Sunday, March 1, 2009

Dilbert Who?

I needed reinforcements. “Look,” I said, “four billion people believe in some sort of God and free will. They can’t all be wrong.”

“Very few people believe in God,” he replied.

I didn’t see how he could deny the obvious. “Of course they do. Billions of people believe in God.”

The old man leaned toward me, resting a blanketed elbow on the arm of his rocker.

“Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions.

“A belief in God would demand one hundred percent obsessive devotion, influencing every waking moment of this brief life on earth. But your four billion so-called believers do not live their lives in that fashion, except for a few. The majority believe in the usefulness of their beliefs — an earthly and practical utility — but they do not believe in the underlying reality.”

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. “If you asked them, they’d say they believe.”

“They say that they believe because pretending to believe is necessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don’t do the things that a true believer would do, the things a true believer would have to do.

“If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing.”

“Are you saying God doesn’t exist?” I asked, trying to get to the point.

“I’m saying that people claim to believe in God, but most don’t literally believe. They only act as though they believe because there are earthly benefits in doing so. They create a delusion for themselves because it makes them happy.”
The above text is from the book God's Debris by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. You can download the complete novella as a pdf here (330kb).

It's definitely an interesting read. While I don't necessarily agree with all the points that Adams posits, I do find the above argument compelling.

What do you think?

34 comments:

  1. Everyone has their own model of the universe, and no one can truly understand anyone elses model. We all start from the same place, so no one model is any less valid than any other.

    The "old man" believes his model of God is absolute reality that applies to everyone. So, he labels the 4 billion as hypocrites because their claim of reality is contrary to his.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everyone has their own model of the universe, and no one can truly understand anyone elses model. We all start from the same place, so no one model is any less valid than any other.

    The "old man" believes his model of God is absolute reality that applies to everyone. So, he labels the 4 billion as hypocrites because their claim of reality is contrary to his.


    I find this amusing. Here you are saying that no one can possibly understand another's reality. Is this itself not a claim about reality?
    Does the statement- no one can truly understand anyone elses model. We all start from the same place, so no one model is any less valid than any other. apply objectively to everyone? Is not an absolute description about reality?

    Clearly, your claims are self-defeating

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for posting this: I downloaded the PDF. I follow your blog every day (RSS) and enjoy it very much. Keep up the good...work? (But what about wu wei? ;) Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  4. VERY compelling argument. I don't believe I have ever heard better...I am off to download that PDF and see what other food for thought it contains.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Taoists run into this condition a lot.
    What does "believe" mean?
    There must be four billion slightly different inrepretations.
    It depends on what you think "believe" means.
    Also upon what you think "God" means.
    Also upon what you see as your duty before this "God".
    Most religions promise a reward after death for obeying the rules.
    Taoists win their reward moment by moment by voluntarily bringing heaven into the present moment.
    I am an unusual Taoist in that I know my God. Notice I don't claim to "believe" in God.
    I "know" my God.
    I may not be a Taoist at all :)
    But it is the closest thing there is to where I find myself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Crow,
    You can't be an unusual Taoist simply because that's an oxymoron. :*) Me thinks the ONLY way you could be classified as unusual is if the reference was made to your usual self. That sentence made sense, but it sure didn't seem like it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scott Adams believes in Republicans, too. What does he know? ;^)

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is not an argument for or against a belief in a god. It is a comparison of belief and reality.

    One does not need to believe in the truck. The truck is there, solid and real. The truck does not require belief to exist. The truck does not cease to exist when I stop believing in it.

    Mythical beings, however, have no existence outside belief. In the absence of belief, God ceases to exist. God has no independent reality that continues when my back is turned. Where are the gods of the past that we no longer believe in? Where is Zeus, Aphrodite, Beelzebub?

    Therefore, God does not exist, only belief exists inside the head of a very real human being who requires no belief to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One does not need to believe in the truck. The truck is there, solid and real. The truck does not require belief to exist. The truck does not cease to exist when I stop believing in it.

