Coming off the heals of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham creation debate and subsequent discussions has got me thinking about the way in which believers in god find ways to hold onto their cherished, comforting beliefs.
Whether it's through a debate on Creationism, a forum discussion on Big Bang cosmology, or a blog post about science in general, theists often bring up the gaps in our current understanding as a form of proof (or at least, excuse) for justified belief in their particular deity. I've said several times in several places that once the theists arguments are refuted, they hold onto one of three things or a combination thereof as unshakable reasons for them to keep believing: faith, personal experience, and the gaps in our understanding. I've talked about the first two many times on this blog, but the point I wanted to make in this post is on the latter excuse.
Stop-Gap
This argument (which I've also discussed here and elsewhere) is the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. All throughout history, when human beings didn't understand something, they thought strange things about it. This is one of the major reasons for theism, and it still remains even when some bit of knowledge is gained -- the believer just moves the goalposts back. "You haven't dismissed God, you've only explained how he did it!" The problem with this childish game should be apparent to any rational person.
If you have an idea that keeps getting shifted to the beginning of some causal chain in our understanding, you should realize how intellectually dishonest this practice is. The honest thing to do is to discard that idea until there's a reason to add it to the chain in the first place.
Faith to many people is a form of security blanket. It's comforting to think that you're on the right side of truth, to know that your life has been designed specially for you, and that there is reason and purpose to everything. But simply feeling good about something doesn't make it true. I realized several years ago that I cared about what I believed, and wanted to believe as many true things and as few false things as I could. I wanted to know the real answer to things; a placation isn't going to cut it.
Semper Fi
But for a lot of people, they hold fast to their belief even in the face of contrary evidence. It isn't always due to the security-blanket effect either...religion itself promotes and encourages it. Many churches preach the shunning of critical thought and doubt, telling believers to "lean not on your own understanding." The believer didn't start at an intellectually honest point and they continue to fill the blanks in our knowledge with "God did!".
I was daydreaming about some utopian future today in which we get to the "final level" of understanding. There was no more gaps in our knowledge; we knew what happened "in the beginning" and could explain everything up to that point. But it still wasn't good enough for the theist. They would continue to claim that God is still "just beyond" that level of understanding. This was a thought experiment while driving around town today, but the methodology is. I think, a valid example of how many theists operate.
And even if this where a valid way to evaluate the world, it's still a form of special pleading to somehow fill the gap with your god.
-STA
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Pickin' Cherries
Do you like Red Lobster? What about homosexuals?
Most bible-believing Christians don't realize that the same chapter that condemns homosexuality also prohibits eating shellfish. The point being that many Christians (as well as believers of other religions) pick and choose what they believe. They'll say "well, that was the Old Testament" whenever atrocities such as genocide, rape, incest, slavery, or murder are brought up. Yet, they'll cite things such as the Ten Commandments or the condemnation of homosexuals without care that they're referencing the very same Old Testament.
I've been thinking a lot about this buffet-style approach to faith recently, and I'm sorta on the fence. One the one hand -- and this is probably due to an afterglow of my once held faith -- but I generally tend to look down on wishy-washy believers. (Here's an old semi-tongue-in-cheek post on moderates.) They can't commit to the whole meal that they ordered with their chosen faith. It's like saying you're a KKK member only because they have great barbecue parties, and ignoring "all that bad stuff" they do. They can't stomach the evil or idiotic doctrines in their faith, so they pretend like they're not there.
To me, you should be aware of the where and the why for the things you believe about your god. Those who claim to be "not religious but spiritual" come to mind here. It's strange to think that someone can have all these words, phrases, and ideas without realizing where those things originated, regardless of how much the believer alters them on their own. In a way, it's just rebooting and rebranding a story, and I guess that tends to irk me (thanks, Hollywood).
On the other hand, I see it as the only possible way a sane human being can live in this day and age and still believe in the nonsense of religion. As Matt Dillahunty frequently points out, science has dragged religion kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. Just look at Galileo, the man that proved the earth rotated around the sun and was not, as the Church vehemently claimed, at the center of the universe. Now, in the modern world where things like the germ theory of disease and the heliocentric theory are practically common knowledge, you see religious people trying to claim that they had it right all along, and that those other people weren't True Believers™. Religious people in the modern civilized world are bearing such a huge cognitive dissonance that they almost always have to cherry-pick parts of their faith's cannon in order to function. Imagine a religious doctrine that goes something along the lines of "Water can't freeze. Everything in this book is the word of the creator of the universe, and is 100% correct." Now think of the mental hoops that someone living today would have to jump through in order to adhere to that belief and still be an otherwise rational, sane person. When you know for a fact that certain claims made by religions can be proven wrong to a monumentally high degree of certainty, but you believe with all your heart that the evidence is contradicted by what you think is the direct word of God, there are only so many ways the situation can resolve itself.
For many, realizing those claims are a mix of fairy tales, folklore, misunderstandings, allegories, and attempts by ignorant people to explain nature is enough to drop the "100% Truth" label altogether. For others, their interpretation concludes with some of it being allegory and some being truth, and the current unknowns get to remain "true" until science show them to be otherwise, then they get become "allegory-all-along" in the believers mind without skipping a beat. The moment science advances and shuts a gap that God had previously filled, the believer must either accept reality or ignore it. Often enough, once ignoring it becomes impossible, they claim their religion had it right all along.
So yeah, I find myself coming down on both sides: you should be a fundamentalist if you're going to believe in a thing. Don't half-ass it; try to understand everything it encompasses and do everything that entails. On the other hand, it's a good thing to be a moderate believer. You're showing that you're not a complete nut-ball, and that you understand how reality can be determined.
-STA
Most bible-believing Christians don't realize that the same chapter that condemns homosexuality also prohibits eating shellfish. The point being that many Christians (as well as believers of other religions) pick and choose what they believe. They'll say "well, that was the Old Testament" whenever atrocities such as genocide, rape, incest, slavery, or murder are brought up. Yet, they'll cite things such as the Ten Commandments or the condemnation of homosexuals without care that they're referencing the very same Old Testament.
I've been thinking a lot about this buffet-style approach to faith recently, and I'm sorta on the fence. One the one hand -- and this is probably due to an afterglow of my once held faith -- but I generally tend to look down on wishy-washy believers. (Here's an old semi-tongue-in-cheek post on moderates.) They can't commit to the whole meal that they ordered with their chosen faith. It's like saying you're a KKK member only because they have great barbecue parties, and ignoring "all that bad stuff" they do. They can't stomach the evil or idiotic doctrines in their faith, so they pretend like they're not there.
To me, you should be aware of the where and the why for the things you believe about your god. Those who claim to be "not religious but spiritual" come to mind here. It's strange to think that someone can have all these words, phrases, and ideas without realizing where those things originated, regardless of how much the believer alters them on their own. In a way, it's just rebooting and rebranding a story, and I guess that tends to irk me (thanks, Hollywood).
On the other hand, I see it as the only possible way a sane human being can live in this day and age and still believe in the nonsense of religion. As Matt Dillahunty frequently points out, science has dragged religion kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. Just look at Galileo, the man that proved the earth rotated around the sun and was not, as the Church vehemently claimed, at the center of the universe. Now, in the modern world where things like the germ theory of disease and the heliocentric theory are practically common knowledge, you see religious people trying to claim that they had it right all along, and that those other people weren't True Believers™. Religious people in the modern civilized world are bearing such a huge cognitive dissonance that they almost always have to cherry-pick parts of their faith's cannon in order to function. Imagine a religious doctrine that goes something along the lines of "Water can't freeze. Everything in this book is the word of the creator of the universe, and is 100% correct." Now think of the mental hoops that someone living today would have to jump through in order to adhere to that belief and still be an otherwise rational, sane person. When you know for a fact that certain claims made by religions can be proven wrong to a monumentally high degree of certainty, but you believe with all your heart that the evidence is contradicted by what you think is the direct word of God, there are only so many ways the situation can resolve itself.
