Phantom Limbs From Birth

I'm continuing my rereading of the book Phantoms in the Brain by Ramachandran. Today I'm reading chapter 3 "Chasing the phantom". I can't believe it has been so long since I read chapter 2, I had originally intended to read a chapter every other week.

The chapter starts out with Ramachandran talking to a woman (Mirabelle) who was born without arms who had phantom limbs. This is something that he had never seen before, and hadn't thought it was even possible. His idea, as we saw in the previous chapter, was that when we lose a limb there is some rewiring done in the brain to compensate and mistakes occurring during this process cause the phantom limbs. While this is surely going on, it can't be the whole story as it would not allow people to be born with phantom limbs.

In the previous chapter, we saw the Penfield homunculous which is a map of our body draped across the brain. There are a few of these maps in our brain working in concert, some developing in the womb and other developing later. If one of these maps is developed early enough, it would make sense that a person born without limbs would have phantom limbs, however, if other maps are developed later there might be some irregularities. In the case of this particular woman, her phantom arms gesticulate when she talks, and yet when she walks they hang at her sides, they don't swing. These 2 actions are controlled by different parts of the brain, which apparently develop at different times.

Something that is interesting here, is that Mirabelle was born with phantom limbs that she has some level of control over, and yet many people have phantom limbs that are paralyzed. In thinking about this, Ramachandran considered the way our brain processes moving our limbs. The motor command center of your brain sends out a message, say to lift your arm up, then information comes back through various channels. Direct messages from nerves and such, and also from your vision, and from your mental picture of your body. If these different signals conflict, the brain doesn't always reconcile them in the same way. If your body expects that your arm can move, that may be enough to override the other signals. This fits in with the fact that many people's phantom limbs become paralyzed as time goes on, and also that people who had their limb in a cast or otherwise incapacitated before it was amputated are much more likely to have paralyzed phantom limbs. To fix this problem, Ramachandran put a mirror in a box so that they could put their good arm in one side and their phantom limb in the other, and they would see the reflection as their phantom limb. In moving their good arm, they send a visual signal to their brain that the phantom limb is moving and they can regain movement.

Another experiment with the mirror box, they had the patient put on a glove and put their hand in the mirror box palm down. A grad student then put on an identical glove, hid under a curtain, and put their opposite hand in the mirror box palm up. To the patient, the grad student's hand looks like their hand. Now when the grad student touches their fingers to their palm, the patient sees their phantom fingers bending backwards touching the back of their hand in an impossible way. One patient said it felt like her finger was bending in an impossible way, but just that it was a curious sensation. Another patient said it was somewhat painful. The brain is certainly a complicated machine.

Here is a Ted talk by Ramachandran, the whole talk is great but the part about phantom limbs and the mirror box starts at about 9:30

He ends the chapter by suggesting that in actuality our entire bodies are phantoms in a sense that our brains build on the fly and he gives a few experiments that we can try at home (I am going to try this next time I have a few friends over). Sit in a chair and have friend 1 sit in another chair right in front of you (facing the same way as you) so that you can touch their nose. Close your eyes, then have friend 2 guide your finger to tap friend 1's nose in some kind of pattern (the more irregular the better), and at the same time friend 2 should tap your nose in an identical pattern. After 30 seconds or so, you should have the sensation that you are tapping your own nose, even though your hand is a few feet away from your face. You will either feel like your nose is separated from your face, or stretched out for several feet. Apparently this worked in about 50% of the people who tried it.

What causes phantom limb pain?

In 1999 I took a class in which we read "Phantoms in the Brain" by Ramachandran. I really enjoyed the book and thought a reread would be fun and also produce some interesting content for the blog. Today I am reading chapter 2 which is titled "Knowing Where to Scratch".

First let's talk about Phantom Limb phantom limbs. After people have a limb amputated, it is not uncommon that they feel like the missing limb is still there. Unfortunately, many times these people will have pain in their phantom limbs, and quite often their doctors are baffled as to how to deal with such pain. Treating pain with an understandable cause is hard enough, imagine trying to treat pain in a limb that isn't even there?

Some people use the existence of phantom limbs as evidence for a soul, fortunately there is an alternate explanation involving the physiology of the brain. It is possible to stimulate specific neurons in a patient's brain and ask them what they feel, if you touch the right spot, they will feel it in various parts of their body. If we draw the corresponding body parts over the brain we get the brain map below. Obviously certain parts of our body are more sensitive than others and therefore take up more real estate, if we draw a person with these distortions we get the homunculus, also pictured below (pictures taken from mm-theory.com)

After reading a paper by Tim Pons for inspiration, Ramachandran conducted a quick experiment with a guy (Tom) who lost his arm in a car accident and has felt a phantom limb ever since. He blindfolded Tom and then touched him on the cheek with a Q-tip and asked him what he felt. Tom replied that in addition to his cheek, he felt as if his phantom thumb was being touched. They eventually discovered a complete map of his phantom hand on his face. They also tested other parts of his body and they found a second map of his phantom hand on his arm where the hand was severed. Notice on the brain map where the hand is, in between the face and the arm.

One explanation of what is going on here is that there is much redundancy in the signals that are sent to the brain. When we scratch our cheek, our brain gets the signal that our hand is being scratched in addition to the correct signal about our cheek. But since our real hand is also sending a signal that nothing is going on, the errant signal is ignored. However, once the hand is gone the overactive signal is allowed to run wild. Once Ramachandran first published this idea he got a number of calls from amputees with stories of their own to tell. One man in particular who had his leg amputated said that he felt orgasms in his phantom foot, notice that the feet and genitals are next to each other on the brain map. This could even be the origin of the foot fetish!

In addition to the redundancy of the brain map, it seems that after an amputation the brain is able to create new pathways, Ramachandran suggests that perhaps there are times when a connection is made incorrectly. For example, perhaps a touch sensor is connected to a pain receptor, in this case a touch on the cheek could trigger pain in the phantom hand. It would even be possible that every time an amputee made a certain facial expression it would cause a phantom pain, diagnosing such a thing would be a nightmare.

Phantom limbs themselves being a result of redundant wiring but phantom pain being result of rewiring would explain why the phantom limbs often show up right away, and yet the phantom pain usually starts months later. Unfortunately, while this does explain things a bit, it doesn't necessarily help patients who have phantom limb pain. Although, if I recall correctly from the last time I read this (13 years ago), there were at least some cases in which he was able to help people with their phantom pain. I think we will get to it in the next chapter.

Is God Just a Human Invention - The End?

I've been doing these blog posts reading Is God Just a Human Invention shadowing along with another blog. Reading the book itself has been pretty damn painful, and there has been fairly little discussion, especially lately, on both blogs. That, along with the fact that I am moving soon and have been busy with other things, I am going to discontinue this series of posts.

If anyone has been enjoying these posts and would like me to continue, please speak up here (or through email) and I will start them back up in a few weeks once I get settled in my new place.

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 11 Does God Intend for Us to Keep Slaves?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog (as I'm writing this that blog seems to be down, I hope it is just a temporary outage). I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

---------------------

Intro


New Atheists such as Dawkins and Harris say that the God of the bible expects us to keep slaves? We explore this idea and naturally come to the conclusion that God does not, in fact, want us to keep slaves. We will take a step back and explore the context in which these ideas are discussed in the bible.

This sounds good to me. I often hear the complaint that I am taking things out of context. I have read a number of verses that certainly seem to condone slavery, I'm curious what possible context could have that as being okay. I'm skeptical here but I will definitely have an open mind.


The New Atheists are far more interested in building up ammunition against Christianity than really learning about it.

Of course they have to throw in an ad hominem attack against the atheists. I'm really tired of this bullshit. If you think our arguments are so poor, then why not attack them directly. When you attack the person all you do is show how poor your arguments really are. If Dawkins criticizes something from the bible (in this case slavery) and your main response is "Dawkins is being a dick", does that mean that you don't have a real answer? It certainly looks that way.

