What to Give Up for Lent

The season of Lent begins tomorrow, and even if you're not a Catholic I challenge you to give up one (or all) of the following for the next forty days (or for as long as you live).

1. Superstitious thinking - Maybe you're the sort of person that thinks walking under ladders or breaking mirrors is "bad", or maybe you own a lucky sock, penny, shirt, or animal foot. Perhaps you're afraid of certain numbers, or think something will happen on a given day just because of the numbers in the date. Maybe you think crackers can become human flesh, or that talking to yourself can help you find your car keys or cure your cold. For the next few days, attempt to willfully break yourself of whatever mental habit you have that can be labeled superstitious. Put away belief in magic and learn about the laws of nature.
   
   
2. Credulity - If you're the kind of person who accepts things you're told without checking into the details, try for the next month to instead check into what you hear. Think about something you feel you know and actively check it out. For many faith is a virtue, but for these next few days, let it be a defect. Instead seek to back up claims you hear or ideas you come up with. The key point here is that you learn the what a reputable source is. The best sources are backed up by evidence. Gullibility won't get you as far as you think in this world.
   
   
3. Apathy (especially towards the "god question") - If you'd rather not ponder on the existence of a Supreme Being, over the coming days I urge you to do so. A lot of people are apatheists; they don't care or just don't ever think about their position on theism. For this season of Lent, take some time and gather your thoughts on this matter. It's important to understand what you think about theology, because if there is no such thing that could be called "God", millions of people are wasting their lives (and hurting the lives of others). But if there is a god, it's the most important thing for us all. If you've already made up your mind on the matter, again toss aside apathy and speak out about it. If you haven't approached the question before, take the next few days and just think about how you feel. Do you really believe in God?
   

-STA

But How Do You Know?

Day after day, I talk with people who think they understand specific concepts based on the natural way in which the language surrounding those concepts is used. The biggest example of this is the laymen use of "theory". Being one who accepts evolution, I'm often confronted by evangelicals who claim that evolution is "just a theory". Their use of this phrase demonstrates their lack of understanding in what makes a "theory" (and their general misunderstanding of science on the whole).

I think that the majority of problems people have regarding religion, matters of faith, and scientific understanding is a matter of language. It is in the realm of colloquial, idiomatic speech that the confused person is trapped. Some people just don’t know how we know things.


How Do You Know?
There are ways we humans have of understanding fact from fiction. We realize that we can create practically anything in our imaginations, and we know that our senses can be fooled. So we need a way to distinguish reality from pretend. We have these reliable methods (we know they're reliable because we can show them to be so).

Logical reasoning is the primary foundation upon which we build our understanding of reality. We can prove the rules of logic are true, and we therefore make them rules.

Science makes use of logical reasoning, in conjunction with:

• independent verification, to avoid group-think
• repeated testing, for consistency
• falsification, to demonstrate that a hypothesis is reliable and is not producing an incidental result
• and, most importantly, peer review, because we are all fallible. Your work is reviewed by other experts to make sure that your test methodologies are correct, that you properly falsified your hypothesis, and that your tests and results are replicable.

Using these steps, a hypothesis, or guess about something, graduates to the highest level of attainability in science: a theory. When something is called a theory in scientific terms, it means that the idea has been gone through the rigors of the scientific method and shows to be reliable and useful, accurate predictions can be made using the theory. The theories of gravity, sexual reproduction, psychology, music, microbiology, and gene manipulation are among several proven scientific theories.
The problem is that the average person uses the word "theory" to mean a guess or a hunch. While I fail at times, (or I'm forced by language, i.e. "conspiracy theory",) I've resolved to use the term "theory" in scientific terms only, and when I mean "guess", I'll say "guess", or "hypothesis". But the average person will use the term loosely, and those who don’t understand the difference in terminology will get confused when they hear something like “the theory of evolution”.


What Do You Know?
Another general mistake is in the use of the term, "agnostic". When I ask someone whether they believe in god or not, some will say "I'm agnostic". Those who understand the term will realize that the answer given doesn't fit the question; it answers something else entirely. I've demonstrated the differences several times, so I won't go into it further.

The main focus here is that many people get tripped up in what it means to know something, and knowledge--or lack thereof--informs belief. The two aren't the same, but they are tied together.

So, what does it mean to know something? Or, more to the point, how can you truly be an Agnostic?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "knowledge". I’ve show above how we can know reality. If it can be demonstrated that, for example, a thing exists or occurs, and that this can be demonstrated to an incredibly high degree of predictability, then we can comfortably say we “know” it.

When it comes to believing in that thing, you still have options even if the thing can be known or not. Theism and Atheism address what you believe, Gnosticism and Agnosticism address what you know, or claim to know. If you want to define knowledge as "absolute certainty", then I’m an Agnostic Atheist; I don’t know that a god does not exist to an absolute certainty.

