading two pages of the Bible about 3 times a week. The only adjustment I made was adding an additional book I knew my children would enjoy. Right now we're on the third book of the Harry Potter series. And recently, I have started to attend services at the Unitarian Universalist Church, since they accept atheists.

But... my wife really did not like any of this aspects of the religion. She doesn't feel the same needs as me and would just as happy to never read another page of the Bible or have anything to do with religion. However, she loves Christmas, the decorating, etc, which to me isn't as important.

Nonetheless, there is a big difference between how we act now compared to how we did in the faith. Now, we are open to explore how we truly feel about things and act accordingly. As I sometimes quip, as an atheist, I do whatever I want, it just so happens, I "want" to do things, that most folks agree are pretty good, like love my wife and children, be a good worker and citizen, etc.

Cheers,

-Randy

89

Boeing 747s and Other Misunderstandings about Evolution

by cofty in

perhaps the most common misunderstanding that prevents people from grasping evolution is complexity.. we see it almost daily on the forum where people mention dna or the eye or any of a multititude of examples and ask how it could have arose "by blind chance"?.

whenever you see a reference to chance and complexity it is obvious the person hasn't yet grasped the basics of the theory.

chance is only one part of the process.

rawe

Hi Cofty,

"Extremely complex biological things are built by cumulative selection of very small changes. Think of it as a ratchet."

It is the tug-a-war between environments where complexity can build up pitted against elements that dilute and breakdown complex things that is facinating. The universe over all has no respect for life. Thus, in our case, the wholesale extinction of dinosaurs seems to have set the stage for the rise of the mammals.

The idea of small change having big effect seems to be hard to grasp. The selective pressures of evolution also work on brains. Thus a brain that is better at selecting a more viable mate, will tend to be the one that survives more often. In concert with this the brain that is a bit better at advertising their viability wins more often in this too. See the Bowerbird as an example. As for humans, this quote from the movie Dead Poets Society captures the idea...

John Keating: Language was developed for one endeavor, and that is - Mr. Anderson? Come on, are you a man or an amoeba?

[ pause ]

John Keating: Mr. Perry?

Neil: To communicate.

John Keating: No! To woo women!

Cheers,

-Randy

89

Boeing 747s and Other Misunderstandings about Evolution

by cofty in

perhaps the most common misunderstanding that prevents people from grasping evolution is complexity.. we see it almost daily on the forum where people mention dna or the eye or any of a multititude of examples and ask how it could have arose "by blind chance"?.

whenever you see a reference to chance and complexity it is obvious the person hasn't yet grasped the basics of the theory.

chance is only one part of the process.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"do you see the TARGET phrase as selected, like, in the sense pre-determined by (gasp), design or"

The process of evolution has no specific target of course. It can not plan or see into the future. Thus the designer of this simulation would have to be careful to avoid that in the model. Selection breaks down into who gets to survive and reproduce and who dies. We are all the end product of a long line of survivors. Human skin color is one of the examples of selection that really helped me appreciate how this process works. If an environment favors darker skin color, a male hunter who is light skinned may be disadvantaged compared to his darker skin peers. This disadvantage could easily translate into less food for his family and over-all less rates of reproduction and/or higher rates of death. All that is really going on is gene selection in relation to melanin.

Ironically the cycles of life, reproduction and death has resulted in life as we know it. This is ironic, because JWs believe the ideal state for humans is living forever -- which of course, if it ever happened, would halt evolution of the human species.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"Did the universe follow instructions when it made itself, supply its own energy to climb out of the smaller than plank- size energy singularity?"

When one reads articles on cosmology you'll run across the idea of symmetry. To say it another way, that the laws of physics apply consistently across time and space. Although some have suggested things like the speed of light may have changed over time or some other laws of physics has varried, as far as I know symmetry has proved correct so far as we can observe. Indeed, it is extremely important to the idea as to why we can know anything at all. If the Universe were whimsical we would have to give up a pursuit of knowledge. This is one of my main philosophical objections to the idea of an interactive God that acts according to his purpose in violation of the laws of nature -- it negates our ability to gain knowledge.

But... is the Universe merely a computer program computing towards some end? At the level of Quantum Physics it appears exactly not that. There is a fundemental randomness intrinsic to matter at this level. Yet, even though all we can do at the QP level is speak in terms of probabilities, something interesting seems to happen as we scale upwards towards are larger macro world. Things get so predictable we can say things like E = mC^2, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, etc. The lack of complete predictability in QP bothered Einstein to the point that he called the theory incomplete and through a number of thought experiments attempted to show the application of QP reached absurd conclusions.