Christianity Did Not Invent Slavery


The author of the book says he remembers a history class where the teacher went off on the bible and christianity for having slavery in the bible. "The unspoken implication was that if there had been no bible there would have been no slavery."

That seems fairly ridiculous. Either the message was misunderstood (you did say it was unspoken) or the teacher was just wrong. I haven't come across this idea (that slavery came from the bible) and I hope it is incredibly rare.


Slavery was just assumed in the world the bible entered in to. There were no critics at the time, and the bible was actual countercultural at the time.

I don't particularly care for where this seems to be going, but I will not get ahead of things here.


We Must Put the Biblical Discussion in its Cultural Context


Slavery was very different in biblical times compared to how american slavery was. This is not to excuse it, but it must be noted that it was different.

I'm not really sure what the point is here. It might have not been exactly the same, but it was still one person owning another.


Israel in the old testament was not God's ideal society. "God began the process of restoration and redemption through the people of Israel." There were laws in the OT books that regulated slavery, the fact  that it was regulated at all is striking given the time and situation.

*sigh* This kind of argument would work if it was just people. If there was a lot of slavery in a country, and the society worked to be nicer to their slaves over time and eventually abandoned slavery altogether the people who started it off were visionaries. If it was an all powerful God, why not just end slavery outright, or tell your people how to get to a place where they don't have slaves.  


War and poverty were the biggest producers of slaves. War produces winners and losers, and the winners had to do something to protect themselves from future retaliation by those they conquered.

So they are justified in making them slaves? What is being said here?


Many people sold themselves into slavery for their families, in Job he acknowledged that slaves are also made in God's image.

That's nice I guess.


God can't just eradicate slavery since he is working with agents who have free will.

Okay, but couldn't he actually tell his people that slavery is no good? He gave all kinds of other commandments that not everyone keeps, why not mention that slavery is a bad thing?


Christianity Tolerated Slavery Until it Could be Abolished


Biblical writers planted the seeds of slavery going away. Paul said "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." Also, Paul said that Onesimus should be viewed "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."

So what, I can't take things out of context but you can? The first quote is only advocating getting rid of slavery if it is also advocating getting rid of gender. The second one is about a specific person, a person that Paul got to know and didn't want to be a slave anymore. It is a pretty big stretch to say that these are the bible trying to get rid of slavery. (BTW, if you think I'm wrong here please speak up)


Why Was Jesus Silent on the Issue of Slavery?


Sam Harris says that Jesus never objects to slavery, but he skipped physical slavery and jumped to the root of the problem with the following passage "The spirit of the lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed."

Are you kidding me? I thought your position was that taking things out of context was bad. 


Does Atheism Naturally Lead to Human Dignity and Equality?


Atheism only rose after the groundwork was done by Christianity. Some argue that without the bible slavery wouldn't have happened. "Perhaps. But by this line of reasoning, we would also have to say that if there were no physics-if E didn't equal MC^2-then there would have been no atomic bomb."

What. The. Fuck. Does anyone know what they are even saying here? "if there were no physics" is the same to these people as "if there were no bible"? I'm honestly trying my best (it's hard) to be as open minded as possible. Can the authors of this book say the same? They are so wrapped up in their worldview they can't even imagine it being wrong. The bible never being written is the same to them as physics not working? Really?


And to answer the question of the section title, no. Atheist does not lead to human dignity and equality. It isn't supposed to. Christianity is supposed to, and it doesn't. That is the point of saying that slavery is in the bible. Not that atheism would do it better, but to say that Christianity failed at stopping slavery. Which is something you would expect it would do if it was run by and all knowing all loving all powerful God.

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 10 Is Religion Dangerous?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

---------------------

Intro


The New Atheists claim that religion is dangerous and produces violence. The authors of the book ask whether the world would be without violence if religion was removed.

Obviously the question is no. We are violent with or without religion. I think the main point is that with religion the violence has a  righteous to it. If people think God is on their side it gives them one more reason not to back down. One more reason not to negotiate or consider the other side's position. 


Details Matter When Examining Religion


Lumping all religion together doesn't really work as there are a lot of differences and those differences matter. A statement such as "All religions are bad for society" is not very meaningful unless you have a specific religion in mind or if you have some aspect of those religions in mind.

I think I basically agree with this. I am aware that there are a lot of religions in the world and I don't know much about them. I do make the claim that religion is bad for society, and when I do I am mostly referring to Christianity and religions similar to it.


Anything with people in it can be manipulated and religion is no exception.

Agreed


Is there anything Jesus taught that necessarily leads to violence?

This is pretty close. But this one is right on the money.


Religion is Not the Problem - People Are


It's not religion that is the problem, but people. People are in power and no matter what they believe there will be violence. Atheism also leads to violence.

The difference is, Christianity is the cause of violence sometimes. Atheism isn't. There is nothing that would make me kill someone which stems from my atheism. Christianity simply can't make the same claim.


Is Atheism Really the Absence of Belief?


Before I read this section I will answer. NO!!! It is the absence of belief IN A GOD


Communism was an atheist ideology. Atheism was a central part of the doctrine and churches were systematically closed down and priests and religious believers were murdered.

Not believing in a God does not make you want to force churches to close down and murder believers. Being an asshole might make you want to kill people and being an atheist might direct that drive, but one doesn't lead to another. I do want churches to shut down, but I would never want it done by force, I want people to decide to stop going and them shut down naturally.


A Universal Problem


Atheists think that if we just educate people more that they will be good. Christians think that people are inherently bad and they need to have god renovate their heart.

Sounds like a pretty accurate summary to me.


Making the Case for Civility


Some people say we should be tolerant and accept anyone's belief. This way of thinking implies that all beliefs are equally valid or true. We don't like this.

I love it when we agree. I hate that crap.


The New Atheists say bad things about Christians. What if someone took what they wrote and ran with it and killed a bunch of Christians?

That would be really bad. I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that. Almost anything you write that is controversial could be taken by some nutjob as a reason to go kill people. At least the Atheists don't say that there is a reward for it. In fact, I have heard many prominent atheists say that violence against religious people is wrong explicitly. 


We want freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Agreed. People should be able to exercise any religion they want. But it shouldn't come up in any official capacity in government as that inherently limits people of other religions (or no religion)


Disagreement is Here to Stay


We are going to disagree, we should do so without starting with the assumption that everyone's view is equally valid or by demonizing those who disagree with us.

Could not agree more.



------------------

Note: I am out of town for about a week. There will not be a disruption is posts as I have front-loaded enough content to fill the void while I am gone, however, I will most likely not be responding to any comments until I get back. If any comments do come from me this week please excuse typos as it means I am posting from my phone.

The Problem of Pain - Final Thoughts

Last week I finished "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. Overall, I found the book fairly disappointing, especially since so many people recommend CS Lewis to me, I was expecting more. His arguments were covered with logical fallacies. One thing I will say is that he seemed very genuine to me. I don't think he was ever being evasive or anything like I see many apologists do, but his logic was poor. I wasn't expecting to be convinced, but I was hoping for some arguments where I could say "I can see why someone would believe that" or maybe "that makes sense although I disagree with a premise". I saw none of that and am honestly a bit confused as to why so many people keep recommending his books to me. Maybe it is like the bible where people have heard it is good but haven't actually read it themselves.

I decided to take a quick look at what I have written about each chapter and do a very short summary here.

Chapter 1: He starts off saying he used to be an atheist and discussing what his reasons were. He gives a terrible reason why men could not have invented the idea of God and then moves on to the origin of religion. He talks about how morality and the numinous (spirits and such) are related and then explains that Jesus is what makes Christianity special.

Chapter 2: He begins discussing definitions and points out that we often mean different things with the same words. He says that omnipotence should mean anything that is logically possible. He says that sometimes we can't tell what is possible with our limited intelligence, this is a copout. He said that since we are self-aware God must exist, and since there is something other than ourselves God must exist. Both of these are terrible arguments. Then he talks about how 'evil' is in the eye of the beholder, an interesting idea although I would argue it breaks at extremes.

