I had this saved on my computer and just read it again:
This one will make you think.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "we reap what we sow."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God, and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Saturday, 28 November 2015
Sunday, 22 November 2015
Does atheism require faith?
Today's thought comes from a recent conversation regarding atheism.
Many times I have heard it said that atheist is the absence of belief: that all religions require a belief in something (God, Allah, Enlightenment, etc), but atheism is the absence of such beliefs.
But my thinking is that atheism is, in actual fact, a belief system: it is the belief that there is no God.
Putting forward this proposal spawned a flurry of comments from my friend, trying to convince me that atheism is certainly not a belief system and cannot be likened to other religions.
Two things come from this:
Firstly, that belief in the non-existence of God tends to carry with it a belief in the non-existence of anything supernatural. The follow-on is that the only things "rational" people believe in are the things confirmed by science. And this pathway leads to the belief system that science, despite not yet having all the answers (it is forever a work-in-progress), will ultimately be able to explain all of the intricacies of the universe. This is also in spite of the fact that science (currently?) only works with the physical nature of the universe, not the supernatural aspect that is a major part of most religions.
So, it seems as though atheists have a faith in science. Despite knowing that science does not have all the answers (as yet), I have currently not found an athiest willing to engage in such philosophical debates who does not refer back to science to back up their own beliefs.
Secondly, the recent conversation with my friend turned rather quickly to concern that a person could possibly entertain the thought of a supernatural force operating in the universe. A striking resemblance to people such as Richard Dawkins who believe that people holding a faith in God are deluded. The problem with this line of thought is that it is highly intolerant of religious people. The claim that a person "of no religion" is the most able to be objective becomes a farce: their own belief system becomes a driving force of religious intolerance.
To sum up, it seems to me that atheism not only requires a belief in the non-existence of God, but also in the infallibility of scientific theory and testing (despite the ever-changing nature of science, which currently does not hold all the answers). Atheism also causes a large amount of intolerance to people who do not share the same belief system.
Therefore: atheism seems to require faith, and it seems to carry with it some similarities to religious extremism.
Note: By stating that science does not hold all the answers, there is no implication that any particular religion does hold all the answers.
Many times I have heard it said that atheist is the absence of belief: that all religions require a belief in something (God, Allah, Enlightenment, etc), but atheism is the absence of such beliefs.
But my thinking is that atheism is, in actual fact, a belief system: it is the belief that there is no God.
Putting forward this proposal spawned a flurry of comments from my friend, trying to convince me that atheism is certainly not a belief system and cannot be likened to other religions.
Two things come from this:
Firstly, that belief in the non-existence of God tends to carry with it a belief in the non-existence of anything supernatural. The follow-on is that the only things "rational" people believe in are the things confirmed by science. And this pathway leads to the belief system that science, despite not yet having all the answers (it is forever a work-in-progress), will ultimately be able to explain all of the intricacies of the universe. This is also in spite of the fact that science (currently?) only works with the physical nature of the universe, not the supernatural aspect that is a major part of most religions.
So, it seems as though atheists have a faith in science. Despite knowing that science does not have all the answers (as yet), I have currently not found an athiest willing to engage in such philosophical debates who does not refer back to science to back up their own beliefs.
Secondly, the recent conversation with my friend turned rather quickly to concern that a person could possibly entertain the thought of a supernatural force operating in the universe. A striking resemblance to people such as Richard Dawkins who believe that people holding a faith in God are deluded. The problem with this line of thought is that it is highly intolerant of religious people. The claim that a person "of no religion" is the most able to be objective becomes a farce: their own belief system becomes a driving force of religious intolerance.
To sum up, it seems to me that atheism not only requires a belief in the non-existence of God, but also in the infallibility of scientific theory and testing (despite the ever-changing nature of science, which currently does not hold all the answers). Atheism also causes a large amount of intolerance to people who do not share the same belief system.
Therefore: atheism seems to require faith, and it seems to carry with it some similarities to religious extremism.
Note: By stating that science does not hold all the answers, there is no implication that any particular religion does hold all the answers.
Saturday, 17 October 2015
The term 'Islamist'
Having just read an article about someone who was "speaking out against Islam and Islamism," I realise that I have heard the terms 'Islamist' and 'Islamism' quite a bit recently.
This is causing me a bit of confusion... not from a religious standpoint, but from a grammatical view.
I'm assuming that an 'Islamist' is a person who follows Islam. And I'm also assuming that 'Islamism' is the term given to the set of beliefs that 'Islamists' follow. Please, if I am wrong in these assumptions, can somebody correct me!!
Because...