For many, realizing those claims are a mix of fairy tales, folklore, misunderstandings, allegories, and attempts by ignorant people to explain nature is enough to drop the "100% Truth" label altogether. For others, their interpretation concludes with some of it being allegory and some being truth, and the current unknowns get to remain "true" until science show them to be otherwise, then they get become "allegory-all-along" in the believers mind without skipping a beat. The moment science advances and shuts a gap that God had previously filled, the believer must either accept reality or ignore it. Often enough, once ignoring it becomes impossible, they claim their religion had it right all along.
So yeah, I find myself coming down on both sides: you should be a fundamentalist if you're going to believe in a thing. Don't half-ass it; try to understand everything it encompasses and do everything that entails. On the other hand, it's a good thing to be a moderate believer. You're showing that you're not a complete nut-ball, and that you understand how reality can be determined.
-STA
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
It's The Cheesiest!
Do you watch Glee? I do...religiously. (What I did there, did you see it?) While I would consider myself a Gleek, I realize that the show doesn't appeal to everyone. The cheesiness over-the-top caricatures are too much for a lot of you. So if I'm going to talk to you about Glee, I'll need to be sensitive to those who are not fans.
But why am I talking about Glee?
Well, last night's episode dealt with religion, a topic that many successful television shows either fail to tackle or handle so incredibly poorly that you're left screaming at the TV. The Glee episode in question had potential that wasn't entirely fulfilled and at the same time wasn't entirely horrendous. Since the show's staples are an often grating mix of satire and blunt honesty, I was prepared and able to decipher the parodied character types and stereotypical situations to get to the messages in the episode. And those messages weren't all that bad.
NOTE: There will be spoilers, so if you're a fan who hasn't seen the episode yet, you might wanna skip this post. Try this one instead. Also, I realize this is a long post but hey, I've barely written in a while. Be happy!
I knew that the episode had potential when I read its title: "Grilled Cheezus". Finn Hudson, co-captain of the high school glee club, makes himself a grilled cheese sandwich upon which he thinks he sees the face of Jesus. After eating half of it (he was hungry, after all), he makes three wishes to the remaining Cheezus. I told you the show is over-the-top with the zaniness. When these wishes start coming true, Finn professes his belief in Christianity and asks that he give praise to God through the glee club song selections.
Meanwhile the show's openly gay character, Kurt Hummel, is devastated when his father suffers a heart attack. Most of his friends in the glee club are of some faith, so they immediately set upon him during this trying time, urging him to seek comfort in God. It is at this point we learn that Kurt is also an atheist (by some definitions, a "strong atheist" -- he says he knows there is no God).
Let me step back and address some of what's already running through my mind at this point.
Holy shit! Not only one but TWO nonbelievers on a popular show?! WOW.
Yeah, let's not get too happy just yet. Let's see how they handle themselves first.
We atheists don't believe for different reasons. While many, like myself, are nonbelievers for intellectual reasons, some don't believe out of being misinformed, misanthropic, or having had something terrible happen in their past. Sue seems to be the latter kind. Her sister has Down syndrome and Sue's personal way of handling the problem of evil is to, in effect, "blame God" for letting her sister contract (or inflecting her with) her condition. Like I said, we're atheists for different reasons, and while I think the problem of evil is truly a valid philosophical issue that is irreconcilable with a loving god, Sue's rejection of belief isn't couched in philosophy. She can't explain the reasoning behind why such a problem is indeed a problem that points to evidence against a traditional idea of God. Instead, she's angry with the idea that such a god would even do such a thing, and as a child her prayers for her sister went unanswered, therefore there must not be a God. Sue doesn't want to be a nonbeliever. Her sister tells her "God doesn't make mistakes" and offers to pray for Sue, to which she happily agrees. She wants to have this same peace that her sister has.
So while I'm not going to go into a no-true-Scotsman rant about how Sue isn't a true atheist, I will state that this portrayal of atheism in entertainment media is as old as time. No wonder we nonbelievers are bombarded by religious people asking questions like "so what happened in your past that made you so mad at God?" or "who hurt you?" or "why do you feel like God let you down?" Makes me wanna scream.
But back to the recap. So Kurt's dad is in the hospital, comatose. Kurt has been pelted with pleas to find strength in faith, as the other kids sing gospel and spiritually-laden songs. Kurt pushes his friends away, asking them to keep their views to themselves. Coach Sylvester urges Kurt to make a formal complaint to the school, citing church-state-separation issues.
Here's where the show makes a gross error in judgment. Either due to Sue's own personal take on First Amendment rights or by ignorance on the part of the show's writing team, Sue claims it's a violation for the children to sing about Jesus in public school. This is not the case. While they do have a problem if a student complains, there is no law against such a practice. It would only be against the law if it were teacher-lead, and we see the glee club teacher, Mr. Shue, realize this and try to tone down the religion-specific songs to just "spiritual" songs. (If you'll recall my previous post, 67% surveyed said that teachers are not permitted to read from the bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows. A lot of right-wing conservatives I've talked with falsely claim that kids can't even pray in school. I'm wondering if Sue's tactics are based in this line of thinking.)
Throughout this episode, the views of both sides are expressed through characters' actions and dialog. There are characters who express new-age beliefs like "God is all religions" and "God exists, just not in any man-made religion". Here are some other examples:
So far the show has been building up to a familiar pattern and I was fearing the worst. [sarcasm on] Here we have a kid going through one of the worst times of his young life, and his friends are only trying to comfort him with their religious beliefs. But he harshly refuses them (soooo close-minded), pushing his friends away every time they bring it up. He obviously doesn't believe in anything, and we all know that if you don't have God then your life is an empty, hurtful void of meaninglessness. If only he'd just give prayer a chance! [sarcasm off]
Then comes the scene where the atheist goes to church. From the pulpit, Mercades tells him, "I know you don't believe in God or the power of prayer and that's okay, to each his own. But you've gotta believe in something...something more than you can touch, taste, or see, 'cause life is to hard to go through it alone without something to hold on to, without something sacred." She and the choir then sing as Kurt ponders her words. Oh no, I'm thinking, here we go...the immenient conversion.
At the show's conclusion, Kurt is sitting at his father's bedside, holding his hand and crying. He tells his comatose father that he should have let his friends pray for him the other day. Any minute now, he's gonna start praying. But he doesn't.
I told you the conclusion was surprising.
If I'd been paying closer attention I could've caught it sooner. The clues in the dialog...the writer's tricks laid bare for all to see, but I was too caught up in this valid attempt at a network show to seriously address religion. You see, just before his heart attack, Kurt's dad was scolding him for planning to miss out on family dinner night, something he said was "sacred". That word was the key, and it was planted in the first few minutes of the episode. Kurt does believe in something sacred: love. The love for his father, who accepted his homosexuality, and who was there for him when his mother died. Kurt tells his father, "I don't believe in God, dad. But I believe in you; I believe in us."
I couldn't have been more happy in that moment. And I'm really not too let down with the show as a whole. Like I said, I don't like how some of the arguments were handled, but I think that both sides were equally portrayed. Nobody's ideology "won", and for every argument there was a counter argument. Kurt says he should have let his friends pray for his dad; that it wasn't about himself, but about his father, and it was a nice gesture. I feel the same. When most believers say they'll pray for someone, they're not trying to be snide or arrogant, they're doing it from a place of love. It's a nice gesture, but please, do it on your own time -- don't force it on us. And that's what I think Kurt meant at the beginning of the show, when he told them he didn't want their prayers. If they would have prayed in their own church services or on their own time, it would have been fine.