Yet, all Einstein accomplished in this is further establishing the formulas of QP were correct, no matter how odd some of the conclusions might be. Now we know directly some of those things such such as Quantum Entanglement are real because experiments have proved this is the case.

As to the phrase "supply its own energy" I'll need to call on other posters more knowledgable than me, but that strikes me as incorrect. As far as I know conservation of energy would dictate all the energy/matter in the Universe today was there at the beginning. In fact, the problem currently being pursued with gusto is attempts to detect all the various forms of energy and matter in existence, that would explain current rates of expansion.

Cheers,

-Randy

97

First post

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

this is a very strange thing for me to do.

i have been an active witness for over 25 years.

i currently serve as an elder and i conduct the watchtower study.

rawe

Hi Thedog1,

I recall a conversation I had with one brother[1] about attending his first JW wedding. He was afraid that he would be fearful to get up and dance because at wordly weddings he needed a drink or two to loosen up. But he was surprised how much he enjoyed a dry wedding. Because many of the normal holidays are not part of the faith, it seems weddings in particular are good social time for Witnesses. It is not just that many JWs are good, moral, honest and sincere folks, in some cases, such as my own, Witnesses really did many kind things for me. Growing up on welfare with DF'd parents (my father nonetheless directed me to the Witness faith) meant I had to rely on Witnesses for many basic things, like rides to the meetings. I also often was given meeting clothes, one time even taken to Sears and bought a new suit, top to bottom -- even new shoes, so I would not feel out of place at the covention that week-end. I was even taken in for several months by a Witness family when I had no other place to live.

Perhaps others have had a different experience upon leaving, but for me, it meant an instant shrinking of a circle of friends to almost no one. The first trip we made back to Canada brought this point home. We had to leave our van out in long term parking at the Phoenix airport, because our normal close JW friends that would pick us up, of course wouldn't be there. And... I'll even add, gaining friends on the outside hasn't been that easy. But we've got a few now and each one is a treasure. We of course, now have a easy and more authentic relationship with immediate neighbors, since we've stopped looking for opportunities to 'witness', but instead really listen to what interests them.

Unfortunately, one can reach a moral impasse. Ultimately, to be a faithful and loyal member, entails upholding doctrine and policy as set out by the Governing Body. It also means accepting and odd mix of doctrine, some of which one might completely agree with, such as "no hell fire", "no trinity", to others aspects such as "no beards" one senses is not really Biblical. Or even central ideas like we're living in the last days, Jehovah is blessing his people, yet, one of the "six signs", a reduction in the number of partakers, is silently discarded, when it conflicts with "new light."

Take care,

-Randy

[1] To use a JW terms, because they are familiar.

288

Is it just me or has this site become a Believer/Atheist warzone?

by BU2B in

jw
friends

i enjoy the odd thread about evoloution vs creation, etc but lately it seems that a large percentage of threads here devolve into fighting between atheists and theists and distract from what most of us here see eye to eye on, the wt and related things.

i wish things could be more civil here and fr people to realize that people will never see eye to eye on the topic.

it gets so tiring to see the contstant bickring and fighting on those threads.. they seem to go on page after page but very little of substance is discussed seeing as the existence or non existence of a god can be proven by anyone.

rawe

Hi BU2B,

I enjoy these sort of threads, both as a reader and responder. That likely relates to this being a main concern while I was in the faith and one of the major reasons why I left. For one reason or another, some of the more negative things about the faith that others experienced I did not. I was even greatful that in the 80s I refused a blood transfusion at the time blood in Canada was not being tested for HIV.

In terms of how a doubting Witness might feel, that's a tough one. On the one hand, I think most of us appreciate just how helpful it has been to meet with folks who blazed the trail ahead of us and faced the same problems, etc. Even though we may have made good friends outside the faith, it does seem an Ex-JW is in a particular good position to relate to us in ways others cannot.

But... the point in leaving is about embracing the freedom to explore who we really are, what we believe and the reasons for such. Because of that, inevitably differences of opinion will come up. That was there at the Kingdom Hall as well, but since the appearance of unity was held to be so important, we tended to bury any differences, especially if they touched on doubts about direction or doctrine received from the leadership. Out here, no such constraint is in place. An atheist, can speak freely about their beliefs. A Christian can share the true meaning of following Christ and how JWs miss the boat on that one.

Good reminder tho! It seems to me, there is always an opportunity to discuss views without getting too much into attack mode.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi Prologos,

"Many authors and theoriticians, in one way or another realize that to explain the start of the material universe there has to be a pre-condition, energy, potential, time even, that became focussed in this particularly glorious way."

