I have a big slab of my family's Christmas bread in one hand, and a huge mug of coffee in the other, and I am about to sit down and open presents.
Hope everyone out there is having as lovely a time. Thanks for reading all year.
« Department of mathematical illusion | Main | Be our guest! »
Peace on earth, goodwill to men
25 Dec 2007 10:24 am
Comments (15)
Merry Christmas Megan with bread in one hand!
I hope that joy is with you always, and that the coming year takes you to where you most want to be in every aspect of your life.
Your writing is a wonderful combination of economics, pop culture, politics and the personal. It's a great read, even when you are saying insane things about efficient markets.
Also, to the commentators, best wishes. Some of what I read here is an education to me, and I appreciate those who share their knowledge and viewpoints. It's valued.
RWE - Megan can doubt, as do I, in the veracity of some of the underlying ideas behind our organized religions. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the spirit of the holiday and, at least, the intentions of those who are more pious. Of course, it's a rare churchgoing individual that actually lives their lives according to the principles they claim to adhere to, but that's a dichotomy for another discussion. In the meanwhile, I too wish for a better world. Peace.
"RWE - Megan can doubt, as do I, in the veracity of some of the underlying ideas behind our organized religions. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the spirit of the holiday"-Michael W
Well, MW, I have no power to forbid nonbelievers to enjoy themselves on Christmas. Even if I had such power, I wouldn't exercise it. I'm glad if they are anjoying their family and friends.
I just think that, for atheists and agnostics, the chimes must ring a little hollow, and the festivities must lose some of their joy.
And I suspect that they themselves cannot really believe that there is no God, the more thoughtful of them at any rate. "God is not great!" they proclaim--one wonders whether they are trying to convince themselves rather than us.
Please note, though, that I am not speaking about non-Christians, but atheists and agnostics who have given up pondering theological questions. Please note also that there is no vituperation here. I myself would like to have a chat over some eggnog with Hitchens or Laplace or Democritus (if the latter two were still alive).
Anyway, enjoy your holidays, but think about the order you see around you and wonder to yourselves "What caused it? And why?"
"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."-Albert Einstein
rwe,
sounds like you asked for, and received, a little attention this Xmas.
congrats and good tidings
Rwe
It is Christmas and I can feel your love.
It's interesting when atheists celebrate Christmas.
Since when do you need believe in the supernatural, god, zeus, astrology, magic and witches to have a party? All I personally need is a bit of Jesus’ blood – something I do believe in, as it works.
What does the holy day mean to atheists?
Holidays… yeah!
I don't begrudge them it, mind you. I just wonder whether deep down, beneath all that resolute skepticism, there lies a desire to believe.
I do believe in many things. We are only part of the whole and cannot know it all as Socrates has stressed so many times. We know that we do not know. Being only a part – we can never comprehend the whole and have to believe quite many things. In fact everything we claim to know is some form of believe.
But since this is the case in this non-super-natural universe – why imagine yet another universe or something beyond this one. We will never be able to understand this universes fully and there are a lot of things that we have to believe in here and now without the supernatural. Why add to it on top?
Things I believe in are for example that my partner and dogs love me, that Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are among the best tennis players ever, that my friends are good-hearted people and I also believe in the theory of evolutions, etc..
I am so busy believing natural things that I just do not understand and feel why I should stretch myself into believing something utterly unfounded.
Or even a suspicion that their disintegrating rationalism is not rational after all.
I am sorry mate but what rationalism? There is only one rationalism on this planet – animal thought in animal brains. All animal brains work more or less the same. Brains store information about our environment and experiences so that we can learn how to please our senses and to avoid pain.
Both emotions and thoughts are inseparable - they always work together. Again – we are part of the whole and can by definition never understand everything. Rational tells us that we cannot be purely rational.
Are you somehow implying that religions do not use rational? Worse – are you implying that religion has a monopoly on irrational stuff? I see the emotional connection to Jackass but do not get your point rationally.