A lot of ideas got at least partial treatment, and for that I'm thankful. No one converted or deconverted (except maybe Finn, but his "faith" was more of a parody to spring-board into the topic). Of course I personally think that the believer's best arguments could have been easily crushed if the atheist characters actually put forth their own, but obviously that's not the show's goal (think of the number of viewer's they loose...and the hate-mail!). I'm happy they at least got some of our arguments out to the general public, and that they didn't rely on the usual, misinformed portrayal of atheists. I'm happy that it showed that atheists don't all "believe in nothing" but that we seek out the love of our friends and family in times of trouble. And that's something we can all do, whether or not there is a god.
Since this is a show about music, I'll leave you with the apt words of Rush (from their song, Faithless):
I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
you can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
that's faith enough for me
-STA
But why am I talking about Glee?
Well, last night's episode dealt with religion, a topic that many successful television shows either fail to tackle or handle so incredibly poorly that you're left screaming at the TV. The Glee episode in question had potential that wasn't entirely fulfilled and at the same time wasn't entirely horrendous. Since the show's staples are an often grating mix of satire and blunt honesty, I was prepared and able to decipher the parodied character types and stereotypical situations to get to the messages in the episode. And those messages weren't all that bad.
NOTE: There will be spoilers, so if you're a fan who hasn't seen the episode yet, you might wanna skip this post. Try this one instead. Also, I realize this is a long post but hey, I've barely written in a while. Be happy!
I knew that the episode had potential when I read its title: "Grilled Cheezus". Finn Hudson, co-captain of the high school glee club, makes himself a grilled cheese sandwich upon which he thinks he sees the face of Jesus. After eating half of it (he was hungry, after all), he makes three wishes to the remaining Cheezus. I told you the show is over-the-top with the zaniness. When these wishes start coming true, Finn professes his belief in Christianity and asks that he give praise to God through the glee club song selections.
Meanwhile the show's openly gay character, Kurt Hummel, is devastated when his father suffers a heart attack. Most of his friends in the glee club are of some faith, so they immediately set upon him during this trying time, urging him to seek comfort in God. It is at this point we learn that Kurt is also an atheist (by some definitions, a "strong atheist" -- he says he knows there is no God).
Let me step back and address some of what's already running through my mind at this point.
- The satirical situation of Finn finding Jesus on a sandwich is hilarious and a great way to show that the writers of the show find that sort of idea ripe for parody.
- Oh boy, they're portraying an atheist on prime-time TV! Too bad that usually leads to gross misrepresentation.
- The believers on the show are already coming at this situation the wrong way, in my opinion. But they're believers, that's what they do.
Holy shit! Not only one but TWO nonbelievers on a popular show?! WOW.
Yeah, let's not get too happy just yet. Let's see how they handle themselves first.
We atheists don't believe for different reasons. While many, like myself, are nonbelievers for intellectual reasons, some don't believe out of being misinformed, misanthropic, or having had something terrible happen in their past. Sue seems to be the latter kind. Her sister has Down syndrome and Sue's personal way of handling the problem of evil is to, in effect, "blame God" for letting her sister contract (or inflecting her with) her condition. Like I said, we're atheists for different reasons, and while I think the problem of evil is truly a valid philosophical issue that is irreconcilable with a loving god, Sue's rejection of belief isn't couched in philosophy. She can't explain the reasoning behind why such a problem is indeed a problem that points to evidence against a traditional idea of God. Instead, she's angry with the idea that such a god would even do such a thing, and as a child her prayers for her sister went unanswered, therefore there must not be a God. Sue doesn't want to be a nonbeliever. Her sister tells her "God doesn't make mistakes" and offers to pray for Sue, to which she happily agrees. She wants to have this same peace that her sister has.
So while I'm not going to go into a no-true-Scotsman rant about how Sue isn't a true atheist, I will state that this portrayal of atheism in entertainment media is as old as time. No wonder we nonbelievers are bombarded by religious people asking questions like "so what happened in your past that made you so mad at God?" or "who hurt you?" or "why do you feel like God let you down?" Makes me wanna scream.
But back to the recap. So Kurt's dad is in the hospital, comatose. Kurt has been pelted with pleas to find strength in faith, as the other kids sing gospel and spiritually-laden songs. Kurt pushes his friends away, asking them to keep their views to themselves. Coach Sylvester urges Kurt to make a formal complaint to the school, citing church-state-separation issues.
Here's where the show makes a gross error in judgment. Either due to Sue's own personal take on First Amendment rights or by ignorance on the part of the show's writing team, Sue claims it's a violation for the children to sing about Jesus in public school. This is not the case. While they do have a problem if a student complains, there is no law against such a practice. It would only be against the law if it were teacher-lead, and we see the glee club teacher, Mr. Shue, realize this and try to tone down the religion-specific songs to just "spiritual" songs. (If you'll recall my previous post, 67% surveyed said that teachers are not permitted to read from the bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows. A lot of right-wing conservatives I've talked with falsely claim that kids can't even pray in school. I'm wondering if Sue's tactics are based in this line of thinking.)
Throughout this episode, the views of both sides are expressed through characters' actions and dialog. There are characters who express new-age beliefs like "God is all religions" and "God exists, just not in any man-made religion". Here are some other examples:
- The show attempts to show different views of religious theology. Puck and Rachel are both Jewish, Mercades and Quinn are Christians, Kurt hires a Sikh acupuncturist, and he also makes a reference to the FSM. Oh, and Kurt's version of Russell's teapot not only had me in stitches but also applauding the writers, some of whom surely either are atheists or have had intelligent conversations with one.
- Yes, Kurt hires an acupuncturist! I was pissed off at first, but I've come to see it like this: he's still just a kid! He's in high school for crying out loud, and he's not (yet) a full-fledged rationalist. And you should all know by now that being an atheist doesn't automatically make you a skeptic or critical thinker.
- There are some great quips in the dialogue:
- After simply stating his nonbelief, Kurt is barraged with questions like "Why don't you believe? You can't prove there's no God!" and "We shouldn't be talking like this...it isn't right!", Kurt politely says to his friends, "You all can believe whatever you want to, but I can't believe something I don't. I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't want your prayers." It's also funny to see that the simple act of one person saying "I don't believe" causes an entire room full of people to start claiming they're being oppressed or silenced.
- When guidance counselor Emma Pillsbury sits down with Sue Sylvester to ask her why she's trying to take away the other children's means of comforting Kurt in one of the shows best scenes, Sue responds with, "Asking someone to believe in a fantasy, however comforting, isn't a moral thing to do. It's cruel." Emma retorts with, "Don't you think that's a little bit arrogant?" and Sue hits back: "It's as arrogant as telling someone how to believe in God and if they don't accept it -- no matter how openhearted or honest their decent -- that they're going to Hell. That doesn't sound very Christian, does it?" (I'd have to disagree here and say yes, it's perfectly Christian, as Christ is supposed to have delivered the doctrine of eternal hellfire for infidels himself.) The riveting scene ends with Emma saying, "If that's what you believe, fine, but please keep it to yourself" and Sue replying with, "So long as you do the same." High-five Sue!
- Finn's eventual confession to Emma that Grilled Cheezus has granted him wishes is met with healthy skepticism and a round-about explanation of coincidences and self-fulfilling prophesy. If only she could apply that ALL of her beliefs...oh well. Finn finally "loses his religion", probably becoming/returning to colloquial agnosticism, and eats what's left of Grilled Cheezus.
- Kurt finally gives in to Mercades's pleas and goes to her church with her. This scene is important on several fronts, mainly for the episode's surprising conclusion.