Chapter 3: Lewis claims God's moral judgement is more refined than ours. The goodness of God is love which includes tough love. It is an interesting idea, but again I think it breaks in extremes

Chapter 4: Starts with the idea that people are inherently evil, a doctrine of Christianity that I find disgusting. He talks about how Christianity first preaches the diagnosis and then preaches the cure, have to agree with that. Then he says that in modern times we can trick ourselves into thinking we are moral when we aren't. Then he says that we aren't totally depraved, not sure how he squares this with how the chapter started.

Chapter 5: The fall of man was inevitable due to our evil nature. Also, we are evil because of the fall. Gotta love that circular logic. The apple in genesis was a symbol but really it was disobedience. He cations about the definition of savage and brutal, good idea. There is discussion of early man and the fall, he seems to be trying to square evolution with adam and eve, it's interesting. The chapter ends by pointing out that God saw all of this coming and our current condition isn't punishment.

Chapter 6: Careful of your definition of pain. He claims that any creature should submit to its creator, which I think is nonsense. Pain is how God gets our attention because it is hard to be good when comfortable. He then claims that since fear and pity are worthwhile so is pain. Just seems like a pile of nonsense to me.

Chapter 7: There is an apparent paradox that suffering is good but God instructs us to reduce suffering. Tribulation will never end. It's not all bad, we have isolated happiness. It is a mistake to say 2 minor pains are as bad as a major pain.

Chapter 8: Hell is a detestable doctrine, I totally agree. He tries to defend the idea of hell in a few ways and basically just falls flat.

Chapter 9: If pain is a result of the fall of man then why do animals feel pain? An interesting question is raised, no real answer is given.

Chapter 10: A bit of talk about heaven, no real point as far as I could tell. He asserts that it is real and one of the things about hell is that you realize that you just missed going to heaven. Honestly felt like a lot of rambling to me.

Thanks for reading. Although it was frustrating at times I enjoyed the ride, I hope you did too.

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 9 Is God Just a Human Invention?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

---------------------

Intro


A lot of people believe in God around the world. In this chapter we will explore why many skeptics think that God is just a human invention and explore if the best explanation is actually that God really exists.

Sounds interesting, I'm ready.


Also, there is the question of burden of proof, God exists and God doesn't exist are both expressions of fact, both should require proof, non-belief is not the default position, agnosticism is the default position.

The difference is that most atheists (in my experience) don't express the same level of knowledge that theists do. Theists know that they are right. Atheists think that there is no God, largely because of lack of evidence. But the obvious challenge here is to ask the theist what they think of Zeus or Xenu or any other God, are they agnostic on those guys? Or are they sure or at least pretty sure that they don't exist? I think we would agree that the default position on Zeus is that he doesn't exist unless there is proof that he is hanging around somewhere.


The Projection Theory


This idea is from Freud and basically says that we project the existence of God to satisfy a human need for a father figure. We think this idea falls flat for a number of reasons.

1. It begs the question against God. The argument starts with the assumption that god does not exist and concludes that we must be projecting.

Interesting. I suppose I agree with this idea, although I don't think this is supposed to be a proof against God, but more of an explanation for where God could have come from if he doesn't exist. It seems like an answer to the question "If God doesn't exist where did he come from?" In this situation you have to assume that God doesn't exist in step one, that is the space you are working in. (Note: I'm unfamiliar with this argument so I might be way off here, but that is the sense I get from what is being said here. If anyone is more familiar with this stuff please speak up)


We have evidence for God's existence and the New Atheists don't interact with the "most sophisticated defenders of Christianity".

I don't know who these people are, but I see plenty of debates and back and forth between the new atheists and several prominent people on the apologetics side. Furthermore, the evidence that has been presented is of pretty poor quality. In this book I have seen mostly just logical fallacies wrapped up in arguments. Also, I'm assuming one of the defenders of Christianity is William Lane Craig, I have seen a few debates with him and I have looked at some of his arguments, they are terrible.


2. An assumption of the argument is that if a belief brings you comfort it must be false, this is terrible and incorrect.

I agree, the idea that if a belief brings you comfort it must be false is garbage. If the argument uses that as a basis that is poor justification. I don't have the original argument so I can't speak to whether that is really what is being said or if that is the authors interpretation. 


3. This idea is based on Freud's supposed psychoanalysis, but he never really did any on it.

I'll go along with them here, my understanding is that Freud's methods were actually pretty poor. I'm largely in the dark here, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.


4. It cuts both ways, if we can project a need for God onto the existence of God, atheists can project a need for freedom onto a lack of God. It's not surprising when you consider what a terrible childhood Bertrand Russell had.

Good point, it could go both ways, I'm not sure why they felt the need to throw in the ad hominem attack though.


5. Perhaps the idea that God was invented to meet our desire is backwards, perhaps we only have desires for a God because it can be fulfilled by God. As C.S. Lewis said "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists."

Seriously? I'm not even really sure how to respond to this. I'm sure there are plenty of things that people desire that are impossible. I'm sure there are people out there who desire to be vampires, does that mean vampires exist and they could possibly give you the dark gift if you could just convince them? There are probably millions of kids (and adults) who desire to go to Hogwarts, does that exist?


The arguments in this book are fucking terrible.


The "God Gene" and Neuroscience


We can look at genetics and try to find a God gene. We can also look at ways to physically manipulate the brain with drugs or electrodes to simulate a religious experience. None of these things disprove a God. The conclusions of these experiments are almost always overstated.

I'm pretty uninformed on this topic, but what is written in this section honestly seems fairly credible to me. The overall premise was that people claiming that neuroscience proves God doesn't exists are overstating their case, and I would agree to that. I would add that if someone were to instead say that we have a possible alternative explanation to God's existence, that would be something that sounds a lot more reasonable to me. Again, I'm mostly uninformed on this, but for now I'm willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt.


Memes


Dawkins calls religion a virus of the mind, and he postulates that memes are idea replicators. He talks about ideas as replicators, this isn't something that is scientifically proven.

Meh, beat up on the idea of a meme, good for you.


A By-Product of Natural Selection


Many experiments show that the brain comes hard wired with some sort of software preinstalled. This is thought to be a product of natural selection. "This research is fascinating and illuminating, but not very controversial until it is applied to religion.

Shocking, we can agree with something that is evident until it gets in the way of religion and then people suddenly have a problem with it.

-----------------------------

That's all for this week, look like next week we are starting part 2 of the book "Responding to Moral and Biblical Challenges". Beginning with chapter 10 "Is Religion Dangerous?"

The Problem of Pain: Chapter 10 - Heaven

For anyone new here, I am doing a series of "book club" posts going through "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. The format I post in is similar to my bible posts, section headings in bold, summary in regular text, my comments in italics. The only difference here is there are no section headings in the book so I make them up.

----------------------

Not Just Pie in the Sky


Heaven is the other side of the coin to the problem of pain, so a book on pain really needs to include something about heaven. Some say that Christians don't bring up heaven to avoid the jeer of pie in the sky hopes. But there is either pie in the sky or there isn't, and if there isn't Christianity is wrong. Some claim that heaven is a bribe, but heaven offers nothing a mercenary soul would want. It is safe to tell the pure at heart they get to see God, because only the pure of heart want to.

Maybe the standard view of heaven has changed a lot since this was written, but heaven is described as a lot more than simply seeing God.


Desire for Heaven is a Hidden Thread


Sometimes Lewis says he has thought that Christians don't really seek heaven, but then realized that the desire is subtly behind everything they do. It is like an indefinable quality that attracts us to our hobbies. It is like the hidden thread in the binding of books that most people are unaware of.

I am not really sure I follow his train of thought here.


Why Are Our Souls Different From One Another?


It is a mystery to us why our souls have differences, however, it is not a mystery to God. Imagine a person who had never seen a lock, how well would the understand keys? Each person's soul fits perfectly in their spot in heaven.