I once saw a Youtube video wherein a number of physics students are asked if they believe there was something before the Big Bang event. My recall is the vast majority raised their hands. And both Carl Sagan and Roger Penrose theorize about the universe going through cycles. In this way we can escape being trapped in the time-space continium of the current universe. I think Penrose may be on to something and I don't feel the slightest bit qualified to cast doubt on his views. Same with Sagan. However, I do think we need to be careful with all this, otherwise we'll wind up discarding the insights of Einstein. As you probably know, it was Albert Einstein who connected time with matter. The idea that a clock outside the universe beats independent of gravity and matter is just not a real thing.

In practical ways we know Einstein must have been right, since GPS satellites, have their clocks set purposefully slowed down while they are built here on Earth, so when they are flying at high speed in orbit, their time will be "right."

When one of Einstein's friends died, he wrote a letter to his widow, in it he called "time" a "persistent illusion." From the best I can tell, he meant that since time is merely an attribute of space and matter, it seems incorrect that we should measure our lives as lengths of time. He may have also been hinting at a universal unfairness that such an un-reality as 'time' should be empowered to take our friends away. Of course, I'm sure he didn't really mean that time doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist independet of the universe.

So.. here we are... to talk about origin of something we have to start with imagining the subject matter does not exist then in a step-by-step process wherein it comes into existence. None of us have observed a planet in our solar system forming. But we observe they all orbit in the same direction and on the same plane, so we conclude clouds of dust in orbit must have been pulled together to form planets. Likewise with life. We close our eyes and imagine planet earth as completely sterile, not a spec of life to be found. From there we imagine pre-life chemistry that could have existed and forms of energy that could have created a pathway towards the first self-replicating system.

But... in terms of the universe, we close our eyes and imagine it does not exist. Now what? We can't say, "before" or "pre", because that relates to time and if time exists, then so does the universe so we haven't gone back far enough. We can't say, "matter-of-this-or-that-sort" because if such matter exists, so does the universe. It is a fundemental black box we just can't seem to pry open.

But, some insist hidden in the black box is God. If such were just a simple philosophical item to be discussed I see little harm in that. But, some of those who insist this is true, go on to suggest this God has feelings and he can be please or displeased with us, therefore we should remove the foreskin of penis and donate 10% of our income to the Church.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi Everyone,

In the universe of "origin of..." questions the universe itself is unique. A couple words that appear in prologos posts above is 'pre' and 'thing' (or 'stuff'). We say the universe came from 'nothing' not to be flipped, but to express this issue. All that relates to time (before, pre, now, later, etc) and material (stuff, thing, etc) is a result of the universe existing.

As to the origin of the universe it appears we can only be certain of two things, that it did happen and it was about 13.7 billion years ago. As to the origin of life, it of course must have happened, since life exists, but in this case we can talk about reasonable pre-conditions that naturally resulted in the first living thing.

The problem with God is the speculation is unconstrained. The observed expansion of the universe implies that it had a beginning. Computer models of how the universe expanded factor in known things like the four fundemental forces. In fact all of science works that way. But God can do anything, be anything, interact without normal means of detection and on and on.

That is a different kind of speculation than, say for incidence, the speculations of Roger Penrose in Cycles of Time, where he gets around the 'before' problem by looking forward in time to a vastly expanded universe that grows so big that it loses a grasp of time and space and thus sets up the next pop, or cycle, that looks for the world like a big bang event. Key to this speculation is massive black holes that echo across this boundary. This, if I have understood Penrose well enough (and I sure may not have), is key to what makes is speculation potentially observable.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi KateWild,

"That is exactly why many of us still believe in God. Because each time we question, why or how? The answers just become increasingly complex."

As an atheist, I believe God exists, but only within the mind of the believer. On the other hand, to believe God exists, is undetectable by normal means of measurement, and yet proactively interacts with our world to work out his purpose... actually means, nothing can be known, even in principal. In other words, we may think the sky is blue, but it could just be God fooling us, if such satisifies his purpose.

God is also, as a concept, the opposite of what we've discovered so far. That is physical processes, in particular biological evolution, have built up complexity over time. There is no indication of super-complexity (i.e. God) being at the start point.

Cheers,

-Randy

111

" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos in

watching the fertilization of an ovum and subsequent cell division it appears that the new being is making itself.

parents were involved, unskilled labor, time, energy.

no thing has ever been observed to make itself, to my knowledge.

rawe

Hi KateWild,

"I actually think God evolved gradually over billions of years before he was evolved enough to create the universe and everything in it. Kate xx"

Origin of the universe is complicated by the fact that time itself is a product of this event. Thus from inside the universe it makes no sense to talk about anything "before."

Cheers,

-Randy