So far the show has been building up to a familiar pattern and I was fearing the worst. [sarcasm on] Here we have a kid going through one of the worst times of his young life, and his friends are only trying to comfort him with their religious beliefs. But he harshly refuses them (soooo close-minded), pushing his friends away every time they bring it up. He obviously doesn't believe in anything, and we all know that if you don't have God then your life is an empty, hurtful void of meaninglessness. If only he'd just give prayer a chance! [sarcasm off]
Then comes the scene where the atheist goes to church. From the pulpit, Mercades tells him, "I know you don't believe in God or the power of prayer and that's okay, to each his own. But you've gotta believe in something...something more than you can touch, taste, or see, 'cause life is to hard to go through it alone without something to hold on to, without something sacred." She and the choir then sing as Kurt ponders her words. Oh no, I'm thinking, here we go...the immenient conversion.
At the show's conclusion, Kurt is sitting at his father's bedside, holding his hand and crying. He tells his comatose father that he should have let his friends pray for him the other day. Any minute now, he's gonna start praying. But he doesn't.
I told you the conclusion was surprising.
If I'd been paying closer attention I could've caught it sooner. The clues in the dialog...the writer's tricks laid bare for all to see, but I was too caught up in this valid attempt at a network show to seriously address religion. You see, just before his heart attack, Kurt's dad was scolding him for planning to miss out on family dinner night, something he said was "sacred". That word was the key, and it was planted in the first few minutes of the episode. Kurt does believe in something sacred: love. The love for his father, who accepted his homosexuality, and who was there for him when his mother died. Kurt tells his father, "I don't believe in God, dad. But I believe in you; I believe in us."
I couldn't have been more happy in that moment. And I'm really not too let down with the show as a whole. Like I said, I don't like how some of the arguments were handled, but I think that both sides were equally portrayed. Nobody's ideology "won", and for every argument there was a counter argument. Kurt says he should have let his friends pray for his dad; that it wasn't about himself, but about his father, and it was a nice gesture. I feel the same. When most believers say they'll pray for someone, they're not trying to be snide or arrogant, they're doing it from a place of love. It's a nice gesture, but please, do it on your own time -- don't force it on us. And that's what I think Kurt meant at the beginning of the show, when he told them he didn't want their prayers. If they would have prayed in their own church services or on their own time, it would have been fine.
A lot of ideas got at least partial treatment, and for that I'm thankful. No one converted or deconverted (except maybe Finn, but his "faith" was more of a parody to spring-board into the topic). Of course I personally think that the believer's best arguments could have been easily crushed if the atheist characters actually put forth their own, but obviously that's not the show's goal (think of the number of viewer's they loose...and the hate-mail!). I'm happy they at least got some of our arguments out to the general public, and that they didn't rely on the usual, misinformed portrayal of atheists. I'm happy that it showed that atheists don't all "believe in nothing" but that we seek out the love of our friends and family in times of trouble. And that's something we can all do, whether or not there is a god.
Since this is a show about music, I'll leave you with the apt words of Rush (from their song, Faithless):
I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
you can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
that's faith enough for me
-STA
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
We Know What We Don't Believe
A new survey given by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has shown something I have found to be pretty much the norm: atheists know more about religious than believers do. Yeah, we know about the claims of religions -- that's why we're atheists!
Questions were asked to people of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics. While most of the reports I've seen stat that on this survey label "atheists" as "people who say there is no god" and "agnostics" as "people who just aren't sure". If you're a long-time reader (or someone who's remotely familiar with the issue), you'll know that those definitions aren't entirely correct. But for the sake of this survey I'll let it slide. The study found that that on average, most atheists and agnostics scored higher on all questions (average 21 correct out of 32 questions), while religious people scored poorly on questions about their own religion and even worse on questions about other faiths. These were multiple-choice questions where things like, "What religion was Mother Teresa?" or "In what city was Jesus born?".
We atheists tend to be a thinking bunch. We are generally well-educated and highly analytical. As Pew director of research Alan Cooperman said, "[Atheists] are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
And we do. We care more about whether or not what we think is true rather than if it makes us feel good. We want to know how the world works. We listen to claims of religions (and scientists, politicians, ghost hunters etc.) and we think critically. Most religious people either can't be bothered to -- or have been trained to -- not analyze what they're being told. The just accept it as truth and repeat it. In Brian Flemming's documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There", he asks random church-goers questions like "Have you ever heard of Dionysus?" or "Who was Mithras?" and the believers just respond with umms and aahhs and "All I know is Jesus, man; it's just all about Jesus!"
Some believers also seem to think that they can spend two minutes on the internet and are thus qualified to tell a field scientist he's wrong. This is particularly popular with Evangelical creationists, but no believer is immune.
So if you are a believer, ask yourself why. Ask yourself if you can name one of Hinduism's holy texts. Do you know who Joseph Smith is? What were the first Ten Commandments given to Moses? In what century was Mohammad born? You don't have to be highly intelligent or all that educated, just learn when you don't know something, and learn how to look into it.
Actual survey here (PDF) or test yourself here.
-STA
Questions were asked to people of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics. While most of the reports I've seen stat that on this survey label "atheists" as "people who say there is no god" and "agnostics" as "people who just aren't sure". If you're a long-time reader (or someone who's remotely familiar with the issue), you'll know that those definitions aren't entirely correct. But for the sake of this survey I'll let it slide. The study found that that on average, most atheists and agnostics scored higher on all questions (average 21 correct out of 32 questions), while religious people scored poorly on questions about their own religion and even worse on questions about other faiths. These were multiple-choice questions where things like, "What religion was Mother Teresa?" or "In what city was Jesus born?".
We atheists tend to be a thinking bunch. We are generally well-educated and highly analytical. As Pew director of research Alan Cooperman said, "[Atheists] are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
And we do. We care more about whether or not what we think is true rather than if it makes us feel good. We want to know how the world works. We listen to claims of religions (and scientists, politicians, ghost hunters etc.) and we think critically. Most religious people either can't be bothered to -- or have been trained to -- not analyze what they're being told. The just accept it as truth and repeat it. In Brian Flemming's documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There", he asks random church-goers questions like "Have you ever heard of Dionysus?" or "Who was Mithras?" and the believers just respond with umms and aahhs and "All I know is Jesus, man; it's just all about Jesus!"
Some believers also seem to think that they can spend two minutes on the internet and are thus qualified to tell a field scientist he's wrong. This is particularly popular with Evangelical creationists, but no believer is immune.
So if you are a believer, ask yourself why. Ask yourself if you can name one of Hinduism's holy texts. Do you know who Joseph Smith is? What were the first Ten Commandments given to Moses? In what century was Mohammad born? You don't have to be highly intelligent or all that educated, just learn when you don't know something, and learn how to look into it.
Actual survey here (PDF) or test yourself here.
-STA
Friday, April 9, 2010
Why Some People Need A God: Companionship
We are by nature social creatures, and when we are young sometimes it's difficult to find other children to play or "practice" with. Just as our brains create dreams probably to function as training grounds for exploration of situations and emotions, our brains also dream up daydreams and imaginary friends to help us learn to socialize.
Talking to Yourself
Or perhaps it goes a little deeper than that. Perhaps the child with an imaginary friend needs said friend for companionship. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins reprinted the classic poem by A. A. Milne, "Binker", to illustrate the point of how children create and use imaginary friends to serve needs for companionship. The child in the poem plays with his imaginary friend, teaches him to talk, and shares sweets with him -- all the while realizing that grown-ups don't "get it".
This deep-seated need for companionship gets expressed in the embodiment of so-called spiritual things. Gods, Great Spirits, and other deities serve the basic social needs of some people. Once we see a god as nothing more than an imaginary friend, we realize the same power exists: to comfort, to commune. God fills the gaps in people's lives who need someone to talk to; to understand what they're feeling or explore questions. God relieves the tension we feel and supports our natural desires for companionship.