    Ahahahahaha are you kidding me? prove to me that the truck exists. prove to me that you exist! You can't using science. Science is fundamentally based on the assumption that our senses are functioning normally. How do we know? have we been outside them to check?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tye,
    You're starting to sound like Alan Watts -- that's a compliment, by the way. :) Ever read any of his works?

    ReplyDelete
  11. No I can't say that I have.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "prove to me that the truck exists."

    Fine. You stand in front of the truck. I'll watch from the sidewalk. We'll see if belief hits harder than the truck.

    Hint: If you jump out of the way, my reality wins out over your belief.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fine. You stand in front of the truck. I'll watch from the sidewalk. We'll see if belief hits harder than the truck.

    conviniently ignoring my other question- prove to me that you exist. You have no scientific proof that anyone but yourself exists. (You must exist in order to ponder the question).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tye said...
    prove to me that you exist.

    This is Concentric Bird thinking: it goes round and round until it disappears up its own asshole. Useless. Goes nowhere.

    You have no scientific proof that anyone but yourself exists.

    Quite the contrary. My existence is very easily verified by hypothesis testing. I am an independently reproducible phenomenon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Really? Hypothesis testing? would any of this "testing" include the use of any of your five senses?
    btw, if you read some of my other posts, you'll realize that I'm a Christian. clearly I don't believe that everything i see and hear is an illusion. I'm just merely trying to point out that with science, you can not prove that your five senses are valid, you cannot prove that morality exists, you cannot prove that aesthetic judgements (beauty) exist, and ironically, you cannot prove that science is valid using the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "you can not prove that your five senses are valid, you cannot prove that morality exists, you cannot prove that aesthetic judgements (beauty) exist, and ironically, you cannot prove that science is valid using the scientific method."

    Science has nothing to do with proof. We do not "prove" things in science, we verify theory. Science is not about belief. Science is about evidence, data, testing and verification.

    Valid? What does that mean? How are the senses valid? Can we independently verify what our senses tell us? Most certainly. What other "validity" is there?

    Science has nothing to do with morality. Morality is a human construct that varies from society to society. There is no universal morality, so there is no science in morality. The same applies to beauty.

    What does "science is valid" mean? Science is the way we describe the world around us. It works, so we use it. We know it works because it is replicable and verifiable?

    Is that what you had in mind as valid?

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  17. You're talking past me here. how do we independently varify the use of our senses? does it involve the use of our senses?

    ReplyDelete
  18. how do we independently varify the use of our senses? does it involve the use of our senses?

    This is unnecessarily obtuse;

    One sees, hears, tastes or smells something, whether it be sensory of instrumentation, and records that observation.

    Someone else sees, hears, tastes or smells something and records that observation, whether it be sensory of instrumentation, and records that observation.

    If the two observations match, that is independent verification.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Typo:

    That should be sensory or instrumentation

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your logic is sound if and only if the sensory organs of both people are functioning. How do we know they are?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Your logic is sound if and only if the sensory organs of both people are functioning. How do we know they are?

    Are you asking "Do our perceptions reflect what is "really" out there?"

    The answer is: It doesn't matter.

    We build our world view based on a body of observation by all sensory organs, organic and inorganic. From this body of observation, we build our explanation of the world.

    Observations that do not fit this consensus reality are held up to scrutiny. If they cannot be reproduced, they are not accepted as "real." If they can be reproduced, they are "real."

    "Reality" is what any given society/culture accepts as real. We cannot know whether or not there is a reality that is different from that which we perceive.

    The reality we perceive is the only reality we have to deal with day to day. Whether or not there is a reality that is different than that which we perceive is a matter for speculation by philosophers, graduate students and Blog writers.

    ReplyDelete

  22. "Reality" is what any given society/culture accepts as real. We cannot know whether or not there is a reality that is different from that which we perceive.


    Unless of course you come in contact with a self-authenticating source that tells you otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unless of course you come in contact with a self-authenticating source that tells you otherwise.

    There is no self-authenticating source.

