The Legend of a Heretic

Here's a great piece on Robert Ingersoll from a NYT blog. The piece gives an overview of his life, and talks briefly about faith in public life. It is quite amazing to me that Ingersoll could be so prominent in politics while holding those views. The idea of the Republican party consulting Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or PZ Myers is pretty laughable.

Which is too bad

The Great Debate

I just got back from the Hitchens debate. I have to say, Hitchens is a wonderful speaker, incredibly articulate and a masterful wordsmith, and still clever and funny. His ability to speak on the fly is something to behold. However, he did nothing to endear himself to his opponents, calling them names (albeit only deserved ones) and using colorful language (at one point saying that if someone told him to sacrifice his daughter he could only reply, "Fuck you", which must have gone over great with the people in the churches the debate was broadcast into).

And, as anticipated, the moderators were incredibly biased. Ben Stein was openly antagonistic toward Hitchens, and Hitchens didn't mind at all (one presumes he gets it all the time). They also could have controlled the debate much better, it reminded me of the most recent Democratic debate, where there was more talking between the debaters than question-answering. The few questions that were asked of the debaters were tremendously inane creationist claptrap, almost verbatim out of the Index of Creationist Claims. It would have been really nice to have a question that was antagonistic toward Mr Richards (the Theist).

All that said, I think Hitchens could have done a better job. One of Richards's key points was that the universe had a beginning, that it came from nothing, and must therefore have a cause. Besides being readily refutable philosophically, we don't even know it's true. I think if Hitchens had pointed all that out, then repeatedly stress (although he did stress it once early) that God is a shitty explanation for this anyway, "I don't know" is a far better answer, that Richards would have been blown out of the water.

In fact, I would have stressed the atheist's uncertainty, and the beauty in that uncertainty. I know it's not terribly persuasive to someone who has committed to Theism, but neither is anything else, and I think that the openness of our minds, and our ability to say, "I don't know", are two things that should be stated at every opportunity.

I have only one last criticism of Hitchens, the debate was only 105 minutes (90 "televised", the rest Q&A with the audience), and expecting extensive coverage of all the issues is absurd. However, dismantling Intelligent Design can be done in that time (especially since Hitchens definitely got more than his fair share). Sticking to the topic (which Richards correctly criticized Hitchens for not doing) would have been more effective than tangents that, while true critiques of religious, were a bit misplaced. But perhaps that is an unavoidable consequence of the way his mind works.

That said, he was great, and I would have paid to listen to him. Plus he gave autographs afterward, and personalized them too (something Richard Dawkins did not do, but Dawkins had a considerable line to deal with, while Hitchens had only a handful of fans). If you have the chance to listen to him, whether in a speech or in a debate, even one totally stacked against him, you should absolutely do it. It was well-worth the hardship I now have doing the work I need to get done for tomorrow.

Picking our battles #2

I had previously mentioned the crosses in Utah, and it looks like I was right. This suit sounds pretty frivolous to me, although arguing that a cross is a secular symbol is pretty dumb, saying they should be taken down is also dumb.

I wish I could say to the plaintiffs, "Look, they're not proselytizing, they're not even erected with government money. And unless you guys have been turned down for trying to erect something, there's no evidence of preferential treatment. Who cares?"

The problem is that I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any differences between this and previous cases, like the Mount Soledad cross or the 10 Commandments in the courthouse case. But I think that the closest one is the 10 Commandment statue in Austin, Van Orden v. Perry, where the Supreme Court found a statue of the 10 Commandments on the grounds of the capitol to be legal. The rationale was that it had both a religious and secular purpose.

By that logic I think these crosses would stand, but the Mt Soledad case would give the opposite opinion (though I don't think that ever reached the Supreme Court).

In any event, I still think that, as a largely-despised minority, atheists should pick our battles. If we fight every stupid incursion of religion into society, we'll look bad and set precedents that might actually work against us. Don't get me wrong, we need to fight the big battles, but a dozen crosses on Utah's highways are not a big deal. Frankly, the plaintiff's money would be much better spent somewhere else, either in a battle that's already ongoing (like Mt Soledad), or somewhere that the intrusion of religion into the public square is, you know, dangerous.

But that's just me, apparently these guys disagree. Good luck to them, but I seriously doubt they'll win. If they do it'll just get appealed, it seems like Utah would have pretty conservative judges unlikely to be sympathetic, and I doubt this Supreme Court (if it got that far) would find them unconstitutional.