Interesting analogy I guess, but then what happens to that spot in heaven if you go to hell? I'm guessing that is where he is going next.


If You Go to Hell you Just Missed Heaven


You never know what heaven or hell will be like until you get there, no one has ever been able to express what it is like. If you go to hell, you will realize that you had the chance to go to heaven but you missed it.

Ideas like this are just strange to me. How can you say that something has never been expressed? If that is the case how do you know about it? The whole idea is odd.


Unions Only Exist Between Distincts


Again, why are our souls different from one another? Each person could love God in a different way, focusing on a different aspect. Also, unions can only exist between distinct entities so the idea that God is everything doesn't really work.

In Heaven We Must Give Everything Away


In heaven, we must give away everything. If you get something you must give it to someone else. Our souls are simply empty vessels that God fills.

This chapter is just a bunch of ramblings. It is just the ravings of C.S. Lewis, I don't know how much of this he has gotten from other people, what is from scripture, and what he just made up, but it seems that he just had crazy ideas and ran with them. 


------------------------

Well, that was the last chapter. If you have been reading along with me I hope you found it as interesting as I did. Next week I am planning on doing one final summary post about this book. I'm going to go through all of my posts on the subject and give my final thoughts. See you next week.

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 8 Has Science Shown There Is No Soul?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

---------------------

Intro


This chapter starts with an anecdote about a student who was laughed at in a college English class on the first day of the term for believing in a soul. I hope this is either exaggerated or fabricated. If not, the teaching in the story is a horrible teacher and an asshole.


To the new atheists, the evidence for a soul is so miniscule as to be laughable. Just as God is a delusion created by humankind, the mind is an illusion created by the brain.

I don't know if I would use the word 'laughable', but I agree with the sentiment. As have never seen any evidence for a soul. I'm curious what will be thrown at us here.


Admitting the Obvious


"The thought that the mind is an illusion of the brain runs contrary to the way we naturally think about ourselves."

Is this seriously the way we are going to start out? This is completely irrelevant. A lot of things that are true are counter intuitive. Does it seem intuitive that being near a gravity well changes how fast time goes by? Sure seems strange to me, but it is true.


The author once heard an outspoken atheist say that he didn't believe in a soul, but his language implied the existence of a soul.

again, irrelevant. Sometimes language is imprecise and we have to do what we can with what we have. 


Virtually all cultures throughout history have believed in life after death.

IRRELEVANT


Can the Soul Survive Death?


Some people have near death experiences, so the soul must exist.

Or they reconstruct things later. I don't know all that much about NDE's, but from what I have read the claims of them seem to be overblown. Also, there are doctors that hide notes on the top of bookshelves and people never see those, only what they expect to be there.


Are Your Choices Really Free?


It has been argued that if the mind is simply a product of the brain then we don't have free will. We agree, but it is so obvious that we have free will there must be a soul.

What the hell kind of arguing is this? It seems like we have free will, so we do, so a soul exists? This is complete garbage. BTW, if you want to read something about free will, this book is supposed to be good. I haven't read it yet but it is on my reading list. I wish I was reading it right now.


"if a stranger stops to open the door for us, we might describe his thought process by saying, "The nice man made up his mind to stay a moment longer and hold the door open for us." We would not say, "the circuitry in his brain caused him to turn around and hold the door open."

Again, talking about the language we use, this is MEANINGLESS. When I talk about opening an email on my computer do I describe what the CPU and hard drive are doing? Do I explain how my video card is displaying it all for me? No, I say "I clicked the icon". All that other crap is happening in the background. By his logic I could argue that those components are not there. (I'm trying not to be so negative, but reading this is infuriating, we really need to teach basic logic in school so no one falls for this kind of argumentation. Even if you agree with the author's position on this you should be pissed at how terribly he is presenting his arguments)


Are You the Same Person as Before?


If you were to take apart a table one piece at a time slowly over time and replace it with new parts, and you eventually wound up with every part replaced, it is the same table you started with? If someone else took your original parts and made a new table, who has the original, you or the other person? This raises an interesting question as the atoms in our body get replaced over time. So are you still the same you from yesterday or from years ago? "Something nonphysical must account for the sameness of identity over time."

This is actually a really interesting question. Back to the table analogy, if you replace 1 leg of the table is it the same table? We would probably generally say yes, but once every part has been replaced we probably generally say no, but at what point is it not the same table? This is a difficult question to answer. 


When it comes to people it is still a very interesting question, if a skin cell replaces an old one are you a different person, I imagine pretty much everyone would agree that you are the same person. If every time a cell replaces another one it learns to act like the old one, that might explain the consistency over time. I would also point out that we subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) change over time. Perhaps this change of components is part of that process. Honestly, that last bit seems like a stretch to me but it could be I guess.


Neuroscientists to the Rescue


If you saw a news report that said we could hook someone up to a machine and read their thoughts would you believe it? No, you wouldn't, because such a thing is impossible because even though brain states can be scanned, thoughts are uniquely available to a person.

He states this as if it is fact. As if it is known, it is not. It is something to be proven. It is possible that he is right, but he could also be wrong. Perhaps one day we will be able to read people's thoughts with machines. How can he just claim such a thing is impossible with no proof? 


Mental and Physical States


There are several things that are true of mental states that are not true of physical states, one example is that mental states cannot be described in physical terms. For example, it makes no sense to ask how much a thought weighs.

I would say that a thought is an arrangement of brain matter. I would agree that I don't know if it makes any sense to ask how much a thought weighs, but I would similarly ask how much a computer program weighs. Does that mean that my internet browser has an immaterial component to it? 


An Insuperable Dilemma


It is hard to see how consciousness could be the result of purely material things. Even Dawkins admits that the origin of consciousness may be a gap as improbable as the origin of life.

This doesn't mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't mean that there must have been a mind doing it.

The Problem of Pain: Chapter 9 - Animal Pain

For anyone new here, I am doing a series of "book club" posts going through "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. The format I post in is similar to my bible posts, section headings in bold, summary in regular text, my comments in italics. The only difference here is there are no section headings in the book so I make them up.

----------------------

Animal Suffering is Different than Human Suffering

Animal suffering is different from human pain because they are incapable of sin and virtue, so they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it. Therefore it might seem that animal pain is pointless. But because of the doctrine that God is good, we can confidently deduce that the appearance of reckless divine cruelty in the animal kingdom is an illusion. We have no experience with animal suffering, so everything we say is speculative.

I hope he justifies this as we go on in the chapter. It is not good to start by assuming what you want to be true.


Plants are Different than Animals


There are times when we talk of plant life as though the flower enjoys the sun, or that different plants compete with one another for resources. We must remember that these are mere metaphors. What really matters when we are talking about our current topic is sentience.

Always a good idea to remember that our metaphors will eventually break down and we shouldn't be slaves to them.


What Do Animals Suffer?


It is impossible to know for sure, but we can guess. The first thing we should do is distinguish between different kinds of animals. Apes for example, are much more developed than earthworms. We need not lump apes in the same category as the earthworms being "non-human animal" where they are actually quite like us. It is reasonable to assume apes have consciousness but there is no reason to think they have sentience or a soul.

I don't really understand the different between consciousness and sentience, and I don't believe we have a soul.


What is the Origin of Animal Suffering?


Animal suffering could be a result of the fall of man, except that animals existed long before man did, so that doesn't make sense. However, it is largely accepted that there was activity on earth before we got here and perhaps there was another fall before us. Perhaps Satan was there before humans got there and there was a different fall.

This seems pretty out of nowhere to me.


How Can Animal Suffering be Reconciled With the Justice of God?


The lower animals don't feel pain in the way we do. They are merely sentient but not conscious.

I still don't really understand this distinction and find it to be fairly silly.


But the question still remains for some of the higher level animals who seem to feel pain in similar ways as us.

He never really seemed to answer this, although I might have missed it. He talked a lot about how animals are probably not immortal, although when we have pets they might become immortal along with us, or something. He seemed to end the chapter by saying we can never be sure that animals are even in pain in the same way we are. This to me is just a huge cop-out. 