I thought that a person who follows Islam is called a Muslim. And I also thought that the term given to the set of beliefs that Muslims follow is just Islam. In other words:
Islamist = Muslim
Islamism = Islam
In summary, why on earth are there two extra words being used when the English language already has the words to describe those things?!?!
EDIT:
I have recently found that the term 'Islamist' effectively refers to Muslim extremist and 'Islamism' to the set of beliefs of such extremism. This is to differentiate between those who use Islam to practise terrorism (or use terrorism to practise Islam?) and the amicable Muslims who simply practise their faith in a non-destructive way... according to my current understanding!
This is causing me a bit of confusion... not from a religious standpoint, but from a grammatical view.
I'm assuming that an 'Islamist' is a person who follows Islam. And I'm also assuming that 'Islamism' is the term given to the set of beliefs that 'Islamists' follow. Please, if I am wrong in these assumptions, can somebody correct me!!
Because...
I thought that a person who follows Islam is called a Muslim. And I also thought that the term given to the set of beliefs that Muslims follow is just Islam. In other words:
Islamist = Muslim
Islamism = Islam
In summary, why on earth are there two extra words being used when the English language already has the words to describe those things?!?!
EDIT:
I have recently found that the term 'Islamist' effectively refers to Muslim extremist and 'Islamism' to the set of beliefs of such extremism. This is to differentiate between those who use Islam to practise terrorism (or use terrorism to practise Islam?) and the amicable Muslims who simply practise their faith in a non-destructive way... according to my current understanding!
Monday, 13 July 2015
Brainwashing and Extremism
The term ‘brainwashing’ gets thrown around a lot, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorism, extremism and general intolerance. It even gets thrown around when someone just doesn’t agree with your point of view. But how can we define it?
My current line of thinking points towards a definition such as, “forcing a person to commit to a set of beliefs or principles which they may not choose to follow if they were given free choice.” In my mind, there is an element of it not being of the person’s freewill (one dictionary defines it as “to cause one to alter their beliefs” but I do not feel this is strong enough). Most definitions even suggest the involvement of torture.
There are some dangers here. People believe all sorts of things of their own free will, and yet it is all too easy to just throw the ‘brainwashed’ label at them. This is often said about religion. Just because someone has decided to commit themselves to a particular set of beliefs and principles, it does not mean they were forced into it.
But also, look at it from another perspective: the education system. When a parent sends their child to school, they are allowing the government to educate the child into a particular way of thinking. If a parent does not wish this for their child – opting for home-schooling – then there are various checks to make sure that the required governmental standards are being met. Education in the UK is compulsory, and it is government controlled. Every child is essentially ‘brainwashed’ into UK society.
The irony here is that if a person chooses not to conform to the standards of the society, then they are labelled with ‘brainwashing’, ‘extremism’ and even ‘terrorism.’ But what makes the standards of society correct?
UK is a place where people supposedly have various ‘freedoms.’ And yet there are restrictions. We are free to study – as long as it is not to study bomb-making. We are free to speak – but this gets restricted when it comes to various topics.
The other problem is that the laws change. Someone who upheld the law 25 years ago might be branded a criminal now, should they wish to continue upholding those laws. Just because a particular point of view might be ‘outdated’ in the eyes of society, that – by itself – does not make that point of view incorrect.
UK also aims to be a ‘tolerant’ society: a place where we allow people to follow their own religion and beliefs. And yet, if a person uses their ‘free speech’ to say that they think a particular action is wrong, they are easily branded ‘intolerant’, possibly an ‘extremist’ and the phrases ‘brainwashed’ and ‘the grass-roots of terrorism’ will probably not be too far behind.
People use examples from the past of how religion (often Christianity) held back the advances of science because it could be seen to contradict the religious traditions. However, UK society is now at a point where the pursuit of science has led to the ridicule of people who follow religions. Where religion once used to be ‘intolerant’ of science, science (and so-called ‘free-thinkers’) has now become quite intolerant of religion.
The problem is that society is ultimately brainwashed. It could be argued that a free society is one where people can be educated if they want to. Everything could be done on the basis of if you want to. However, that is also a brainwashed society: the dominant ideology being that this ‘freedom’ leads to a better community. But, due to parental responsibility, any education will be built upon the parents ideology. This can actually be seen in society today: a parent who has contempt for their education may well bring up a child to also have contempt for education.
So, I do not really think that we can avoid brainwashing, but what we can avoid is using the word as a way of demeaning (or bullying or harassing) people who thoughtfully disagree with us. And we certainly need to avoid labelling people as ‘extremists’ because they do not see our point of view.