And I still stand by my previous statements about the idiocy of getting offended over trivial or minor things, especially something like these crosses. It's just an insane overreaction, and I'll never understand it.

Picking our battles

This is just stupid:

The fate of more than a dozen crosses honoring fallen UHP troopers was left in the hands of a federal court judge on Tuesday.

The issue was taken to court after a group of atheists sued the state claiming the crosses violate the constitutional separation of church and state. The group is now asking the Utah Highway Patrol Association to remove the 12 foot-crosses because they denote the death of Jesus Christ.

I'm against the intermingling of church and state, but come on people, crosses for dead policemen? Unless I'm missing something, like the policemen wouldn't have wanted the crosses or they're not put up near where the officers died, then this is just ridiculous. And even with those considerations, a cross as a memorial is not uncommon.

Suits like this do nothing to address the underlying problem of the crumbling wall of separation and damage the image of atheism. There are helpful suits and there are detrimental suits, and from what I can tell, this is one of the latter.

In fact, this reminds me of the insanity over Christmas every year. Why people get so wound up about it is beyond me, Christmas is manifestly not a religious holiday any more, and if you live in a country where the vast majority celebrate Christmas, why get bothered when someone says, "Merry Christmas"? This would be like getting mad if someone said "Have a happy fourth of July" and you weren't celebrating it. Who cares? Why does it matter?

The same goes for the crosses, they're not endorsing religion by putting a cross up for a fallen police officer. What are we going to go after next, the people who put crosses on the side of the road when a loved one dies? Those are on public ground, are they endorsing religion?

It's not that we shouldn't fight for the separation of church and state, we absolutely should, that hardly needs to be said. But we have to pick our battles, and this is one that, given what I gleaned from the article, we should have let slide.

The Atheist Father's Dilemma

I don't think I agree with this. In case you don't feel like reading it, it's advice given to a father whose daughter is being raised Christian by her mother even though he doesn't believe. The daughter is distraught over the fact that he is going to hell, according to the lunacy she's being taught.

I don't really understand how anyone could advise him to anything but sit her down and tell her that it's all fairy tales. And don't say that it would be traumatic, because it's no more traumatic than finding out any other imaginary creature doesn't exist. She'll be hurt, but she'll get over it.

And I don't mean in one fell swoop, but teach her about the natural world. Don't just say evolution is true (etc), show her. Go to a natural history museum, by her books (appropriate for her age, not The Blind Watchmaker), teach her about the world. But not just that, teach her critical thinking. Show her how to tell the difference between a claim that should be taken seriously and one that should be dismissed. You don't even have to mention god or Jesus or anything about religion. Because the fact of the matter is once you have the critical thinking apparati and the basic knowledge in place, you just can't take religion all that seriously any more (and those few that do, like Ken Miller, just look awfully conflicted doing it).

That's my two cents on that story.

To those who believe atheists face no discrimination

One of the things that I really love hearing is how atheists aren't facing any kind of discrimination in the US. Whenever someone compares atheism to homosexuality or feminism (or even racism) it's called an inapt metaphor, a poor analogy, or an outright screaming shame.

I want those people to read this. I want them to read that and explain to me how we don't face discrimination, how we aren't hated, how we don't have to fight. I want them to explain the now well-known fact that an atheist is the least eligible candidate for president in the country's eyes. I want them to explain the fact that so many atheists felt that they can't make their beliefs known. I want them to explain the people who thank Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens for making them feel like they're not alone. I want them to explain all that.

They can't. Atheists are hated, atheists are discriminated against, and atheists are not wanted.

Is it universal? No, of course not. Is it as bad as racism, or sexism, or homophobia? In some cases it's not even close (I wouldn't make the comparison the racism, for example), and its virulence varies from place to place (as did all the others). But to say that we don't need to fight, that we don't need to put ourselves out there, that we shouldn't stand out and shout for ourselves, to say all that is just plain wrong, just plain stupid, and just plain harmful.

I am an atheist, and I am not going to shut my mouth until the people of this country accept me for it. And even though I'm a straight white male, I will stand by the others who need to fight for acceptance, because I believe in fighting for what's right. If the other great acceptance movements of the past (and they're still ongoing) have taught us anything, it's that standing up is the only way to force change, and it will be a long, difficult journey.

I hope you're going to make it with me.

Funny

From Russel's Teapot, I highly recommend it.