    Please give an example.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If there is no self-authenticating source, then the only one thing that we can know is that- I (not physically but in a sort of metaphysical sense) Exist. We do not know for certain that the world we live in was not created 5 minutes ago and that we were put here with false memories of the past. We do not know that anything physical actually exists for certain. We do not know that there are any minds other than our own.

    However, we have good reason to believe that our senses are valid, that our memories are valid, and that other people do in fact have minds (not brains- think metaphysical here) like our own. I'm merely pointing out the all of the above is based on assumptions (such as my 5 senses are functioning perfectly) that truthfully, cannot be 100% KNOWN.

    As a Christian, i assert that the self-authenticating source is God.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If there is no self-authenticating source, then the only one thing that we can know is that- I Exist.

    This premise depends on the definition of "know." I know that the truck exists. I have verified it with my own senses and others concur that the truck exists. Therefore, we all know the truck exists and it will kill us if we stand in its way (in the physical, not metaphysical, sense.

    The proposition that everything is a figment of the mind is an indoor philosophy, supported by those who spend little time outdoors.

    We do not know for certain that the world we live in was not created 5 minutes ago and that we were put here with false memories of the past. We do not know that anything physical actually exists for certain. We do not know that there are any minds other than our own.

    I can't speak for others. I know the world we live in was not created 5 minutes ago. I have studied the body of observation on the subject and found the arguments for the age and history of the Universe to be an adequate argument in support of the evidence. Until observation is presented that refutes this theory, it will suffice.

    we have good reason to believe that our senses are valid, that our memories are valid, and that other people do in fact have minds (not brains- think metaphysical here) like our own.

    It's not a matter of belief. It is theory supported by observation and testing. The Universe exists whether we believe in it or not.

    I'm merely pointing out the all of the above is based on assumptions (such as my 5 senses are functioning perfectly) that truthfully, cannot be 100% KNOWN.

    No, this is not based on the assumption that our perceptions represent a 100% accurate reproduction of reality. In fact, we know this is not true. However, we have learned to interpret our perceptions to give us a picture of the world we live in that is accurate enough to insure our survival.

    As a Christian, i assert that the self-authenticating source is God.

    I know this to be false, because there is no God, or gods. If God is real, then all gods from all people throughout the history of the human race are real as well. We know this is not true, therefore, there are no gods.

    Q.E.D.

    ReplyDelete
  26. since you refuse to listen to reason i'll just speak on the last point-


    I know this to be false, because there is no God, or gods. If God is real, then all gods from all people throughout the history of the human race are real as well. We know this is not true, therefore, there are no gods.


    So if a theory about the earth is true, then all of them must be true???
    Explain to me how your conclusion follows your premises.

    ReplyDelete
  27. since you refuse to listen to reason i'll just speak on the last point-

    Does this mean "Since you refuse to agree with me?" What is the "reason" I'm supposed to listen to? And if I listen, am I supposed to agree?


    So if a theory about the earth is true, then all of them must be true???
    Explain to me how your conclusion follows your premises.


    There is a difference between theory and belief. A belief is a proposition that is unsupported by evidence. There is no evidence that gods exist. That's why religions insist on faith.

    In fact, many gods that were believed to exist in the past are no longer believed to exist. Did they suddenly disappear? Did they ever exist? Why is there only one god left hanging around, despite the fact that many people still believe in many different gods? Who's right? Who's wrong?

    A theory is an explanation based on a body of observation, supported by further observation and testing. A theory is never true or false, it is more or less adequate as an explanation of observation.

    A theory can be demonstrated as an inadequate explanation if sufficient observations contradict the theory. For example, the theory of the earth as the center of the solar system was abandoned when observations were made and verified that could not be explained by an earth-centered model.

    A belief, however, cannot be proven wrong, since it is not based on evidence. It is therefore impossible to amass evidence to disprove a belief. One cannot disprove a belief in gods because there is no evidence of gods to refute.