Again, he didn't satisfactorily answer the central question of the chapter.


--------------------------


Next week: chapter 10 heaven. 

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 7 Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

Intro


The laws of the universe are delicately balanced to support the emergence and sustenance of intelligent life. This raises the question for atheists: "Why is the universe habitable?"

Fair enough, this is an interesting question.


A Fine-Tuned Universe


There are many thing that had to be just right for us to have a habitable universe.

1. If the balance between gravity and expansion rate were altered by on part in one million billion billion billion billion billion billion there would be no galaxies, starts, planets or life. To put another way, if there was one more grain of salt the universe would not have expanded and one less and it would have expanded too quickly.

I am completely out of my element here, but I'm guessing the one in blah blah blah is a bit overstated. But who knows, maybe it is correct. Maybe it is impossible for there to be more because at this amount of matter it expands. Maybe it was collecting from a black hole and slowing increasing, so there was less matter there before and it didn't expand, as expected. I admittedly don't really know what I'm talking about here, but the point is, it is possible that what is being claimed is true and yet it just makes sense that we would at some point get to just the right amount of matter, but no more.


2. The four forces are perfectly balanced, the gravitational force must be delicately balanced to one part in 10 to the 40th power. If it was tipped either way we couldn't have the right kind of stars that we have for life to emerge.

This is interesting, but I'm not really sure how relevant it is. Perhaps it is true that it is that delicately balanced, but is it possible for other relations to these natural laws to even exist? Maybe our collection of laws is stable and others will naturally settle on ours. And maybe if there were other natural laws, the world could still support life, it would just be different from what we are. 


3. The earth has extremely rare conditions that allow life to exist here.

This we definitely can explain. There are stars and planets all over the place, some might be in uninhabitable places, maybe a rare one like earth exists somewhere. Whatever life emerges will necessarily be in one of those places. The existence of billions of potential places where life doesn't exist makes this rare occurrence reasonable.


Put another way, suppose any given planet has about a 1 in a billion chance of having life. If there are billions of planets it is not a surprise that at least one has life. And where will the life who examines this fact be? It will be on the planet where the life was able to occur.

Objections to an Intelligent Designer


Some argue that since we could not exist in a universe that was not fine-tuned, we should not be surprised to find that the universe is fine-tuned.

That is basically what I was trying to say in point 3 above.


Dawkins says that there is no current explanation for why the universe is fine-tuned, but that doesn't point to God. The problem with this is that it just asks for further explanation. How can you just object to any explanation by asking for further explanation. Is this how science works.

No, the problem is that God doesn't explain anything in the first place.


------------------------


That's enough for this week. I am pretty out of my element here, but it looks like the rest of this chapter is looking at criticisms for fine tuning and poorly shooting them down. I know enough to see that it is clumsy but not enough to properly refute it.

Next week's chapter is "Has Science Shown There Is No Soul?". That sounds a bit more interesting to me.

The Problem of Pain: Chapter 8 - Hell

For anyone new here, I am doing a series of "book club" posts going through "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. The format I post in is similar to my bible posts, section headings in bold, summary in regular text, my comments in italics. The only difference here is there are no section headings in the book so I make them up.

----------------------


Hell, a Detestable Doctrine

God gave us free will and to be saved we must surrender willingly to God. Some people will refuse to do this and hell becomes necessary. This is unfortunate but necessary. Hell is one of the big targets that opponents of Christianity use against it, hell is attacked as barbarous, a detestable doctrine. Lewis himself detests it. We are told the tragedies which have come from believing in it, we are told less of the tragedies that come from not believing in it.

I agree, it is detestable. I'm guessing the tragedy from not believing in it is people going to hell? Let's see where he goes with this.


The problem is not simply that god is consigning some creatures to hell, it is more complicated than that. God has so much mercy that he becomes human and dies from torture to help people avert hell, yet he can't or won't just remove hell all together. The doctrine is not tolerable, but I will try to prove it is moral.

I don't really see why it is so complicated, but let's see what he has to say. Also, I doubt he can possibly convince me that it is moral to torture someone for eternity. But still, let's see


Now Lewis will address common objections to the doctrine of hell.

Retributive Punishment is Bad


Basically, if there is a chance to correct the behavior, punishment is ok, but if the only reason to punish is because you want retribution that is a bad thing. In hell there is no correction so it is all retribution.

Sounds like a good argument against hell to me.


Lewis then describes a guy who is incredibly evil, who likes being evil, and who isn't regretful at all. Then he basically says that since this person is so evil isn't hell an ok place for him to be. At least he will know he is evil.

Garbage. He says that simple retributive justice is a bad then, then he creates a situation in which he thinks it is ok.


A man cannot be forgiven if he is not accepting of the fact that he did something wrong.

Assume this is correct, still, why does hell have to be forever? Why doesn't God just convince him that what he has done is wrong and then forgive him?


Eternal Damnation for Transitory Sin


Some complain that there is infinite punishment for finite crime. We visualize time as a line, and with this visualization this complaint seems valid. But we should visualize it as a plane or a solid.

I read this a few times, I honestly have no clue what he is talking about.


Hell Might Not be as Bad as You Think


We often think of Dante's picture of hell, but this is artistic and not from the Bible. What is in the Bible is not as bad.

Granted, but what is in the Bible is still pretty bad.


How Can You Enjoy Heaven Knowing There is a Hell?


We cannot say for sure that heaven and hell happen at the same time. They might not be parallel so it is not the same as how the US and England go along together. "That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt; but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration - or duration at all - we cannot say.

What does that even mean? It's nonsense! Either hell is eternal or it isn't. If you want to claim hell is not eternal (it doesn't really seem he does) then we can have that conversation, but in that case, we are not talking about the same hell everyone else seems to be talking about.


The Loss of a Soul Defeats Omnipotence


This is something that is accepted as a possibility when free will is given.

I'm not sure I follow the argument or the refutation that well. It doesn't seem that interesting to me honestly.


----------------------

I imagine it is clear I was a bit frustrated with CS Lewis in this chapter. Too many of the arguments were complete garbage. I don't think he had fully formed ideas when he wrote it.

Next week Chapter 9 - Animal Pain

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 6 How Did Life Begin?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

Intro


So this chapter starts with a quote from Richard Dawkins and follows it with a quote from the movie Dumb and Dumber in an effort to discredit Dawkins. Are they even taking this shit seriously?

The Mystery of the Origin of Life


We actually don't know that much about how life began. It is a large mystery.

No argument here.


"Skeptics often like to claim that as science progresses the gaps of scientific knowledge diminish. But this is incorrect. The more we learn about the universe, the wider the "gaps" often become."

What a strange thing to say. I would say that the gaps always become smaller, it's just that when we become aware of them they seem to get bigger. You might not notice how large the grand canyon is until you start trying to fill it in. It didn't get bigger after you started dumping gravel in there, you just became aware of its size.


The cell is much more complicated than Darwin thought, therefore "it points strongly toward the existence of an immaterial mind."

A very strange conclusion to draw. Wow, this is hard and complicated, therefore God. This is basically the argument right?


Technology and Information in the Cell


The section talks about how complicated a cell is, how it has many specialized 'machines' and it does information processing. About how DNA contains a lot of information. It then points out that explaining this is difficult and asks "How could a mindless material process spawn a system of such dizzying intricacy and sophistication?"

Is this entire chapter going to be an argument from ignorance?


Could Life Have Begun by Chance?


Here, they talk about how much stuff has to go just right for a cell to work. Then the bring out a number which is the odds of this happening by chance which just seems like if that is the odds (10 to the 16414th power) it is impossible.

The problem is, whenever people come up with these number they never say what assumptions they are making. 


The probability of life originating by chance is comparable to a tornado going through a junkyard and making a Boeing 747.

No it isn't. There is not natural selection at work there. The 2 situations are incomparable.


What About Self-organization?