For, in the end, atheism is quite unsatisfying.
Surely you mean "some of life" and not atheism. My dogs are all atheists. So are my parents – they have ever read a single supernatural book or text in their lives. I would love to share a picture of them with you. Some say that pictures say more than a thousand words? I believe that they have lived rather satisfying lives and continue to do so. Nobody has ever told them that they might continue living after death and they are therefore quite contend that it will all end one day. It makes them value their experiences here and now a tad more. It makes them even more grateful that they have had it all: adventures, drama, comedy, pains and suffering as well as bliss and happiness, children and family, good food, music, books, ... what else do you want? I feel the same and am very grateful for the life I have had so far. The rest is icing sugar on top of the cake.
It undermines any basis for firm standards in ethics or anything else.
Thank you for the elaborate arguments here. You scare me. Anybody who believes that he would act unethically if he did not believe in the supernatural is rather dangerous? Check the scientific journals and you will find enough evidence that morals can be found in most animals – long before humans popped up.
You remember the infamous study Altruistic Behavior in Rhesus Monekeys by Jules H. Masserman, M.D., originally published in: The American Journal of Psychiatry.
The first sentence explains that: "work in our laboratory had demonstrated that most rhesus monkeys refrained form operating a device for securing food if this caused another monkey to suffer an electric shock." I implore everybody to read as the monkey behaved more ethical and moral than humans
In fact - most humans (of which most were religious) would have killed another human for some benefit given the presence of an authority figure. In fact – many humans use electric shock collars to train their dog because some dog "trainer" tells them so. In this case - I prefer the atheist monkeys' morality to the human believers.
The atheist's road leads only to doubt, despair and confusion, if followed long enough.
Hmm.. why? You reckon that Epicurus or Buddha were in doubt and confused any more than any other animal on the planet? Are you further saying that belief is a cure for doubt? How does that work?
I actually find it ridiculous that some theists use the argument of "you will be happier if you believe".. WTF. That comes close to "you go to hell if you taint the name of the god". Well - fuck god. People can be happy in relationships or as single - they can also be miserable. Only because anti-depressants make you less unhappy does not meant they are good in the long run etc.
Your senses, emotions and relationships make you happy as well as unhappy and you do not need the supernatural for it ever. Mother Theresa actually suffered a lot because of her doubt in her faith. But an atheist would never use that argument to prove that atheism makes more sense. Let alone to blackmail somebody into not-believing.
I doubt the blogger here agrees with me, but Jesus sure would have, along with nearly all of the great thinkers over the millenia.
Well – "religion" and "god" are just words. Depending on what you understand when hearing them – you get different minds agreeing on different things.
For example – Einstein was confronted by theologians to define his faith. He answered ala Epicurus: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Religion is just a commercial term for spirituality. It defines spirituality based on brands, stories and terminology – but the essence is, or better was, spirituality. Spirituality however exists outside the supernatural. God can be seen and defined as the whole universe itself. I can therefore perfectly relate to some of my religious friends who feel the same about words and meaning. With them I would be comfortable calling things divine and they would be comfortable to use "nature" or the "universe" rather than god with me. No problem and no disagreement – we mean absolutely the same but merely use different words.
The spooky part arises when some people take old books as literally as some Trekkies take the the teachings of Mr Spock. In fact – I prefer the trekkies as at least all about Star Trek is natural and feasible.
In other words – most atheists do not have a problem with religion as they are spiritual animals themselves. They have a problem with the silly and childish supernatural. It is fine to watch a cartoon about Santa but... I know that we love magical fantasy – but claiming that ethics and morals are somehow linked to fantasy and the supernatural is not super. It is dangerous because by definition we could never find the smallest common denominator among all humans.