    Since some humans have believed in gods for all of recorded history, and there is no evidence to support or refute these beliefs, any belief in any god is just as valid as any other belief. Therefore, if one believes in the Christian God, one must also believe, or at least accept others' beliefs, in all other gods throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A belief cannot be proved wrong? If i believe that Africa doesn't exist because ive never been there, can you not prove me wrong?

    there is no evidence that God exists? wow. so i guess all those seminary classes and Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig must just be sitting around playing tic-tac-toe or something.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A belief cannot be proved wrong? If i believe that Africa doesn't exist because ive never been there, can you not prove me wrong?

    The alleged existence of Africa is not a matter for belief. One merely goes where it is supposed to be and sees for oneself, a perfectly scientific process.

    there is no evidence that God exists? wow. so i guess all those seminary classes and Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig must just be sitting around playing tic-tac-toe or something.

    I have no idea what these gentlemen do in their spare time. They do not offer evidence of the existence of gods.

    William Lane Craig argues for the historicity of Jesus based on a study of the Christian Bible. He claims that since some of the events described in the Bible are historically accurate, the Bible is an accurate depiction of God and the life of Jesus. This ignores the obvious fact that the Christian Bible is a compilation of many writings over centuries in many different languages, translated in the 1700s to fit the political leanings of King James of England. Though historical events are described, the contents of the book have been translated and interpreted to fit the aspirations of many very human rulers.

    Furthermore, it offers no independently verifiable evidence of gods.

    If you are aware of evidence of the existence of gods, please present it here!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh so I guess the fact that the dead sea scrolls match our current translations 99.9% of the time is all a big hoax then?

    The alleged existence of Africa is not a matter for belief. One merely goes where it is supposed to be and sees for oneself, a perfectly scientific process.
    Hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
    assuming of course that your sight organs are functioning correctly of course.

    Ok. evidence for God. a couple questions first-
    1. Do you believe in objective morals?)/Do you believe in things such as good/evil
    2. What are your views on the universe?- i.e.- eternal, big bang, multiverses, bubble universes in a false vacuum etc.
    3. Does life have meaning?

    Answer these please and I will begin several arguments for the existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh so I guess the fact that the dead sea scrolls match our current translations 99.9% of the time is all a big hoax then?

    If you read the literature, you'll find various translations and interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fact that some match some things in the Bible is a mere historical congruence. It says nothing whatsoever about the existence of gods.

    Ok. evidence for God. a couple questions first-
    1. Do you believe in objective morals?)/Do you believe in things such as good/evil


    No. Morals are socially determined and vary from society to society. Good and evil are interpretations that vary from one society to another.

    2. What are your views on the universe?- i.e.- eternal, big bang, multiverses, bubble universes in a false vacuum etc.

    We don't know yet how the Universe originated or even if it ever did. The study continues.

    The evidence suggests now that the Universe is eternal and constantly changing. The appearance of a beginning are an artifact of our existence in the distorted space of a large gravity source.

    3. Does life have meaning?

    No.

    Answer these please and I will begin several arguments for the existence of God.

    I'm not looking for arguments for the existence of God. I am looking for evidence that supports the proposition that gods exist. Please don't repeat the same old tired arguments based on logic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't support the proposition that "gods" exist. I support the evidence that God exists. If you are looking for evidence for God, then i suggest you read the book Reasonable Faith. in it, Craig discusses numerous evidences and challenges all salient scientific theories about how the universe began. (or didn't begin.)

    ReplyDelete
  33. I found an excerpt from the website for Reasonable Faith, with this statement:

    "The fact that we do find people who are seeking God and are ready to believe in Christ is evidence that the Holy Spirit has already been at work, convicting them and drawing them to him."

    If this is the kind of evidence you refer to, this is the type of "evidence" I have heard much in the past.

    The problem is that this is self-referential, tauatological, a circular argument. The premise that people seeking for God is the evidence that God exists is illogical and meaningless. You could just as logically say that the fact that people do not seek God is the evidence thAt there is no God.

    This is not evidence for the existence of gods, it is evidence for the belief in gods. these are two different things.

    Evidence, in the context of this discussion, means independently verifiable evidence. Something that one can tell me and I can go out and find for myself. Something real that exists in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Tye -

    Why don't you send a message direct to me and we can continue this discussion just between the two of us.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.