It seems to me that the next ‘religious war’ has already been started by the atheists with their intolerance to people who believe in higher powers. The irony here is that as things escalate, the accusation is thrown at the religious people for their intolerance and reluctance to change their point of view.
So, who is the extremist?
My current line of thinking points towards a definition such as, “forcing a person to commit to a set of beliefs or principles which they may not choose to follow if they were given free choice.” In my mind, there is an element of it not being of the person’s freewill (one dictionary defines it as “to cause one to alter their beliefs” but I do not feel this is strong enough). Most definitions even suggest the involvement of torture.
There are some dangers here. People believe all sorts of things of their own free will, and yet it is all too easy to just throw the ‘brainwashed’ label at them. This is often said about religion. Just because someone has decided to commit themselves to a particular set of beliefs and principles, it does not mean they were forced into it.
But also, look at it from another perspective: the education system. When a parent sends their child to school, they are allowing the government to educate the child into a particular way of thinking. If a parent does not wish this for their child – opting for home-schooling – then there are various checks to make sure that the required governmental standards are being met. Education in the UK is compulsory, and it is government controlled. Every child is essentially ‘brainwashed’ into UK society.
The irony here is that if a person chooses not to conform to the standards of the society, then they are labelled with ‘brainwashing’, ‘extremism’ and even ‘terrorism.’ But what makes the standards of society correct?
UK is a place where people supposedly have various ‘freedoms.’ And yet there are restrictions. We are free to study – as long as it is not to study bomb-making. We are free to speak – but this gets restricted when it comes to various topics.
The other problem is that the laws change. Someone who upheld the law 25 years ago might be branded a criminal now, should they wish to continue upholding those laws. Just because a particular point of view might be ‘outdated’ in the eyes of society, that – by itself – does not make that point of view incorrect.
UK also aims to be a ‘tolerant’ society: a place where we allow people to follow their own religion and beliefs. And yet, if a person uses their ‘free speech’ to say that they think a particular action is wrong, they are easily branded ‘intolerant’, possibly an ‘extremist’ and the phrases ‘brainwashed’ and ‘the grass-roots of terrorism’ will probably not be too far behind.
People use examples from the past of how religion (often Christianity) held back the advances of science because it could be seen to contradict the religious traditions. However, UK society is now at a point where the pursuit of science has led to the ridicule of people who follow religions. Where religion once used to be ‘intolerant’ of science, science (and so-called ‘free-thinkers’) has now become quite intolerant of religion.
The problem is that society is ultimately brainwashed. It could be argued that a free society is one where people can be educated if they want to. Everything could be done on the basis of if you want to. However, that is also a brainwashed society: the dominant ideology being that this ‘freedom’ leads to a better community. But, due to parental responsibility, any education will be built upon the parents ideology. This can actually be seen in society today: a parent who has contempt for their education may well bring up a child to also have contempt for education.
So, I do not really think that we can avoid brainwashing, but what we can avoid is using the word as a way of demeaning (or bullying or harassing) people who thoughtfully disagree with us. And we certainly need to avoid labelling people as ‘extremists’ because they do not see our point of view.
It seems to me that the next ‘religious war’ has already been started by the atheists with their intolerance to people who believe in higher powers. The irony here is that as things escalate, the accusation is thrown at the religious people for their intolerance and reluctance to change their point of view.
So, who is the extremist?
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Carbon Dating
Carbon dating was invented in the late 1940s (from the end
of the second World War), and so it is only about 70 years old.
It relies on carbon-14 isotopes. To understand this naming:
the common carbon-12 isotope has 12 nucleons:
6 protons, 6 neutrons; whereas the carbon-14 isotope has 14 nucleons: 6
protons, 8 neutrons. (An isotope is a different form of an element, having the
same number of protons and electrons, but with differing numbers of neutrons)
Carbon-14 is unstable, and decays radioactively through beta
decay. Scientists say that carbon-14 is constantly produced (cosmic rays (rays
from the sun) collide with atoms to produce an energetic (fast-moving) neutron,
which collides with a nitrogen-14 atom, producing carbon-14 and a proton), and
has reached an equilibrium state where the percentage of carbon-14 atoms in all
the carbon atoms is now a constant value.
Scientists say there is one carbon-14 atom in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
This would give the percentage of carbon-14 compared with
normal carbon-12 as:
0.00000000001% (US trillion (1 with 12 0s)) or,
0.00000000000000001% (UK trillion (1 with 18 0s)).
Scientists say that carbon-14 has a half-life (the time it takes for half of the atoms in a given space
to decay) of ‘about’ 5,700 years. This means that the process has been around
for 1.23% of one half-life (the
process being around for about 70 years).