My Favorite Argument For Atheism

My favorite argument for atheism can be summed up in one Bertrand Russell quote, “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Throughout human history, there have been too many gods to count. Why, exactly, is any current religion better than the Greeks’, Romans’, Vikings’, Zoroastrians’, Celts’, Mayans’, or Incans’ religion? And why is any current religion better than any other?

Personal revelation has to be out, because for every person who believes that Zeus spoke to him there will be one who thinks Buddha came to him, and another who will go to his death knowing that Allah talks him. Who is right? Better yet, if god exists as any religion today says he does, why does he appear differently to different people (although most often in the guise of the culturally-prevalent religion)? Does god get a kick out of appearing before a young Muslim man as Allah, who then blows up a bus full of Jewish people to whom he had revealed himself as Yahweh? Why don’t all personal revelations come from the same god?

The most parsimonious hypothesis is that God does not exist, and there are simply complex phenomena at the heart of revelations. For instance, epileptics are, on average, far more religious than non-epileptics. Perhaps the brain of an epileptic is especially vulnerable to revelation. Further evidence for this hypothesis are the experiments where electromagnetism is used to induce revelation (There’s also a nice list of articles on the so-called “God Module” in the brain here).

But at the heart of Russell’s statement is that believers will dismiss offhand all religions except their own, which they almost never begin to consider as being wrong. From the outside, all those other religions just look like silly myths and superstitions, but from the inside it’s harder to see that. Who knows, after taking a good, hard, honest look at your own, maybe you’ll start to see the same silly myths and superstitions.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Were Not Atheists

Some people claim that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were atheists, and they were very bad people, therefore atheism is bad (or some equally specious conclusion). One of the biggest problems with that is that none of those people were really atheists.

Hitler will be first because he’s the easiest. In Mein Kampf and later in a speech at the Reichstag he said, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Oh, but he was just using that for rhetorical purposes, he didn’t actually believe it, right? Wrong, he’s also said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (Both from here.)

Hitler was also a staunch creationist, "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Evolution are mere propaganda attempts to make Evolution look bad.

Besides all of this, it’s quite easy to make a really strong case that, if not for Christianity and its irrational hatred of the Jews up until the middle of the Twentieth Century, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Sam Harris does a wonderful job in Chapter 3 of his book, The End of Faith, and there’s plenty available online, such as here. For some perspective on Nazis, here’s a discussion on books they had banned or burned.

Stalin and Mao are a bit tougher to crack, mainly because there’s no quotations attributable to them either way (at least that I can find, if you know of a reliable source for some, feel free to tell me). But most people seem to assume that because they abolished religion, they must be atheists. In fact, they abolished religion so that they could establish cults of personality, and become gods themselves. They did what they needed to in order to get more power, and religion was a rival power source, which is why they abolished it. Stalin actually reinstated the church after Hitler invaded, because he thought it would help him (from here). Religion simply got in their way, and they eliminated anything and anyone that got in their way.

Even if any of these people were atheists, what would it say about atheists or atheism in general? I’ve never heard an atheist make the claim that because Hitler was a Catholic, Catholicism and Catholics are evil, which is exactly the way people use the Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever argument. I would contend that it is far easier to manipulate religion and use it for evil than it is for atheism, mainly because religions are actually organized and unite people with a common belief system, while atheism is unorganized and typically disunited. Religion’s potential for evil is therefore greater, but no more necessary than atheism being evil.

However, put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. But that’s another story.

The Power of Faith

This is probably the best YouTube video I’ve ever seen. The use of “Mad World” in the background is perfect. We live in the maddest of all possible worlds. Or so it sometimes seems.

This made me think about how much I agree with Bertrand Russell when he said, “I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.” An honest look at historical and contemporary events shows that religion has had far more negative consequences than positive ones. All of the hope and charity and love that would have been there without religion is far outweighed by the blood of innumerable innocents that wouldn’t have spilt without religion.

Diderot had it right when he said, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Here’s to that day.

Anonymously Insightful

The other day I got an anonymous comment on my post Doubt Technology Too that was so insightful that I had to mention it in a real post. Honestly, I wish I had thought of/said this, because it really impressed me, and I think it’s something that a lot of people need to be reminded of.