You See it Too
Not only that, but another layer gets added on when believers fellowship with each other. Suddenly, a very real person with the same imaginary friend becomes a companion, and subsequent stories can be shared that reinforce the feelings supplied by the deity. Where the imaginary entity fails (in the lack of physical embraces, for example), the other believers succeed. This is a powerful social reality that has direct, lasting consequences and effects in the lives of real people, and is not to be overlooked.
Even if you, reader, are a believer in a god (or perhaps an imaginary friend), I encourage you to think about the idea that your deity is nothing more than a concept you invented. Think about what that would entail, and note the similarities if that were the case. I think you'll find, probably initially to your horror, that the similarities are immense. Your God hates the things you hate, loves the people you love, and will understand you deeper than any other person. How is that any different than Binker?
-STA
Talking to Yourself
Or perhaps it goes a little deeper than that. Perhaps the child with an imaginary friend needs said friend for companionship. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins reprinted the classic poem by A. A. Milne, "Binker", to illustrate the point of how children create and use imaginary friends to serve needs for companionship. The child in the poem plays with his imaginary friend, teaches him to talk, and shares sweets with him -- all the while realizing that grown-ups don't "get it".
This deep-seated need for companionship gets expressed in the embodiment of so-called spiritual things. Gods, Great Spirits, and other deities serve the basic social needs of some people. Once we see a god as nothing more than an imaginary friend, we realize the same power exists: to comfort, to commune. God fills the gaps in people's lives who need someone to talk to; to understand what they're feeling or explore questions. God relieves the tension we feel and supports our natural desires for companionship.
You See it Too
Not only that, but another layer gets added on when believers fellowship with each other. Suddenly, a very real person with the same imaginary friend becomes a companion, and subsequent stories can be shared that reinforce the feelings supplied by the deity. Where the imaginary entity fails (in the lack of physical embraces, for example), the other believers succeed. This is a powerful social reality that has direct, lasting consequences and effects in the lives of real people, and is not to be overlooked.
Even if you, reader, are a believer in a god (or perhaps an imaginary friend), I encourage you to think about the idea that your deity is nothing more than a concept you invented. Think about what that would entail, and note the similarities if that were the case. I think you'll find, probably initially to your horror, that the similarities are immense. Your God hates the things you hate, loves the people you love, and will understand you deeper than any other person. How is that any different than Binker?
-STA
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Why Some People Need A God: Fear
In this, the first post in a three-part miniseries exploring some of the common responses from theists to the question, why do you need a god?
Help Me...Someone?
Many of those responses include, at least in part, a desire to be safe and secure. We all need a Superman every now and then; someone who can "take the wheel" as it were. Even those of us who have no illusions of magical beings that interact with or even guide our day-to-day activities occasionally yearn for a break.
At the heart of it all lies fear -- generally of the unknown. People are afraid of death, afraid of not knowing what tomorrow will bring, afraid of being helpless in any given situation. To a lot of these people, their deities come to the rescue.
As with most of the reasons theists give for being theists, however seemingly innocuous, this reason hinges on the idea that you cannot help yourself. How many of you (theist or otherwise) have heard phrases like, "put it in God's hands", or "God has it all planned out"? It is true that there are certain situations in which we all find ourselves unable to cope or do something to better are predicament. Those helpless situations reveal two distinct types of people: those who resort to fanciful ideas and talk of magic, and those who find comfort and strength in themselves and their fellow humans. While it may not be easy to be the latter, it is certainly more honest and, I think, ultimately better than wishful thinking.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying nobody should ever hope for anything. I'm saying stop lying to yourself and saying that you can't get out of bed without Jesus, or you could have never ran that obstacle course without the strength of the Lord. Start doing things for yourself. Find self-confidence and throw away these primitive notions of doom and antiquated doctrines that tell you you're worthless and undeserving of happiness. You don't need that bullshit, and you don't need a God to find help, happiness, love, peace, or an end to your fear.
-STA
Help Me...Someone?
Many of those responses include, at least in part, a desire to be safe and secure. We all need a Superman every now and then; someone who can "take the wheel" as it were. Even those of us who have no illusions of magical beings that interact with or even guide our day-to-day activities occasionally yearn for a break.
At the heart of it all lies fear -- generally of the unknown. People are afraid of death, afraid of not knowing what tomorrow will bring, afraid of being helpless in any given situation. To a lot of these people, their deities come to the rescue.
As with most of the reasons theists give for being theists, however seemingly innocuous, this reason hinges on the idea that you cannot help yourself. How many of you (theist or otherwise) have heard phrases like, "put it in God's hands", or "God has it all planned out"? It is true that there are certain situations in which we all find ourselves unable to cope or do something to better are predicament. Those helpless situations reveal two distinct types of people: those who resort to fanciful ideas and talk of magic, and those who find comfort and strength in themselves and their fellow humans. While it may not be easy to be the latter, it is certainly more honest and, I think, ultimately better than wishful thinking.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying nobody should ever hope for anything. I'm saying stop lying to yourself and saying that you can't get out of bed without Jesus, or you could have never ran that obstacle course without the strength of the Lord. Start doing things for yourself. Find self-confidence and throw away these primitive notions of doom and antiquated doctrines that tell you you're worthless and undeserving of happiness. You don't need that bullshit, and you don't need a God to find help, happiness, love, peace, or an end to your fear.
-STA
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Prayer and the Internet
The bible states that prayer somehow works better when you get a bunch of like-minded people together. You'd think that with the invention of the internet and therefore the ability for billions of believers to sync up their communication channels to God and send requests en mass, we could easily change things. Things like, oh I don't know, world peace, the end of hunger, cancer, and other needless suffering. After millennia of just a spattering of people here and there asking for a global change, we have now within our means a way to systematically connect all the conduits of faith, and with a glorious roar reminiscent of Horton Hears a Who, simultaneously unleash a massive prayer toward the heavens.
But still nothing happens. Either everyone isn't synced up just right, or not enough people care about the state of things, or too many people are talking to too many different Gods, or -- the more likely answer -- prayer just doesn't work.
-STA
But still nothing happens. Either everyone isn't synced up just right, or not enough people care about the state of things, or too many people are talking to too many different Gods, or -- the more likely answer -- prayer just doesn't work.
-STA
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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).
-STA
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Friday, February 6, 2009
Why We Can't Communicate
Like many of you who debate the lofty matters of religion online know, the arguments have a high probability of degenerating into little more than shouting matches of "Nuh-uh!" and "Uh-huh!" To avoid such situations on Gather.com, I've created a group there called Debate Faith (no, it's not related to the Stickam chat room run by AtheistAtLarge). Come join us if you like to discuss these affairs within the context of proper argument.
And argument is what I wanted to blog about today, namely the question of why theists and atheists have such a hard time understanding one another. I suppose the reasons I'll state go beyond the "God debate" and touch any opposing viewpoints that are so at odds with each other that a conclusion seems impossible.
Code Words
We communicate through the language of logic. If a language exists, then by definition logic exists, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate a thing (or even understand a thing). If I want to communicate a sentence to you, we must both first agree on certain fabricated rules; a type of code that we mutually 1) either invent or borrow from someone else, and 2) agree upon. In order for you to understand the sentence, "I play drums", you have to know what the sounds "I" and "play" and "drums" stand for. These code words point to our experiences, things we have seen or otherwise experienced before, and the rules that are encoded to relate these ideas. The words we use are important. If we substitute another meaning for an idea we're trying to convey without first agreeing up the new meaning, the communication breaks down. So if you hear me tell you "I play the drums" but you don't think of me banging around on a musical percussion instrument, then you cannot relate to what I'm trying to convey. Likewise, if I tell you "I play drums" but mean instead that I engage in a game utilizing a large metal cylinder used for storing liquid, then I'm responsible for the ambiguity.