Scientists say that the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to
carbon-12 atoms is constant in all living things (and in the air), and that
when a living organism dies, the carbon-14 stops being produced. Therefore, by
knowing the half-life of carbon-14 decay, the age of the remains of the living
thing can be found by back-tracking from the amount detected to the original
constant amount.
Scientists also say that carbon-14 dating is only ‘reliable’
for objects up to 60,000 years old. That’s roughly 10 half-lives.
For objects older than 60,000 years, other radioactive
dating must be used:
Uranium-235 (half-life = 704 million years)
Potassium-40 (half-life = 1.3 billion years)
Uranium-238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years)
and so on.
Carbon-14 dating is considered the most reliable since
carbon is present in almost every object, living or inanimate. Although
radioactive isotopes of other elements can be used, the amount of the
radioactive isotope present in the object is significantly less than carbon-14.
At this stage, it might be worth posing a few questions:
1. Considering
the process has only been around for about 70 years, how reliable is it to assume
that the amount of carbon-14 is constant in all
things, and that this value has been constant since the birth of the universe?
2. Every
measurement has with it an element of inaccuracy. Given the already tiny
quantities being used, what is the extra level of inaccuracy introduced due to
the equipment?
3. Given that
other forms of radioactive dating are less reliable due to even smaller
quantities of the required isotope, what inaccuracies are introduced?
4. Radioactive
dating has been around for about 70 years. As mentioned earlier, this is 1.23%
of one half-life of carbon-14. For uranium-235, this would be 0.000009943% of
one half-life. Can scientists really measure that accurately and reliably?
Note:
Carbon dating came into use in the late 1940s. Codenamed
‘Trinity,’ nuclear testing began in 1945, and within 20 years at least five
countries were performing nuclear tests. This has an impact on the radioactive
makeup of objects: more so for the immediate areas of the testing, but the
effects can be far-reaching, especially due to the wind carrying the fallout.
Hence, this begs the question of the reliability of any
method of radioactive dating.
Half-life equations are of the form:
Where: N is the number of radioactive atoms
remaining
N0 is the initial number of
radioactive atoms
t is the elapsed time since death (in
years)
T½ is the half-life of the
radioactive isotope (in years)
In order to get the percentage of radioactive atoms
remaining, we need to find:
This can be done simply by rearranging the equation. For our
example of using uranium-235 with the dinosaurs:
t is 65,000,000
T½ is 704,000,000
Therefore:
and then simplifying
and
then rearranging 
and then solving
So, for the dinosaurs to be 65 million years old, there will
be 93.8% of uranium-235 still present in the material being used to date them.
Now, assume the dinosaurs only lived about 6,500 years ago
(in-line with a literal reading of Genesis 1, the Christian creation story).
Then the result would be:
and then simplifying
and then rearranging
and then solving
Taking the difference between these values, this shows that
there is only a loss of 6.8% of the uranium-235 atoms to place the dinosaurs
from being 6,500 years old to being 65 million years old.
To better help understand how a small percentage error in
the measurement of uranium-235 can vastly change the perceived age of the
dinosaurs:
|
Percentage of
uranium-235
|
Age of dinosaurs
(in years)
|
|
100 %
|
Died this morning
|
|
99.9994 %
|
6,500
|
|
99 %
|
10,200,000
|
|
98 %
|
20,500,000
|
|
97 %
|
30,900,000
|
|
96 %
|
41,500,000
|
|
95 %
|
52,100,000
|
|
94 %
|
62,800,000
|
|
93.8 %
|
65,000,000
|
Assumptions made:
- Uranium-235 is present in a dinosaur’s body.
- Uranium-235 decays in a similar method to carbon-14.
- Uranium-235 having a half-life of 704 million years is a reliable fact.
- The tiny quantities of uranium-235 present can be measured to a high degree of accuracy.
- Nuclear testing has not altered the results in any way.
Purpose (raison d'être)
The reason for this blog is to air some of my many questions and thoughts. Many thoughts pop into my head and I wanted somewhere I could put them.
It's not so much that I feel I am the answer to the world's problems, or that my voice is the one every person should listen to...
If anyone wants to respond to the posts, I would be interested to hear other thoughts.
Feel free to prove me wrong... part of my hope is that someone more intelligent than me will be able to clarify things and show me the errors of my thinking.
It's not so much that I feel I am the answer to the world's problems, or that my voice is the one every person should listen to...
If anyone wants to respond to the posts, I would be interested to hear other thoughts.
Feel free to prove me wrong... part of my hope is that someone more intelligent than me will be able to clarify things and show me the errors of my thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)