The supernatural fantasies makes only sense when somebody is afraid to die but does not want to. When I was young I loved excursions into the forest. I loved it so much that I refused to leave when the adults wanted to head back to the city. Naturally they tricked me and told me that we were going to an even better forest. I would not call it a lie but...
Say if I were the Virgin Marry and really thought that the milk man was more attractive than my own husband. How do I explain to Joseph that I am pregnant although things have been rather slow in the bedroom for months? Every mothers sees the divine in her children – one thing led to another? Is Christianity also based on a lie – we will never know and should not care. We do not need the supernatural to love, to believe, to have faith, or to suffer. All we need for that is to be alive – that is the only precondition. And we are!
And since we are at it.. does anybody know why Jesus was born the 24th of December and not on the 1st of January? Modern time has started with Christ’s birth, right? He should have been born on the 01.01.0001? I will tell ya – it is quite a story. In jewish tradition, a man is not a man unless he is circumstanced. In jewish tradition a newborn is usually circumstanced after one week. You do the math – then you will know what the world is celebrating on New Year’s eve – namely that little baby Jesus has lost some penis skin. I can celebrate to that as long as I do not have to drink that kind of Jesus blood. Amen.
As an atheist, I can tell you I celebrate christmas because 1) i like presents as much as the next guy and 2) I don't want to alienate my family and cause endless drama and tension in my effort to be religion free. Basically its just way easier to go with the flow on this one. And as some people bemoan every christmas, its not exactly a deeply religious holiday anymore.
Forget all this spiritual debate mumbo jumbo, the REAL question about MM's integrity is this...
"I have a big slab of my family's Christmas bread in one hand, and a huge mug of coffee in the other, and I am about to sit down and open presents"
Oh really? That sounds a lot like you're using both your hands, yet you are typing this blog post? This seems highly improbable. Your continuing record of malicious glibertarian deception offends me to my deep, marshmallowy moral core.
Now that I have had my moment of foolishness, I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas as an unbeliever. For one thing, Christmas is partially a Christian version of a bunch of fun pagan holidays like Sol Invictus and Yule, otherwise there isn't much reasoning to having it in late December. And just as it was convenient for Christians to celebrate around the same time their pagan predecessors did, so too is Christmas a socially convenient time for atheists and agnostics to gather with the family and exchange gifts. Does Christmas have any meaning in the religious context if celebrated in such a manner? Nope. But there's more to Christmas and other celebrations than religion, for better or worse.
"For one thing, Christmas is partially a Christian version of a bunch of fun pagan holidays like Sol Invictus and Yule, otherwise there isn't much reasoning to having it in late December."
As I said, I was addressing atheists and agnostics, not all non-Christians. So pointing out that some elements of the Christian holiday had their roots in paganism isn't helpful. The history is interesting, mind you, just not relevant here.
It's also interesting what a furious response one gets from some people when one suggests to them that they use the Christmas holiday to think about God. Even atheists and agnostics should be pondering theological questions. They should be open to the possibility that they are wrong.
Nothing I wrote above could be construed as an attack on atheists and agnostics. I myself used to be one. To the extent I would criticize them for anything, it would be for a kind of unthinking complacency I see in many of them.
The fundamental question arises: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It seems to me that religious folks, whether Christian, Jewish, Deist, or whatever, have an answer to that question, while atheists can offer no answer at all.
So, when there is but one plausible answer to a question, it makes sense to think seriously about whether that answer is correct... Really all I did was suggest that non-beleivers use the holiday to think about these questions. Was that such a crime?
rwe: The fundamental question arises: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It seems to me that religious folks, whether Christian, Jewish, Deist, or whatever, have an answer to that question, while atheists can offer no answer at all.
As an agnostic, I don't feel like I have to answer that question at all. Because I have no verifiable evidence that would guide me to an answer, it would be dishonest for me to offer one.
In fact, unless there is some compelling evidence of which I am not yet aware, I would be very suspicious of anybody who offers an answer to that question.
rwe: So, when there is but one plausible answer to a question...