Humans created the language of logic. All the symbols, formulas, statements, rules -- logic is man-made, yes; but logic itself is a representation of something else: the behavior of existence. It's a reflection of the way the universe commonly behaves. We don't just arbitrarily decide its rules, but rather they are built upon the framework that the universe provided to us. Something cannot both be and not be. Something must either be true or its negation must be true. When two things are the same, they are the same. We get these rules out of observing the nature of nature. If nature wasn't consistent then we couldn't have logic and thus we could not have the language to express it (or we'd have a completely different version of logic). Either we have contradictions but no language, or we re-write contradictions, change the rules and meanings of things, make contradictions no longer contradictions, and communicate.
There may be things that exist but cannot be communicated or described. But if they can be experienced then they can be given a code name and the idea can thus be communicated to anyone who has experienced the same thing and knows the code word for it.
If It Happened To You
This brings me to the idea of personal experience as justification for believing something (a topic I've written about extensively), specifically when it comes to subjects of theism and faith. It may very well be that your personal experience is genuine and that your perception and conveyance of the event is flawless and true. I could rightly argue against it by citing the way people tend to shade their experiences based on what they know, the way the mind can be tricked, the numerous different and contradicting accounts of that type, my own personal experience, and the simple fact that it's subjective and untestable. Regardless, there is no possible way for me to refute that idea sufficiently enough to a believer who is positively sure it is real. I couldn't convince such a person to even try to imagine otherwise. No one could.
The problem then, lies in the fact that I have not experienced what you're talking about -- I don't have the same rule in my rulebook for that code word. If you are ever to express your ideas to me, then I must either agree to accept your rules as my own, or I will have to experience it for myself.
This may sound obvious -- we either mean two different things (your red is my green, for example), or one of us has a code word for an experience which the other has neither -- but understanding what limits us from reaching agreements is key to creating a better, healthier, more tolerant and connected world. We need to learn to identify what stifles conversation; what brings our relatable experiences of reality to an impasse...and I feel in no other arena than the domain of faith is this needed most.
It is our shared experiences of reality that lay the tracks for our engines of understanding to run upon. If you tell me something purely subjective, like "Last night I dreamed about flying," for instance, there's no possible way for me to prove or disprove that (other than looking and brain scans while you slept, but even still I couldn't know what it was you were dreaming about). So why do we believe people when they say they dream? Because people dream. Because we understand what they mean when they use the code word "dream". Sure, it's subjective, but we all share it. Therefore, if you're going to use personal experience as a proof of a deity, your only hope to convince me with that argument is to pray that the god reveals itself to me in the same way it did for you. The only way for me to know and understand it is if I, too, experience it. After all, if you weren't convinced until it happened to you, why would anyone else be different?
-STA
And argument is what I wanted to blog about today, namely the question of why theists and atheists have such a hard time understanding one another. I suppose the reasons I'll state go beyond the "God debate" and touch any opposing viewpoints that are so at odds with each other that a conclusion seems impossible.
Code Words
We communicate through the language of logic. If a language exists, then by definition logic exists, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate a thing (or even understand a thing). If I want to communicate a sentence to you, we must both first agree on certain fabricated rules; a type of code that we mutually 1) either invent or borrow from someone else, and 2) agree upon. In order for you to understand the sentence, "I play drums", you have to know what the sounds "I" and "play" and "drums" stand for. These code words point to our experiences, things we have seen or otherwise experienced before, and the rules that are encoded to relate these ideas. The words we use are important. If we substitute another meaning for an idea we're trying to convey without first agreeing up the new meaning, the communication breaks down. So if you hear me tell you "I play the drums" but you don't think of me banging around on a musical percussion instrument, then you cannot relate to what I'm trying to convey. Likewise, if I tell you "I play drums" but mean instead that I engage in a game utilizing a large metal cylinder used for storing liquid, then I'm responsible for the ambiguity.
Humans created the language of logic. All the symbols, formulas, statements, rules -- logic is man-made, yes; but logic itself is a representation of something else: the behavior of existence. It's a reflection of the way the universe commonly behaves. We don't just arbitrarily decide its rules, but rather they are built upon the framework that the universe provided to us. Something cannot both be and not be. Something must either be true or its negation must be true. When two things are the same, they are the same. We get these rules out of observing the nature of nature. If nature wasn't consistent then we couldn't have logic and thus we could not have the language to express it (or we'd have a completely different version of logic). Either we have contradictions but no language, or we re-write contradictions, change the rules and meanings of things, make contradictions no longer contradictions, and communicate.
There may be things that exist but cannot be communicated or described. But if they can be experienced then they can be given a code name and the idea can thus be communicated to anyone who has experienced the same thing and knows the code word for it.
If It Happened To You
This brings me to the idea of personal experience as justification for believing something (a topic I've written about extensively), specifically when it comes to subjects of theism and faith. It may very well be that your personal experience is genuine and that your perception and conveyance of the event is flawless and true. I could rightly argue against it by citing the way people tend to shade their experiences based on what they know, the way the mind can be tricked, the numerous different and contradicting accounts of that type, my own personal experience, and the simple fact that it's subjective and untestable. Regardless, there is no possible way for me to refute that idea sufficiently enough to a believer who is positively sure it is real. I couldn't convince such a person to even try to imagine otherwise. No one could.
The problem then, lies in the fact that I have not experienced what you're talking about -- I don't have the same rule in my rulebook for that code word. If you are ever to express your ideas to me, then I must either agree to accept your rules as my own, or I will have to experience it for myself.
This may sound obvious -- we either mean two different things (your red is my green, for example), or one of us has a code word for an experience which the other has neither -- but understanding what limits us from reaching agreements is key to creating a better, healthier, more tolerant and connected world. We need to learn to identify what stifles conversation; what brings our relatable experiences of reality to an impasse...and I feel in no other arena than the domain of faith is this needed most.
It is our shared experiences of reality that lay the tracks for our engines of understanding to run upon. If you tell me something purely subjective, like "Last night I dreamed about flying," for instance, there's no possible way for me to prove or disprove that (other than looking and brain scans while you slept, but even still I couldn't know what it was you were dreaming about). So why do we believe people when they say they dream? Because people dream. Because we understand what they mean when they use the code word "dream". Sure, it's subjective, but we all share it. Therefore, if you're going to use personal experience as a proof of a deity, your only hope to convince me with that argument is to pray that the god reveals itself to me in the same way it did for you. The only way for me to know and understand it is if I, too, experience it. After all, if you weren't convinced until it happened to you, why would anyone else be different?
-STA
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Real Seven Sins
I don't believe in "sin", but here are seven actual things that I would qualify as truly wicked:
To commit most of these sins requires a religious worldview, but for whatever the reason, ignoring reality for what it really is and trying to push your skewed view onto others is a transgression to humanity.