Nick and Stu:

It strikes me that the two of you are talking about two different kinds of "truth", and two different kinds of "knowing." Therefore, Stu, you completely talk past Nick when you say "I believe what evidence supports," because Nick relies on "spiritual evidence" while you rely on "material evidence." And by the same token, Nick, you completely talk past Stu when you say "I cannot reveal anything to you that you are unwilling to see," and "evidence is all fine and dandy, but I seek truth on a higher level: reason."

In Stu's world view, I think, these are not well-formed English sentences; they conform to the syntax of English, but their semantics are either empty or self-contradictory.

Nick, you believe that there is such a thing as revelation, in the biblical sense, meaning that some higher truth is directly revealed to you by God in some internal process that must always remain ineffable. In this way of knowing, you don't become convinced of things by a an incremental process of rational thought that proceeds from known facts to reasonable conclusions by use of logic. Instead, you find yourself suddenly overwhelmed by an epiphany: in an instant, everything becomes clear and you feel no need to question, because you just know that you know what you know...

The rapture of resolved tension is so great that it does not occur to you to double check the truth which has been revealed to you; you are totally convinced. And, because of the intensity of this feeling, you believe that this process is more valid than that based on reasoning from evidence to conclusions.

Stu, your comparatively slow and unglamourous process of reasoning from established facts to necessary conclusions, using provably correct logical operations, cannot possibly offer Nick an emotional experience of comparable intensity, and therefore you cannot convince Nick of anything.

And Nick, Stu does not judge the truth of a statement by the intensity of his emotional response to it, and therefore you cannot convince Stu of anything.

Personally, I try to remain skeptical of any belief that I have a strong emotional response to. The stronger the emotional response, the more likely it is to color my reasoning, and therefore the more careful I must be to seek validation by alternative means. I am no stranger to that moment of inspiration and insight, when one shouts "AHA! Now I see it all!" But I try to keep myself honest by backtracking to what was previously known and tediously building the bridge of reason that will prove to me that I have not fooled myself, or given in to wishful thinking, or simply made a mistake...

That's what reason is for.

That quote perfectly illustrates why discussions between the religious and atheists can be so frustrating for both sides; we’re simply not speaking the same language. Personal revelation is something that science can’t deal with (at least not yet, although some of the articles I’ve read indicate that we’re getting close), and the evidence that atheists seek is just not there (at least in any form besides personal revelation).

The best way to think of the “culture wars” or whatever it’s being called is in terms of logic versus emotion. Instead of “faith”, think about trying to convince your best friend that their cheating lover is not good for them. Without any emotional attachment, it’s really easy to see. But when you’re in love, there’s almost no logic that can break it. The human brain can so easily be made completely illogical by love, and (I’d imagine) the same thing happens with faith.

So how can those without faith preach, if you will, to the faithful? It would seem to me that you’d have to do it the same way you’d convince a friend that their significant other is no good, hammer home the evidence, and maybe get a little mean and confrontational (if the situation warrants it). It probably won’t work, but if you’ve seeded doubt in their mind, it may grow. Eventually some people will deconvert. As far as I can tell, this is what most people espouse anyway.

The opposite could be said of converting people, and it’s exactly what evangelicals do. They’ve had thousands of years to figure out what works, and appealing to fears of death or needs for community or a sense of purpose work. They play to emotion, and unbelievers need to have counters to those emotions (some of which, such as personal revelation, we might not have anything to counter with, except perhaps Sam Harris’ meditation).

But the numbers of the religious are dwindling, as more and more kids leave the church when the leave the home, so something is going right for us. We need to take advantage of it, and work to show people that godlessness can be a very good, happy place. All the evidence in the world cannot make up for that.

Doubt Technology Too

One thing I’ve never understood about science-haters is how selective they are. They don’t like evolution, but they love airplanes and computers and microwaves and medicine. I wonder what they would say if someone told them that new drugs are often developed with evolution in mind. They probably wouldn’t believe it.

And why can’t you trust a scientist not to lie when he says that radiological dating proves the earth is about four and a half billion years old, but you can when he says that the shape of a plane’s wing creates lift and enables it to fly? It’s the same people using the same method, so why do they trust some results and not others?

Now, I’m not saying we should believe everything every scientist says because science has been so remarkably good at giving us new toys (everything in the computer I’m writing this with and you’re reading it with was developed by some scientist). For example, String Theory is very quite probably wrong, but thousands of theoretical Physicists line up behind it, declaring it to be the Theory of Everything. It may be, but until there’s good evidence (theoretical or experimental), we should probably reserve judgment.