Maybe the materials that made life have an inherent capacity to organize into life. This idea was put forth by Dean Kenyon in his book Biochemical Predestination, he has since fallen out of favor with the idea.

RNA-First Model


Some think that RNA might have come first. However, these ideas don't explain how the vast amount of information was produced.

This isn't my area of expertise at all, but how about the first replicators didn't really carry much information except how to replicate. Then by chance some that carry a little bit of information are better at replicating and the snowball effect gets started.


Simulating the Origin of Life


One of the ways that researchers try to account for the origin of life is in computer programs. There is a program that Dawkins tried that would randomly change a sentence and try to get to a line from Hamlet. This only worked because it was being guided by Dawkins.

I don't know all of the details about the experiment, but I'm guessing it was to test a single idea which it seems to have done. I'm sure it wasn't supposed to simulate how life actually formed in every way.


Ignorance or Design?


A common objection to ID is that it is just an argument from ignorance, but "the case for design is not simply inferred from the present ignorance of naturalistic scenarios."

Holy crap, they are actually going to address my main concern. Let's see what they got.


ID is based on our uniform experience that information always arises from an intelligent mind, no an unguided material process. Several examples are given including "computer scientists write computer programs".

What about when you have a computer program writing another program? Some AI programming involves starting with very simply instructions and letting the computer program itself. I think that qualifies as random processes.


Origin of life research is at a complete standstill.

I can't believe this is actually true.


Well, I think this section has been a pretty good representation of this book. It points out that the opposition has a complaint about arguments from ignorance. Says it will address it, then doesn't at all. That is because it can't. This entire thing IS an argument from ignorance.

The Problem of Pain: Chapter 7 - Human Pain continued

For anyone new here, I am doing a series of "book club" posts going through "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. The format I post in is similar to my bible posts, section headings in bold, summary in regular text, my comments in italics. The only difference here is there are no section headings in the book so I make them up.

----------------------

Apparently, this chapter will have 6 propositions which are necessary to "complete our account of human suffering" and don't follow from one another. Obviously if they don't follow from one another the order is arbitrary

1. Paradox: suffering is good but you should reduce suffering

There is an apparent paradox in Christianity, it says that suffering is good and the poor are blessed, and yet Christians are supposed to reduce suffering and give to the poor. At first it seems like these two ideas are at odds, but if we look at it a little more in depth we can see that things are a little bit more complicated and the two ideas can coexist. For one thing, it is not the suffering itself that is good, but it is the act of submission to God in the face of suffering that is good.

This idea I have a little bit of trouble with. I guess it really depends on what "submission to God" means. I think some people use it as an excuse to not really do anything and wait for God to take care of things. This is clearly a terrible idea. I also hear people who say that God helped them do something that they "couldn't have done on their own". This is obviously just my opinion, but I think they just sell themselves short and they did do it on their own. In those cases though, what really matters is they were able to get through whatever they were going through ok.

There are a couple of things we can identify, the first is simple good performed by good people who are following God's commands. The second is simple evil performed by people who are rebelling against God. The third is the fact that God can exploit the simple evil for his own "redemptive purposes". And the final thing is the complex good that comes from this action by God, the redemption of the evil actions. So the person just doing simple good is obviously a good thing. The person doing evil can be used by God for a more complex good. Therefore, doing good to end suffering is something that we want to do because it helps God do the more complex good.

As long as people have a reason why they can be motivated to help people who are suffering I guess I am ok with it. Seems like simple empathy should do the job though.


2. Tribulation will ~never end


Tribulation is necessary for redemption, so we should never expect that it will end unless God decides that the world is completely redeemed or too far gone. So any time someone claims that if we make some change in social policy that it would fix all of our problems, we should view it with skepticism as it can't fix all problems without God's approval.

I agree with his conclusion but not his reasoning. Any time someone says that their policy would fix all of our problems (whether it be raising or lowering taxes, letting the free market control everything, letting the govt control everything, or whatever else) we should view it with skepticism. But not because God won't let it fix everything, but because the world is complex and most of the time when you fix a problem you create another. The goal should be to try to improve one thing while having as few unintended side effects as possible. Also, under his worldview, couldn't the "magic bullet" policy potentially be what God wants that would make everything better? It seems to me like the possibility that God would approve of some action and fix all of our problems would be the only situation in which any action could potentially have that effect.


3. You can't apply Christian principles to politics


Specifically referring to the doctrine of obedience and surrender, they don't apply to politics.

Well this seems like a cop out. 


4. We can have isolated happiness


We cannot have the complete settled and secure happiness that we crave, this is because it would be a barrier to God because it would allow us to rest in our hearts. But there are plenty of places that we can have isolated fun and happiness. We should not mistake these inns of happiness for permanent homes.

It's funny, this reminded me of the new simpsons episode for this week. I agree with the general idea of what he is saying here, we are never completely safe from unhappiness and we should strive to be happy in the moment while also being aware of the fact that it won't last forever. But this is just because that is the way of the world. Nothing lasts forever. The idea that it is this way because God doesn't want us to get to comfortable and it will keep us away from him is silly to me. Also, if that is true, then how does heaven work? Are we eternally happy there or not? If so why isn't there a barrier to God there? It really doesn't make sense to me.


5. Don't sum human suffering


It is a mistake to consider the sum of all human suffering. If I have a toothache that causes pain x, and another person has the same, is there 2x worth of suffering? No, because no one is suffering that much. Adding up all of the cumulative human suffering is nonsense.

It appears he is countering an argument, so it is hard to comment very much without knowing exactly what he is talking about, but I really don't like what he is saying here. If 2 people are suffering it is worse than 1 person suffering. A million people suffering is worse than 1 is it not? Perhaps all that matters is the maximum amount that a single person is suffering. But I think that the number of people suffering that much also matters. Again though, it is hard to argue effectively when I don't know the context


6. Pain is sterilized evil


Pain and sin have some things in common, after they are over, they both may recur, so we need to go and remove the cause. But with pain that is all, once it is done it is done. With sin, we also need to repent.

That's fine I guess, I don't have much to say here except this bit just seems silly to me.


-----------------

Well that is all, next week chapter 8 - Hell

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 5 How Did the Universe Begin?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

Intro


Basically a very quick introduction to big bang ideas with a little history of it. It mentions Albert Einstein's cosmological constant and a few other interesting facts. It mentions that we now pretty much all agree that the universe has a beginning, which naturally leads to wonder what caused the beginning of the universe. It also mentions Anthony Flew, who used to be "the world's leading academic atheist" until 2003 when he announced he was a theist. It briefly talks about why he changed his mind, I hope they go into that more as it sounds very interesting, if they don't touch on it might I will have to put it on my list of things to look up later.

Kalam Cosmological Argument


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What has actually been said I don't have much of a problem with, of course what was in this section doesn't talk about how we connect this to God at all. That is where the garbage starts to come in as far as I usually see. 


Alternate Explanations?


"Given the powerful theistic implications of the big bang model, the New Atheists have been eager to find an alternative explanation"

I have never seen an atheist try to claim the big bang didn't happen. This is just deceptive garbage.


In the 60s and 70s some cosmologists postulated that the universe infinitely expands and contracts. This theory is plagued with problems.

Yup, that is how science works, you come up with an idea and then test it out as best you can. This idea seems to been false.


Stephen Hawking popularized a theory that "rounded off" time at the beginning of the big bang by using imaginary numbers. "The problem is that imaginary numbers don't translate to the real world."

I don't even know what that quote is supposed to mean, but imaginary numbers show up in the real world all the time. Honestly, after reading that sentence, I want to just stop reading this book, it is pure garbage. It is so fucking dishonest! They also put "imaginary numbers" in quotes, implying they are bullshit. Just for the record, here is something I found with a quick google search about how imaginary numbers are used in real life.


Who Made God?


The atheists ask what caused God, but the point is that God is eternal. The argument only applies to things that begin to exist and God didn't begin to exist because he is eternal. Besides, if God was caused by something, then that thing must be caused by something and we have the same infinite regress problem. Since infinities are impossible this doesn't make sense.