"Plausible?" I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I was always taught that the correct phrase was" Peace on Earth to men of goodwill." rather than just a generic "... and goodwill to men."
The two sentiments are really quite different. Does anybody know which one is actually the correct translation?
It is also possible, I think, to celebrate the fact of Christianity and its attendant positives without actually believing in God.
Some have argued that positing a rational God was a precondition to the scientific revolution, and most of us agree that the scientific revolution was a good thing. If one accepts this view, then one has a reason to celebrate Christianity: it played a vital role in the creation of the world which we enjoy today. In essence it (ultimately) removed the final impediment that kept the Greeks from finishing the job they started 1500 years earlier.
Whether that offsets the negatives that subsequent posters will no doubt enumerate is, I believe, a subject for another forum. I am simply observing that one can celebrate Christmas for good, nonarbitrary reasons, even if one also believes that God does not exist.
john w. wrote: The two sentiments are really quite different. Does anybody know which one is actually the correct translation?
Whoever told you that was evidently reading Luke 2:14 from a paraphrased version such as The Message or New Living Bible, both of which interject an unfortunate confusion on this point. Some of the direct-equivalence or dynamic-equivalence translations (e.g. ASV and NIV) fail to clear up this confusion by rendering the verse in a way that allows for either interpretation. The most-literal translations are generally in agreement that the expression of God's favor was to all mankind:
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (AV/King James)
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men." (JNDarby Trans.)
"Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men — good will." (Young's Literal)
"My dogs are all atheists."
My dog is a Tibetan Buddhist and he celebrates Christmas. He tells me that neither Buddha nor Jesus would worry about the splinter in Megan's eye.
rwe
The fundamental question arises: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It seems to me that religious folks, whether Christian, Jewish, Deist, or whatever, have an answer to that question, while atheists can offer no answer at all.
You are either mean, insane or stupid or all. How does religion answer that question? I repeat – how does religion answer that question? It does not – not in the least bit!
What is your crime? You come here and claim that atheists are in doubt and cannot be ethical and moral – all without any from of explanation. What if an innocent child would hear all that you have to say?
I personally do no believe that you have ever been an atheist or agnostic. I believe that you have been in doubt about your religion but that is not non-theism. Atheists believe just as strongly if not more that malaria is a virus as historically Christians have believed that it is punishment by God for our sins. By definition – an atheist is less in doubt. Either because there is no evidence or as Epicurus has put it forward: "it absolutely does not matter if there is a god"
Rich
Christianity: it played a vital role in the creation of the world which we enjoy today. In essence it (ultimately) removed the final impediment that kept the Greeks from finishing the job they started 1500 years earlier.
You must be joking? Epicurus' DeRerum Natura alone represents 95% of all Western knowledge that we have today. All we have done after Christianity is reproduce like bunnies so that billions over thousands of years could add 5% to the 95% that were given to us by a few thousand over a few hundred years.
Most "giants" whose shoulders we are standing on as Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Einstein and Carl Sagan have referred to were not Christians. The dwarfs who followed...
What final impediment, sweet Jesus?
Tom
My dogs are actually buddhist atheists as they truly enjoy the here and now. They do not believe in reincarnation tough.
| 
"I think it is vanishingly unlikely that there is a God..."-MM
It's interesting when atheists celebrate Christmas. What does the holy day mean to them?
I don't begrudge them it, mind you. I just wonder whether deep down, beneath all that resolute skepticism, there lies a desire to believe. Or even a suspicion that their disintegrating rationalism is not rational after all.
For, in the end, atheism is quite unsatisfying. It undermines any basis for firm standards in ethics or anything else. The atheist's road leads only to doubt, despair and confusion, if followed long enough. I doubt the blogger here agrees with me, but Jesus sure would have, along with nearly all of the great thinkers over the millenia.
Posted by rwe | December 25, 2007 11:58 AM