But doubting evolution is like doubting that planes can fly. We’ve seen it happen in nature, we’ve seen it happen in the lab, we’ve seen it happen in the fossil record, we’ve seen it happen in the genetic record, and we understand much how it happens. If you doubt evolution, you should doubt everything else science had given you, and go live in a cave somewhere. At least then you’d be wrong and consistent. Because as Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”

I’m not holding my breath.

Faith Does Need Proof

I'm currently reading Sam Harris's The End of Faith. He has a lot of good points, but one I'd like to discuss here is that all beliefs require some form of proof, or at least people desire proof for their beliefs. Most people seem to think that, in the words of Douglas Adams, “Proof denies faith.” But I think it’s fairly obvious that “faith demands proof.”

Don’t believe me? Take apologetics. If faith doesn’t need proof, then why have thousands of people throughout history felt the need to defend their faith with evidence? Why is it that when you ask the faithful for proof, they give you an answer? If faith didn’t need proof, then the answer would be “our faith is proof enough”, but that’s very rarely heard.

Then there’s the science-deniers. If faith needs no evidence, and evidence is irrelevant to faith, why spend so much energy attempting to refute scientific claims? Why spend so much time insisting that science and archaeology “prove” the Bible? They shouldn’t need to, because their faith is worth more than all the evidence in the world.

But it isn’t, and people know it. The human mind craves rationality. When we believe something, it has to have some rational basis. And when we get information that goes against our beliefs, we have to rationalize it somehow, whether we utterly dismissing it, or change our beliefs (see this article).

Which means, of course, that beliefs don’t survive unless we ground them in reality, even if that reality is distorted. Which is why we have apologetics, and why Gould’s “nonoverlapping magisteria” is totally wrong; science and religion cannot survive together as long as they both make claims about how the world is.

The simple fact is that a belief, any belief, needs some kind of rational basis; that faith needs proof. Which is why the religious fear science so much. Science is capable of finding the real truths in the universe, religion is a muddle of ignorance, fear, and bigotry that we’d be better off without. It’s only a matter of time before religion is relegated to the history books, and I hope I’ll live to see it.

Scientists Are Not Dogmatic

Anyone who read my previous post, Science is Not Dogmatic and disagreed with me will probably be interested in this article (subscription required). It’s about the fine structure constant, alpha, experiments determining it, and what they mean for science and physics. The physics is cool, but not what I want to talk about. The article contained these gems:

"It [Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the quantum field theory of electromagnetism] was just patched together out of bits and pieces, in order to explain some experiments," says Freeman Dyson, one of the theory's architects, now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. "We didn't expect it to last," he adds. "Every time there was a new experiment, we all expected that the theory would be proved wrong in some interesting way. Instead, each experiment still agrees with the theory. That's sort of a disappointment."

"There is no wiggle room if theory and experiment disagree," Kinoshita says. Some fundamental aspect of QED - quantum mechanics, say, or special relativity - might have to be modified. "If quantum electrodynamics is wrong, that would be a fantastic discovery," says Gabrielse. "The stakes are really high here."

"It has worked so remarkably well for a number of years that it has made it into all of our textbooks as if it's the gospel truth," Gabrielse says. "Most of us would be surprised if it breaks down, just because we've failed to make it break down after trying so hard." He adds, "We're in a rut, for very good reason, in using these field theories. They have been wildly successful. But it seems to me sort of part of the human experience to always ask, 'Is that the whole story? Or is there something more to it?'"

Yup, that’s dogmatic all right. Because if anything’s dogmatic, it’s wanting your supposed “cherished theories”, which are now “gospel truth” to be wrong. One of the principle architects of QED wants the theory, which he helped create to be wrong! They want to have to change it! These are not nut-jobs, out of synch with the majority of scientists. The fact is that science only really progresses when we don’t understand things, so if we knew everything about the universe scientists would be out of jobs!

One of the most important ways science progresses is by actively trying to find flaws in our theories and models. The only way a hypothesis can develop into a theory is by withstanding the unrelenting scrutiny of scientists. No incorrect hypothesis survives long under this intense pressure. As an example, disproving current theories is one of the biggest things going in particle physics right now, and the first team to find what’s wrong with the Standard Model will get a Nobel Prize, probably the same year they do it. If any of our current theories (except wholly theoretical ones like String Theory) could be proven wrong with what we have on hand, then they would have been proven wrong by now.