Saying God can be eternal and the universe (or multiverse) can't be is special pleading. Infinite regress is not a problem if you are not afraid of infinities. You can have an infinite chain of causes provided you have an infinite amount of time in the past.


Kalam and the Judeo-Christian God


Sam Harris said that even if we accepted that the universe had to be created by an intelligent being, this would not suggest the God of the bible. We agree, but Kalam reveals that the universe was made and that someone made it

Wrong, it shows that there was a beginning of the universe, it does not show anything about an intelligent creator.


------------------------

I'm pretty disgusted with this book right now. It has constantly misrepresented the arguments of the prominent atheists. It is possible that they are just mistaken about things, but I think they are purposefully misrepresenting their opponents for their own ends. They also said some pretty ridiculous things about math in this chapter that really irks me to read (for those new here, I am a mathematician).

The next chapter is "How Did Life Begin?". I'm sure it will be a hatchet job on abiogenesis. I'm not sure if I will do it, it partly will depend on if there is any interesting discussion over on apologetics 315 which is why I started this. Also, if anyone is reading along and wants me to continue please speak up. That could sway me.

The Problem of Pain: Chapter 6 - Human Pain

For anyone new here, I am doing a series of "book club" posts going through "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. The format I post in is similar to my bible posts, section headings in bold, summary in regular text, my comments in italics. The only difference here is there are no section headings in the book so I make them up.

----------------------

As was argued in previous chapters, any place where souls meet there will be the possibility that they will hurt one another, this perhaps accounts for four-fifths of suffering. The obvious question is why does God allow the worst of men to torture others.

A very good question, the central question of the book in fact.


Definitions


There are 2 different ways in which we can use the word pain, one is restricted to physical types of pain, while the other also includes mental pain such as anguish. From now on, we will consider the more broad definition which includes both mental and physical pain.

Anyone who has been following my blog for long knows I am always happen to be clear and explicit with definitions.


Submit to Your Creator


It is a proper good for any creature to submit to its creator.

I think the problem here is that Lewis is thinking about God but he is trying to argue in a more general fashion and it doesn't work. Is he really trying to say that any creature who has a creator should submit to it's creator. What if the creator is evil. What if a demon created a bunch of people for the purpose of hunting them? Is it good for them to submit? What if someone created a bunch of sentient beings for the purpose of making them slaves? Is it good for them to submit?


By submitting to the creator, we often cause pain to ourselves because it goes against our own desires. This is why it is a good idea to break a child's will when they are young so the transformation will be easier. In a sense we die daily when we do this.

This seems a bit crazy to me. It also makes me wonder what heaven will be like. If simply following God's will in place of our own causes us pain, is heaven supposed to be pain free? Am I still me in heaven?


Pain is God's Megaphone


We won't surrender ourselves as long as we are comfortable. Error and sin are masked evil, but pain is unmasked. God can whisper to us in pleasure and conscience but he shouts at us in pain. 

I suppose there is some logic to that.


Retribution is Not Necessarily Evil


When people do us wrong, it is natural that we want the same or a similar fate to befall them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, retribution can be a good thing. This is true for us and when God seeks vengeance upon us. Our pain from such vengeance is God's way of showing us we should change.

Before the argument was that pain is just a necessity, which seems to make enough sense. But now he is trying to say pain is a tool that God uses on us, which seems pretty bad to me.


It Is Hard to be Good When Comfortable


When we are comfortable it is easy to view God as a parachute, nice to have but we hope we never need him. On the other hand, when people are down and out, it is easy to ask why God is punishing them, but it is easier for them to accept God so it is actually a blessing.

Sounds like a rationalization from a rich person to me.


Work for Self or God?


When our desires line up with God's do we serve him or ourselves when we do those things? If we are not putting effort into it does it count?

I would think that having your desires lining up with God's would be a good thing, he seems to question it.


Fear and Pity


Even if pain had no good effects for us, it is necessary for fear and pity. So if fear and pity are worthwhile, pain would be necessary. And it is, for example because of pity we love people we otherwise might not. Furthermore, fear is used to remind us that everything we have here on earth is not simply playthings for us to use. Once the fear is removed, it is natural to go back to thinking of things as toys.

This seems to me to just be a reflection of Lewis' issues. He seems to be writing as if everyone is going to identify with what he is saying, but for myself, I identify with very little of it.


--------------------

Lewis rambled on for a while there. I tried to capture the interesting bits of it, but I may have missed some things. If anyone reading along found something interesting that I completely skipped over please speak up :)

Next week: Chapter 7 - Human pain continued

Is God Just a Human Invention - Chapter 4 Is Darwinian Evolution the Only Game in Town?

As mentioned previously, I am following a book club type format for this book over on another blog. I was going to just participate over there but I have a lot more to say than I want to shove into their comments, so I figured I'd do a normal long form post over here and then just talk about 1 or 2 main points over there. I'm sticking to my normal format of bold for section heading, regular text for summary, and italics for my commentary.

Intro


People like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris claim that evolution is fact and the matter is settled. That all scientists except the "woefully uninformed" accept it as fact. However, this is not true. There are over 800 scientists who have signed a list at the discovery institute who say they are skeptical of evolution.

My first thought on this was that 800 seems like a pretty small number. But let's move past it, I am curious to see the list, and ideally a reason why they dissent. I went to the discovery institute site and was referred here to find the list. I was primarily interested in why these people are so skeptical of evolution, most just say what they study although there is one page with a few descriptions and one with an audio file, which I'm going to go listen to now... I don't want to go into the details here, but I'm not impressed with it.


Understanding Evolution


Evolution can mean different things, some think of it as "change over time", others say it is "organisms' adaptation to changing environments". We can see many subspecies of certain animals and we can see them change in small scale, this is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is bigger change and this is what is controversial. Darwinian evolution claims that all animals can trace their lineage back to a common ancestor.

The difference between micro and macro evolution is not well defined. Any evidence can just be classified as micro and say we have never seen macro, this is moving the goalposts. It is hard to see big changes because it works on timescales much larger than our lifetimes.


Understanding Intelligent Design


Even evolutionists think that the world looks designed, they just think this appearance is illusory while ID proponents claim it looks designed because it is. A great example is the bacterial flagellum, it is basically a little motor where if you remove any part of it the function of the entire system is destroyed. Many darwinists try to propose various explanations as to how it evolved, but none of this wild speculation is proof.

The problem is this, the author here is trying to say that it is impossible for the flagellum to have evolved without a designer. The 'darwinists' are providing possible explanations, which is the first step to figuring out how it happened. According to what is written here, ID is simply trying to use an argument from ignorance. "We don't know how it happened so it couldn't have happened without God"


"The theory of intelligent design does not challenge the definition of evolution as change over time, or even common ancestry. But it does challenge the Darwinian claim that all life's complexity and diversity can emerge through a blind, undirected process."

This bit confuses me as to why there is a controversy at all. If I am reading this right, we are basically agreeing to everything except that at the end I would say it happened by random chance but you would say God did it. If we agree on everything else then we should focus on that. Are they saying that macro-evolution could happen but God had his hands in it? If so then why say it doesn't happen?


Let me illustrate with a slightly silly example. Suppose that I think gravity is just that 2 masses are attracted to each other by bending space-time, and you think that angels pull things toward each other. We agree on the equations involved, we think that things are attracted to each other with the same forces involved, everything is exactly the same except you think there are angels and I don't. Would you try to forbid me from teaching about gravity in school?


Doubting Darwin


Scientists are beginning to realize that mutation and natural selection play a role, but they are skeptical that this can account for the diversity and complexity of life on earth. We will look at a few of the common evidences for evolution.

I want to just say here that they should be skeptical, evolution is an incredible thing and should be looked at with a critical eye. 