-STA
- Credulity to the point of gullibility
Believing in everything is stupid and dangerous. Believing "just in case" or accepting a claim as true by default and not requiring supporting evidence is foolish. Faith falls into this category. - Voluntary, willful ignorance
Keeping yourself in the dark on purpose is a sin in my book. Knowledge is always a good thing. Sure, ignorance is bliss but it's also ignorant. I'd rather be happy I know (or don't know) something and know it. You should always be willing to learn and be willing to change your mind if you find out you don't have the right information. - Letting fear prevent you from understanding reality
Being afraid of the truth because it hurts or is too scary to face can be reasons for committing the aforementioned sin. I might go as far as to say the main reasons for the existence of religion are to A) make the unknown less scary (by claiming it to already be known), and B) to provide a more palatable version of reality. Yes, the truth sometimes hurts. Knowing that your lost loved ones aren't waiting for you in some magical realm is sad. Knowing that you're going to die is scary. But replacing knowledge for a false reality because of fear doesn't change reality, and it only makes it that much harder to come to grips with. As one religious text says, the truth will set you free. - Limiting the rights and freedoms of others in order to make them abide by your standards
The standards of your religion are up to you to follow -- don't push them onto others. This "sin" is probably the main cause for many atheists and freethinkers such as myself to speak out so fervently against religion. Almost on a daily basis in the United States, Christians are pushing to get their religious standards into the law of the land. (California's Prop8 is a current example.) Keep your God out of my government and I'll leave you to your delusions. - Sacrificing the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of a child in deference to your religion
Forcing religion on kids is child abuse. A child can be told almost anything at a young enough age and believe every word of it. Not allowing them to learn or ask questions is tantamount to keeping them locked in the basement. And it goes much further than just the psychological trauma of telling them things like they'll go to hell: kids actually die because parents just pray instead of seeking medical attention. If you want to die for your beliefs then that's fine, but don't endanger anyone else's life -- especially a child's. - Wasting your one and only life worrying about and working for an afterlife that somebody told you might exist
Not living your life to the fullest is something that I would consider sinful. Spending that life hoping for an afterlife is even worse. It's foolish to try to prepare for something that has not been demonstrated even one tiny bit. Sure it's okay to hope, but you can't waste your life -- the only one you know for sure you get -- on blind faith. - Only doing good based on the sole purpose of receiving a reward or avoiding punishment
Doing good because God tells you, not for goodness sake. We nonbelievers can help people because it's the right thing to do. Humans are cooperative, social creatures. Together, we've made the world what it is today. We learn from each other, teach each other, and pull ourselves up from the pits of ignorance -- and we don't need a god to do it. If you truly think you need a god to be good, then please stop reading this blog and do whatever it takes to keep your theism!
To commit most of these sins requires a religious worldview, but for whatever the reason, ignoring reality for what it really is and trying to push your skewed view onto others is a transgression to humanity.
-STA
Thursday, July 17, 2008
A Hypocritical Atheist?
I was recently asked the absurd question: isn't it hypocritical to enjoy supernatural things if you're an atheist? Of course not! People can like anything, regardless of their position on religious ideas. It's even possible to enjoy religious ideas! Believing in them and liking them aren't the same thing.
Walk Like an Egyptian
Here's a list of things I enjoy, despite my attitudes toward theism:
I do all kinds of things that might seem hypocritical -- I practice science...WTF am I doing playing "Magic"?! It's only hypocritical if I believe that "magic" is real. Religious art, music, and customs can be appreciated at face value without the need for their belief. I don't have to think the Devil is real to enjoy a bad-ass rendering of him. We can sing "Santa Claus is coming to town" without actually believing it!
Walk Like an Egyptian
Here's a list of things I enjoy, despite my attitudes toward theism:
- I cover the song "Last Kiss"
- I love Collective Soul
- the Sistine Chapel is breathtaking, even in photographs
- Christian radio programs make me laugh
- I dabble in close-up magic
- I play Magic: The Gathering
- I say "oh my god", "oh god", "god damn it", and sometimes even "bless you"
- Signs scared the shit out of me
- some of my favorite people are theists
- I read fantasy stories (including the Bible)
- I regularly watch TV series like The X-Files, Reaper, and Supernatural
- Amazing Grace, if done well, can move me to tears
I do all kinds of things that might seem hypocritical -- I practice science...WTF am I doing playing "Magic"?! It's only hypocritical if I believe that "magic" is real. Religious art, music, and customs can be appreciated at face value without the need for their belief. I don't have to think the Devil is real to enjoy a bad-ass rendering of him. We can sing "Santa Claus is coming to town" without actually believing it!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Forest for the Trees
I was recently accused by a New-Ager for "not seeing the forest for the trees"; he claimed I was too concerned with the physical, observable, material universe to see his god. Poor thing. If only there were some way to make sure he was right without having to wait on my own divine revelation...
I hope I've already made it absolutely clear on this blog why we can't just trust people's word of personal revelation. It's frightening how many people think that science is an enemy of mankind and if we just trusted our gut feelings we'd be better off. As Carl Sagan best said, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."
If we are to entertain the ideas that a transcendent, eternal, spiritual something-or-other exists (though not in any honest sense of the word) and has feelings, thoughts, and desires for us, it's best that we try to determine the validity of those ideas within the current framework of understanding that we possess -- a framework that has made our more longer and more enjoyable. If that's paying too much attention to the bark and ignoring the beauty of the forest, so be it. At least we'll be able to tell if the trees can talk, or at the very least be able to tell what kind of tree it is, where in the world it might be, and how best to get out of the wilderness.
-STA
I hope I've already made it absolutely clear on this blog why we can't just trust people's word of personal revelation. It's frightening how many people think that science is an enemy of mankind and if we just trusted our gut feelings we'd be better off. As Carl Sagan best said, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."
If we are to entertain the ideas that a transcendent, eternal, spiritual something-or-other exists (though not in any honest sense of the word) and has feelings, thoughts, and desires for us, it's best that we try to determine the validity of those ideas within the current framework of understanding that we possess -- a framework that has made our more longer and more enjoyable. If that's paying too much attention to the bark and ignoring the beauty of the forest, so be it. At least we'll be able to tell if the trees can talk, or at the very least be able to tell what kind of tree it is, where in the world it might be, and how best to get out of the wilderness.
-STA
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
But I Got PERSONAL Experience
Nine times out of ten -- after all their arguments are laid bear, torn apart, and scattered on the ground, soaking in the tears of the theist who produced them -- a believer will resort to one of two (or perhaps both) arguments left to defend his beliefs: "I just have faith!" which we've covered here before; or "I have personal experience".
Very Superstitious
The uselessness of that argument should be clear to see because anyone can say anything about anything. We can't just take someone for their word. And calm down; I'm NOT saying you're lying. I think you really believe what you're saying. The issue is that people can be fooled.
It's no surprise that a lot of magicians are atheists. Guys like Penn and Teller or Jamie Ian Swiss or Steve Shaw understand how easy it is to fool our senses; to make people think that experienced something that can't happen. Magicians have intimate knowledge about the tricks and nuances of human perception, and the better ones know how exactly to work them.
So why is it that whenever you see a magic trick and you exclaim "Wow...how did you do that?", you are never satisfied with the answer "It's magic"? Don't won't you accept that as an answer? Probably because you know that magic isn't real...you understand that there must be some explanation for it. Saying "it's just magic" is equivalent to saying "invisible card-changing pixies did it", or "supernatural forces altered your perception of reality", or "God did it".
It's Always Personal If You're A Person
Not only can you not always trust your senses -- especially if your brain is experiencing some kind of trauma -- but other people can't always trust your judgment either. Again, it's not always that you're actively lying. Maybe you saw/heard/felt something you didn't. Maybe your mind was/is in a state that interpreted the actual event unfaithfully. Or maybe you really experienced something.
There's no doubt that experiences can have profound effects on a person's life. Many people have religious experience, and it changes their life. But this doesn't have to mean that the experience was real. Read that sentence again.
It is very possible to have experiences that are not real. Think about this scenario: Sally Sue spends the night in a house that she's told is haunted by evil spirits. She believes in ghosts, but she doesn't know exactly what they are or how they got there, etc. Her personality drives her to seek out strange things like haunted houses, but she's never actually seen a ghost before. She hopes she will tonight. As Sally is creeping around the dark upstairs hallways with her partner (come on, no one in their right mind would stay alone in an old abandoned house!) they exchange stories of the murders, suicides, and tortures that went on in this old house, all the while "building the suspense".
Ever been in a situation like that before? Where you psyche yourself up? Ever notice how fragile and easy-to-spook a mind can get when its in that hairpin-trigger state? Anyway, back to the scenario...