When a scientist says that a theory is right all that they mean is that all evidence gathered has supported it or its predictions. Everything could be wrong, but many theories have so much evidence behind them that it’s highly unlikely that they’ll need anything other than tweaking. The simple fact is that these thousands of scientists aren’t part of some grand dogmatic conspiracy, they just want to understand the way the world works; they want the truth. And currently, the scientific method is the only thing that gets us reliably to the truth. It might be a rocky, uneven, and bumbling ride, but it works. Which is far more than can be said about anything else.

No Better Than Chance

Every now and then I feel a sensation, quite like a cell phone’s vibration, on my right leg, right about where my pocket is. That’s exactly where, for the past four years, I have kept my cell phone, which is always set to vibrate.

But my cell phone isn’t always ringing when this happens. I can’t count how many times I’ve reached into my pocket, pulled out my cell phone, and no one had called.

Interesting thing is, a couple days ago I got a new phone, and started keeping in my left pocket. Today I got that feeling in my right leg, reached in for my old phone out of habit, then my new phone rang.

That got me thinking about all the other times the feeling had come before my phone ringing. Almost as if my leg someone “knew” I was getting the call.

But as I said before, there were far more times where it happened and there was no call. Sometimes the feeling “got lucky” and got a hit, most of the time it didn’t. If I had kept rigorous, detailed notes of the phenomena, it would have faired no better than chance.

It reminded me of all the anecdotes I’ve heard, where someone has a dream foretelling some terrible event, or a case the doctors had given up on gets better after some vigorous praying on his behalf. The thing that you never hear is all of the failed prophecies, all of the people who are prayed for and died. And how, if they had kept rigorous, detailed notes of these phenomena, that they would find it was no more than chance.

Science is not Dogmatic

Note: A follow-up to this post appears here.

Creationists and other science-haters often claim that scientists are dogmatic. Frequently they’ll say something about “dogmatic Darwinists” keeping “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” down, but just as often the accusation will be directed toward science and scientists in general.

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: anyone who claims that science is dogmatic is completely and totally ignorant.

First, what does dogma mean? Most definitions specifically state it’s a religious belief, but the ones that don’t say something to the effect of, “a belief that is held to be unquestionably true”, and they often throw in some language about lack of evidence for the belief.

Now, what is science? This definition is among the best I’ve ever seen: “Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.” Throw in a reference to methodological naturalism and it’s perfect.

Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, nondogmatic. Right off the bat the claims of dogmatism are false.

One of the central tenets of science is that nothing is ever truly proven. Every scientific theory can be overthrown if evidence is provided to invalidate it. Examples of this happening are too numerous to count, the classic one is Einstein’s General Relativity overthrowing Newton’s Law of Gravitation, but there are plenty more.

Science is based only on evidence and logical interpretation of that evidence. Hypotheses are posited, tested, make predictions, those are tested, and if the hypothesis passes the scrutiny of the scientific community, it will be accepted. At least until some new evidence challenges it, when the process begins again. It is not dogma.

Many scientists frequently point out that if someone came up with evidence that challenged an existing theory (such as Evolution or the Standard Model) and came up with a suitable theory to explain it, they’d be a hero. They’d be showered in awards and praise, and go down as one of The Greats. That’s exactly what Einstein and Darwin did, and they’re remembered as two of the greatest in their fields. How can science be called dogmatic when its greatest rewards are given to people who challenge the accepted theories?

The same claims of dogmatism are often applied to atheism as well. They are, at least for me, equally untrue. Atheism is (for most people) about the lack of evidence for any kind of deity. If someone showed me irrefutable proof that god (any god) actually exists, then I’d “believe” in it, the same way I “believe” in science. However, my confidence that this won’t happen is such that I feel perfectly secure claiming that god (any god) does not exist. Many people find this contradictory, saying that agnosticism is the only logical stance on the issue. To that I can only reply with a Richard Dawkins quote, “I’m agnostic about God the same way I’m agnostic about fairies.” God or gods should be held to the same standards as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and every other statement about the world: namely, show me the evidence, and I’ll believe it.

Neither science nor atheism is dogmatic, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong, and most likely don’t truly understand science or atheism. Which is too bad, because knowledge is infinitely more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, no matter how comforting it may be.

Stories

Myths are funny things. They’re just stories. The culture they came from might think they’re true, but they’re still just stories. Everyone has their stories. One of the things that makes humans human is telling and retelling stories.