I don’t like "absolute certainty"; I think it’s a red herring. We can’t know anything to an absolute certainty. But if you want to define knowledge in practical terms--the way we use it in everyday language where we talk about something to some degree of certainty--if it’s okay to say "I know there’s no such thing as leprechauns", if that qualifies as "knowledge", then an I’m a Gnostic Atheist. In the same sense that I know there’s no leprechauns, I know there’s no god.


Belief vs. Knowledge, Redux
So why all this talk over belief? I mean, isn't what someone believes their own business?

Yes it is. I don't care what anyone believes, though I'd rather they base their beliefs on demonstrable reality. As I said above, knowledge informs belief. But your actions are affected by your beliefs, and that’s what matters. You can belief whatever you want until you start to infringe on others' beliefs/health/etc. That’s the point where your beliefs won’t be tolerated.

I think it’s beneficial to a society if its beliefs and subsequent actions have a basis in what can be shown to be true, and I hope that Earth’s population reaches this level ASAP.



-STA

Monkeys From Nothing

"So lemme get this straight. You’re saying that there was just a big explosion in space that came from nothing, and then we crawled out of the goop and turned into monkeys? That’s how we got here? That’s absurd!"

Disclaimer
It’s extremely disheartening to think that in the 21^st century, where man has accomplished amazing things, kids are not being adequately equipped in the public school system to understand even the fundamentals of cosmology, biology, or history. While the above hypothetical query is a vague generalization of ignorance and a strawman argument, it doesn’t stray too far from what some religious people believe. Therefore, I will attack it for what it is, and take from it what you will.
 

Okay, that’s about as straight as a corkscrew. I agree that what you said is absurd. No, I am not claiming (nor is anyone else, as far as I can tell) that we “came from nothing” or “turned into monkeys”.

What you’re really asking involves three different sciences: cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution.

You Are What You Eat
First of all, we know evolution happened. It’s a provable fact that we can observe today (by studying microorganisms), and there’s a mountain of fossil evidence for common ancestry. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project that was completed in 2003 (and an evangelical Christian), said that even if there were no fossils, the DNA evidence *alone* is enough to confirm common decent.

So, we can trace the lineage of every living thing back to some sort of beginning (yes, you and a carrot are very, very, very, very, very, distant cousins). We know that life is here, and we know that it’s changed. Now the question becomes, where did life come from? That’s handled by abiogenesis. There are a number of scientific theories about how life could have evolved from nothing, and some of them have actually demonstrated the possibility of life from non-life. The Miller/Urey Experiment simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and showed that, given billions of years, organic life can grow out of inorganic material. There are a number of other theories about how life could have came from maybe another planet or at the bottom of the ocean…the point is, we don’t yet know exactly where or how, but we do know that it is scientifically possible for this to occur.

Now we have to go even farther back. We can trace back the history of the universe—using cosmology—to the formation of planets, galaxies, stars, etc. and eventually to the Big Bang, which isn’t a “something-from-nothing” proposition. We don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, we don’t know the state of the universe at the time before time. The laws of thermodynamics state that matter and energy are interchangeable, and that it cannot be created or destroyed.

I Don't Know
You may notice that I’m saying “we don’t know” a lot. That’s actually the wonderful thing about science: you don’t know, so you try to figure it out. You look for an answer. This is also where theistic belief asserts an answer and labels it “God”. Saying “God did it” is just an attempt to solve a mystery with another even greater mystery. It tells you nothing about how or why, and more importantly, it forces you to stop searching for a real answer. Asking “who cause the Big Bang” is a fallacious question, because it assumes a) that there had to be a “who”, and b) that it was “caused” by something, meaning it wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
 

To argue against the popular alternative to all this provable, demonstrable, evidence is the theist, who simply states that he, too, doesn’t know how or why, but that “God did it” in his “mysterious ways”.

Reason To Believe
As I’ve shown, we have a plethora of evidence and reason to believe that everything occurred naturally. This is a big question, and I’d advise everyone to read and learn more about what we *really* known and what we’re trying to figure out. But there’s no significant justification or evidence that there was any kind of intelligent, transcendent “force” that caused life, the universe, and everything. Because of this lack of knowledge, I'm agnostic. Because of this lack of evidence, I will not believe.

Will you?

Visit talkorigins.org for more information.

-STA

Atheism 101: Knowledge and Belief

What is Belief?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan

Belief is, simply put, what the mind accepts as truth. If I said to you, "I had cereal for breakfast today", you'd probably be inclined to believe me. That statement wouldn't be hard to accept as true.

However, if I were to say, "My cereal arranged itself so that it spelled out my full name!", then you'd have some trouble taking that as truth. At least, you should. I'd have to produce some extraordinary evidence to support my extraordinary claim.

It is for this reason that most atheists tend not to believe in supernatural claims of any kind.


Agnosticism - The Default Position
Not taking extraordinary claims without sufficient, serious evidence is the natural, default approach. Despite its many flaws, the court system we have established here in America operates on this very same premise: innocent until proven guilty. Why? Because it has shown itself to be the best approach.