HIV and Bacterial Resistance


Bacteria in general and HIV in particular great for looking at mutations and adaptations. HIV has undergone countless mutations worldwide and "is uniquely positioned to help determine whether natural selection is viable". However, "HIV has not gone through the radical changes we should expect if natural selection is the creative force the New Atheists claim."

I'm curious what changes are supposedly expected. As stated in the section, HIV has adapted to be drug resistant, which is where the selection pressure is so that seems to me to be what we would expect, and that would happen. I am curious what test HIV has supposedly failed here.


Homology


This is the idea that different organisms have similar structures, for example if you look at the skeleton of different animals it will be similar to yours, even though sizes and shapes might differ, the same underlying structure is there. The problem is that this makes sense from the point of view of evolution and from ID, so you can't use it to prove evolution over ID.

Fair enough, this plays right into my point from above though, we should celebrate the fact that we agree on this. I guess I'm still confused about what ID is really saying, it sounds to me like it is saying "evolution plus God did it", in that case it doesn't seem like we should be at odds. I really hope someone can help me out with this.


Biogeography


Darwin found variation with different birds on the Galapagos islands and thinks that they evolved from a common bird which originally migrated there. We agree with this idea, we just don't think it extends to the idea that all life has a common ancestor. Further, many geneticists believe that such birds change by losing genetic information over time, which clearly does not extend to the bigger picture.

Well this last idea must be easily testable. Apart from that, we just have more of the same micro vs macro argument


Poor Design


The New Atheists like to claim that there is poor design in nature and that is evidence for unguided evolution rather than a designer. However, just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean that it isn't designed. Just think about an ipod, earlier versions are not perfect as later versions show, but they are still functional and that is what matters.

This seems to be watering down what ID is claiming. The designer now doesn't even have to be very good, it's creations just have to be functional. But functional yet poorly constructed creatures seem to make more sense to me from the unguided perspective, if you disagree so be it, but I think that is the point they are making.


Psuedogenes


Psuedogenes are thought to be genes that once had a function and have since stopped working. This is said to be evidence of evolution. They could have formed after creation and they could be creatures losing abilities. This again, is micro evolution not macro.

Same micro/macro problem


Why Our Origin Matters


Why is this such a big deal? Why can't we just believe in God and evolution?

This is what I want to know!


Mostly, we fine the theory unpersuasive along with the 800 scientists who disagree.

Fair enough, but I would again like to point out that 800 is an incredibly small number. Not that this says much, but the book seems to be trying to say this is a point of strength where I instead read it as weakness.


Also important, is the fact that evolution tries to eliminate the need for God. Dawkins says that Darwinism leaves no room for a higher intelligence or purpose.  He has argued that Darwinism undermines theism in general and Christianity in particular.

I think this is the real reason for the opposition. They don't want it to be true and so they refuse to believe it. I don't see why they can't just fight the idea that evolution undermines theism instead of fighting evolution itself.


Endowed By a Creator


In the final section a quote by Thomas Jefferson from 1823 is used to show that it is "obvious" that there is a designer. Is this really the best "evidence" they have?

The Problem of Pain: Chapter 5 - The Fall of Man

For anyone new here, I am doing a series of "book club" posts going through "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. The format I post in is similar to my bible posts, section headings in bold, summary in regular text, my comments in italics. The only difference here is there are no section headings in the book so I make them up.

The Fall of Man Was Inevitable?


Lewis starts by saying the fall of man explains the previous chapter, but then he says that God could have magically fixed the first sin of Adam, but then he would have had to fix an infinite string of sins. Eventually if God stopped doing this we would still wind up where we are today. So he says that we are evil because of the fall, but then says that the fall was inevitable presumably because we are evil. Which is it?

Disobedience or Knowledge


The story of Genesis has the apple as a magic object in which you gain knowledge when you eat it. In the developed doctrine the magical properties have been somewhat dropped away and the focus is on disobedience. This chapter will focus on the disobedience angle.

I didn't realize that the knowledge aspect of the story has been downplayed in the church, I guess I'll take his word on that.


Careful of Definitions


It is said that we have grown out of brutality and savagery, but those words are poorly defined. Like many words we use them in multiple ways and it can get confusing if you confound the various definitions. If you mean these words to generally describe a type of primitiveness, then it seems like a fine use, but sometimes they are used to claim some sort of a wicked quality, in which case there is not really any evidence for that.

I completely agree with this sentiment. In fact, I would argue that a lot of the arguments that I see on religious topics are mostly people talking past each other because they are using different definitions for the same words. It's a shame because often times both sides agree on a lot of points (not all points obviously) but just don't realize it.


Recurring Original Sin


People have argued that the first person could not have sinned because he wouldn't have time to evolve a sense of community enough that he could do something that we call sin. However, a sin is a crime against God so a single person can do it.

Is this what he was saying? I was a bit confused if I'm being honest.


Every person who is self-aware has to choose whether his life will center around his own interest or around God. We all have to make this choice every day and whenever we focus on ourselves we are sinning against God. So we all commit original sin all over again every day. Even from an evolutionary perspective, original sin makes sense.

To anyone who says there is no cost to Christianity, how about this? According to this, you basically need to spend all day every day making sure you are focusing completely on God or you are sinning. Am I miss stating this? I am finding this chapter fairly confusing. Maybe he is just saying this is a sin, and not original sin.


Early Man


God spent centuries perfecting the animal form that became man. At some point this animal that would become man could even use tools, yet he was not yet man until God descended down from heaven and endowed him with a soul. Early man had powers, like the yogi who can control their own metabolism. Early man had this power in abundance and others. He could sleep or not when he wanted, he could control even the decay of his body and live as long as he wanted.

I guess the idea that evolution happened and then at some point there was a human that was a modern human and God imbued him with a soul is an interesting idea. It certainly seems to reconcile evolution and the bible provided you don't need to take the bible literally. The only problem is it seems to be just made up out of thin air. And the next part about early man having all kinds of crazy powers demonstrates just how dangerous this kind of thinking is. If you can just make up stuff and have no reality check on it where can it go?


We don't know how many such creatures God created, but we do know that at some point they committed the original sin. They desired to care for their own future in their own interest instead of in God's. They wanted to carve out some part of the universe for themselves apart from God, but no such place exists. The fruit may have been metaphorical, but it doesn't really matter, the point is there was a fall.

Again, interesting take of the story of the fall, but where does it come from?


After the Fall


When the paradisal man committed original sin, he started living for himself rather than for God and was therefore in revolt against God. Because of this, he lost the ability to regulate his own body as that was really God regulating it through him. God stopped letting the body be regulated through the spirit, and instead let it be regulated by the laws of nature. By doing these things, this created a new version of man that had "sinned itself into existence."

Something occurred to me as I was reading this. He makes it out to be this huge sin, but really all "paradisal man" has done according to Lewis is to act on his own impulses, the ones that were given to him by God. Why is this so bad?


God Saw This All Coming


It might be concluded that these events caught God by surprise, but that is ridiculous. "God saw the crucifixion in the act of creating the first nebula." Also, this does not mean that if we had not sinned then God would not have had some great thing for us. When we talk of contingencies, we don't really know what we are talking about. Perhaps if there is some sentient species somewhere else in the universe they may not have fallen.

At least he admits that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but it sounds to me like he is trying to have it both ways. Did God know we would fall ahead of time or not?


Our Condition is Not Punishment


We are not being punished for the sins of ancestors. But we are being treated like vermin because we are vermin. It is like a child who is raised poorly and then is put into a good family. The child will act up, and the new parents will be disappointed in the child as they should. It does not mean they hate him, but they demand that he stop acting up.

I feel like a broken record here, but again, this is my big problem with Christianity. The view that we are vermin is a terrible thing to inflict on people.


--------------------------

Well, that was an interesting chapter, a decent story if it were intended as fiction, but puzzling to be presented as fact. It seems to be completely pulled out of his ass. I guess it was his way of reconciling evolution with the creation story, but it doesn't seem to be supported by evolution or the bible or any church doctrine I have ever heard of. So what is the deal?

Next week: Chapter 6 - Human Pain