Take, for instance, flood stories. Pretty much every culture has one, as that link shows. Some people take this as evidence of some kind of global flood. The much more likely conclusion is that people nearly always live near a water source, water sources frequently flood (especially given a period of hundreds of years), then these floods get turned into stories and exaggerated. Some very dedicated apologetics try to find “evidence” for a “great flood”, and maybe there was one. Maybe the Red Sea was a canyon separated from the Mediterranean until a big earthquake, maybe not. It doesn’t matter, because the myths are still fictionalized stories.

Reading Mythology literally is like reading Stephen King or Douglas Adams or Homer literally. It never occurs to anyone that mythology is fiction; it’s fiction, whether you want it to be or not. Besides, no one believes that Athena was birthed from Zeus’s skull, so why an equally ridiculous virgin birth (or any other myth)?

I suppose people just need to believe in bigger things, whether it’s God or Jesus or Atlantis or Zenu. Personally, I find the universe to be plenty big and inspiring, and it doesn’t need any help from our stories. Maybe one day the rest of the world will see that. Unfortunately, I think they’ll keep their preposterous myths.

Lost Faith in the Aftermath of Tragedy

A little while ago I wrote about blind faith in the aftermath of tragedy, people who think God “saved” them despite the fact that they’ve been through an unnecessary disaster, and many other people died. I feel that it is the height of human stupidity and arrogance. Although I guess if you’re already religious you have to rationalize what you’ve been through somehow, because we can’t possibly live in a random, meaningless world. I suppose it’s understandable if it gives them some comfort, although I say that reluctantly.

But I was shocked a little by this story. An airplane accidentally took off from a runway that was too short, and only one person survived, albeit with horrific injuries. The man’s first words after coming off of a ventilator were, “Why would God do this to me?”

Well, it’s just as arrogant as “God saved me!” But faith is all about giving yourself a big place in the world when you don’t have one. But it shocked me a little because he’s so close, so close to the truth. I wonder if it will actually dawn on him that there is no God, that there’s nothing in control, no rhyme, no reason, no big place in the world for a small human.

I hope he recovers from this terrible accident, and I hope he sees the light, so to speak.

Inherent Intolerance

A recent conversation with a friend got me thinking about how many Americans seem to believe that Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant religion. And it is. However, those same people usually resist comparisons to Christian violence and intolerance. But is Islam any worse than Christianity? To find out, I went digging for some quotes from their holy books. The answer might surprise you.

Below are seven quotes, four from the KJV Bible, and three from the Koran. Try to guess which are which.

1. “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.”

2. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”

3. “And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

4. “Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them.”

5. “O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.”

6. “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

7. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”


The answer are below the fold. No peaking!


1. Koran 2:191

2. 2 Corinthians 6:14

3. Acts 3:23

4. Koran 2:99

5. Koran 3:118

6. Luke 19:27

7. John 3:36


This is just a small sample from each religion, and they took me a few minutes to collect. A comprehensive list would be pages long. And it exists, at the Skeptics Annotated Bible, the links above.

It should be clear from these that both of them are inherently violent and intolerant, at least based on their books. They both have a history of violence, and both are currently violent. Perhaps Islam is more vocal about it, or maybe we just hear about radical Islam more often (remember, there’s still sectarian violence in Ireland). Either way there are still plenty of fanatic Christians who use their faith to legitimize their hatred, and that fact is undeniable. Just ask Matthew Shepard. So next time someone criticizes Islam in general, or says that the moderates should reject the radicals, remind them that Christianity, and every other religion, should do the same.

Blind Faith in the Aftermath of Tragedy

Why is it that when something like this happens, people never blame god for the terrible event but praise him for their survival? I don’t understand it. How can they possibly do it?

It’s even worse when it’s not a personal tragedy. How many people said that god had spared their lives after Katrina? Yup, god loves you so much that he destroyed your entire city, and killed thousands of your neighbors, but left you alive. Not only is it idiotic because if god loved you at all he wouldn’t make you suffer, but it’s so egocentric and arrogant. How can these people thank god for saving themselves but not the other people? They’re saying that they’re better, that god loves them more. Apparently he loves them just enough to not kill them. Yeah, that’s love.

I guess that the minds of the religious are in such a state of denial about the world that something so blatantly idiotic such as this passes as logical. Or maybe it doesn’t matter. I don’t know, and I probably never will.