Anyone can make claims about anything, but making the claim alone doesn't make it true. If I told you that I have an invisible pink unicorn at my house, would you believe me? Shouldn't I have to produce some sort of reason for why I could say such things?

Of course, you can't *see* the unicorn -- she's invisible. In fact, you can't touch her, smell her, taste, feel, or conduct any sort of measurement in order to detect her. But she's there! And no, I can't see her. I can't tell you how I know she's there, but I KNOW SHE'S THERE.

Again, there's no reason for any rational mind to place any confidence in the validity of this. The positive claim that something has happened begs for positive evidence. Maybe it really IS true, but we've got to back that up somehow. Until we have a reason, we take the default approach and choose not to believe.

But this very concept causes rifts in many people's minds, though it shouldn't. Atheism is the default position for every child born. They have to be taught of a God. Yes, I said it. Every child is born an atheist. If this statement strikes you the wrong way, then congratulations, you have been the victim of a campaign of misinformation and deliberate attempts to mislead and corrupt the term. You can blame religious leaders for this brainwashing. Hopefully throughout this blog, I will be able to help you separate the term 'atheist' from moral values and help you understand the true meaning of the term. "Atheist" does not equal "evil".

Atheism 101: Am I an Atheist or Agnostic?

Oh My God! An Atheist?!?!
Recent polls have shown that the stigma of atheism has all but disappeared. It doesn't surprise me though, because the majority of Americans say they believe in God. And their preachers, pastors, fathers, and priests have no-doubt told them what they think an atheist is:

• someone who hates God (or rejects God so they can be free to live in sin)
• they hate America / they're Communists
• they're bigots
• they have no morals
• they serve Satan
• they worship (and/or have faith in) science
• they don't believe in anything
  
• they eat babies

Every one of those accusations is false. Atheists are probably the most feared and misunderstood minority today. These common misconceptions are laughable when one understands the truth about atheism. If you thought an atheist was one of the above, I want to to read this next line very slowly, then stop and let it sink in:

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god.

That's it. It is not a religion, dogma, creed, political outlook, lifestyle, belief, belief system, or moral code. It's merely a lack of theistic belief. It doesn't tell you anything else about the person, or why they don't believe in god; it only tells you that they don't believe in god. It's a single answer to a single question.

After that, anything goes. You can find atheists who have varying opinions on all kinds of things. There are atheists who support the political left, some who support the right. There are atheists who believe in evolution, and some who don't. Some believe in abortion, and some don't.

Some Buddhists can be considered atheistic, as they don't have a belief in a god (though there are a lot of atheists who wouldn't tend to agree with the rest of the supernatural claims). The Raelians believe that we were created by a race of intelligent alien beings. No god belief=Atheist. A 'theist' is someone who has a belief in a god. The prefix 'a' means 'without', so an 'atheist' literally means 'non-theist' or 'without a belief in god'.

Most people know what it's like to be an atheist with respect to Thor or Zeus. Some just go one god further. The same reason a Catholic doesn't believe in Allah is the same reason an atheist doesn't believe in the Catholic god.


But, You're Not Sure, Are You?
Even if the average person doesn't think that an atheist barbecues babies, they may still have heard (and believed) the following 'escape clause':

"If you think there's no God, you're an Atheist. If you're just not sure, you're an Agnostic."

Again, this common misconception is untrue. In reality:

Gnosticism and Agnosticism address what you know (or claim to know).
Theism and Atheism address what you believe.

The two aren't mutually exclusive; it is possible to be a(n):

• Gnostic Theist - Someone who claims to know and believe that god exists
• Agnostic Theist - Someone who doesn't know for sure that a god exists, but believes anyway
• Gnostic Atheist - Someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
• Agnostic Atheist - Someone who doesn't claim to know that no gods exist, but chooses not to blindly believe
  

The reason that agnosticism is not a "third option" in the question, is that agnosticism addresses a different aspect of the question. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of something. It deals with the basis for belief; it is not itself, belief. Agnostic atheism holds that knowledge of the divine is impossible (or currently unobtainable) and thus belief in God is unjustified and illogical. It is often used to soften the blow of such a "harsh-sounding word" as atheist.

Atheists are not making a positive claim. They're not saying "There is no god." (An atheist might say that, but that's not what 'atheism' means. You're free to believe what you want.) Most atheists might say that they are as sure that there is no god as they are that there are no fairies or leprechauns.

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I do not have hard proof of the non-existence of a god or gods, and I am not 100% absolutely sure there can be nor is such a being. But I do not believe in the proposal because the evidence provided that suggests said being has proved to be lacking in substance, structure, and credibility.

So there you have it. Atheists have no charter or doctrine. They are just people who have ONE thing in common: they don't hold a belief in a god or gods. They are everywhere. They are you doctors, your teachers, your computer techs, your airline pilots...your small-town neighbors.

(see more: youtube.com/smalltownatheist)

-STA