Sally Sue's mind is busy conjuring up images and sounds of these horrible stories, when a sudden "pop" breaks the darkness. Sally and her ghost-hunting partner freeze and look each other in the eyes. Suddenly, Sally feels something brush her arm, and she screams and starts to run. Another loud popping, cracking sound rings out, but Sally is running full-tilt toward the stairs. Other sounds echo from seemingly all around her as she turns back just in time to see her friend disappear through the floor. An instant before she rounds the corner, she swears she sees a face or a figure in the dust through her tears.
Years later, Sally still remembers the night her friend died. They said the rotten floorboard gave way and she fell through, embedding herself on a large piece of wood. Perhaps she could have survived if someone had been there to help her. Sally's life was changed.
Ya Know, I've Learn Something Today...
Look, I don't want to make this some kind of moral lesson, but I do want to convey the way in which our perceptions alter reality FOR US. Let's take an honest look at the story.
Here we have a girl who's hoping to see ghosts. She believes they're real, and wants to have an encounter. So, her emotionally-charged is fueled by ghost-stories (anyone ever had this experience as a kid around a campfire?) and by her friend. We scare easily, but even more-so when we're with someone. We scare each other in a back-and-forth, domino-effect kind of way. When they heard something, they looked at each other -- something common to all humans and a lot of animals. It's how we gauge what's going on when we're clueless about something. We watch each other for signs of how we should act. Should we run? Do you know what it was? Are you afraid? Should I be?
By this time, Sally's nerves are bristling. One touch -- could be an insect, a spider's web, or even just the air moving mites around on her skin -- was enough to start a chain reaction of scare-me-scare-you. Her brain was telling her what she wanted it to; what she had conditioned it to. But what about that face in the dust? Was it the figure of an evil ghost killing her friend? Or was it the way the light played off the dusty hallways and refracted against her tears? Or is it something her mind filled in later, after the fact?
I hope none of you are actually thinking to yourself, "maybe it was a ghost...you don't know". I do know. I made it up. If you're really trying to reason it out to be an actual "ghost attack" you might be too far gone in the realm of fantasy to ever hope to understand the lesson here. That lesson is this: Sally's life was changed. Her experience actually had a real, life-altering effect on her. But her experience wasn't real (not just because the story is fake). She lost a friend and suffered serious emotional trama.
So the next time you claim "You can't say God isn't real because I've had an experience that changed my life!" or something along those lines, think about Sally and think about how I can't take your word about experiences I didn't have. You try telling Sally it wasn't a ghost!
-STA
Very Superstitious
The uselessness of that argument should be clear to see because anyone can say anything about anything. We can't just take someone for their word. And calm down; I'm NOT saying you're lying. I think you really believe what you're saying. The issue is that people can be fooled.
It's no surprise that a lot of magicians are atheists. Guys like Penn and Teller or Jamie Ian Swiss or Steve Shaw understand how easy it is to fool our senses; to make people think that experienced something that can't happen. Magicians have intimate knowledge about the tricks and nuances of human perception, and the better ones know how exactly to work them.
So why is it that whenever you see a magic trick and you exclaim "Wow...how did you do that?", you are never satisfied with the answer "It's magic"? Don't won't you accept that as an answer? Probably because you know that magic isn't real...you understand that there must be some explanation for it. Saying "it's just magic" is equivalent to saying "invisible card-changing pixies did it", or "supernatural forces altered your perception of reality", or "God did it".
It's Always Personal If You're A Person
Not only can you not always trust your senses -- especially if your brain is experiencing some kind of trauma -- but other people can't always trust your judgment either. Again, it's not always that you're actively lying. Maybe you saw/heard/felt something you didn't. Maybe your mind was/is in a state that interpreted the actual event unfaithfully. Or maybe you really experienced something.
There's no doubt that experiences can have profound effects on a person's life. Many people have religious experience, and it changes their life. But this doesn't have to mean that the experience was real. Read that sentence again.
It is very possible to have experiences that are not real. Think about this scenario: Sally Sue spends the night in a house that she's told is haunted by evil spirits. She believes in ghosts, but she doesn't know exactly what they are or how they got there, etc. Her personality drives her to seek out strange things like haunted houses, but she's never actually seen a ghost before. She hopes she will tonight. As Sally is creeping around the dark upstairs hallways with her partner (come on, no one in their right mind would stay alone in an old abandoned house!) they exchange stories of the murders, suicides, and tortures that went on in this old house, all the while "building the suspense".
Ever been in a situation like that before? Where you psyche yourself up? Ever notice how fragile and easy-to-spook a mind can get when its in that hairpin-trigger state? Anyway, back to the scenario...
Sally Sue's mind is busy conjuring up images and sounds of these horrible stories, when a sudden "pop" breaks the darkness. Sally and her ghost-hunting partner freeze and look each other in the eyes. Suddenly, Sally feels something brush her arm, and she screams and starts to run. Another loud popping, cracking sound rings out, but Sally is running full-tilt toward the stairs. Other sounds echo from seemingly all around her as she turns back just in time to see her friend disappear through the floor. An instant before she rounds the corner, she swears she sees a face or a figure in the dust through her tears.
Years later, Sally still remembers the night her friend died. They said the rotten floorboard gave way and she fell through, embedding herself on a large piece of wood. Perhaps she could have survived if someone had been there to help her. Sally's life was changed.
Ya Know, I've Learn Something Today...
Look, I don't want to make this some kind of moral lesson, but I do want to convey the way in which our perceptions alter reality FOR US. Let's take an honest look at the story.
Here we have a girl who's hoping to see ghosts. She believes they're real, and wants to have an encounter. So, her emotionally-charged is fueled by ghost-stories (anyone ever had this experience as a kid around a campfire?) and by her friend. We scare easily, but even more-so when we're with someone. We scare each other in a back-and-forth, domino-effect kind of way. When they heard something, they looked at each other -- something common to all humans and a lot of animals. It's how we gauge what's going on when we're clueless about something. We watch each other for signs of how we should act. Should we run? Do you know what it was? Are you afraid? Should I be?
By this time, Sally's nerves are bristling. One touch -- could be an insect, a spider's web, or even just the air moving mites around on her skin -- was enough to start a chain reaction of scare-me-scare-you. Her brain was telling her what she wanted it to; what she had conditioned it to. But what about that face in the dust? Was it the figure of an evil ghost killing her friend? Or was it the way the light played off the dusty hallways and refracted against her tears? Or is it something her mind filled in later, after the fact?
I hope none of you are actually thinking to yourself, "maybe it was a ghost...you don't know". I do know. I made it up. If you're really trying to reason it out to be an actual "ghost attack" you might be too far gone in the realm of fantasy to ever hope to understand the lesson here. That lesson is this: Sally's life was changed. Her experience actually had a real, life-altering effect on her. But her experience wasn't real (not just because the story is fake). She lost a friend and suffered serious emotional trama.
So the next time you claim "You can't say God isn't real because I've had an experience that changed my life!" or something along those lines, think about Sally and think about how I can't take your word about experiences I didn't have. You try telling Sally it wasn't a ghost!
-STA
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
You Saw God, Didja George?
So after an awesome weekend out on the lake with my relatives, I got the opportunity to listen in on the current country music status quo provided by the local "non-stop continuous today's hottest country music with less talk and fewer commercials...we'll be right back" radio station. I'm not a huge fan of country music, but I was raised on it and there aren't many places around here where I can escape it.
Fallacy With A Twang
We're sitting around talking, waiting on the food to come off the grill, when this lovely line comes over the speakers: "I saw God today". My ears refocused immediately. "Oh?" I thought. "You don't say. Tell me more."
Ah yes. Good ol'fashioned teleological argument writ large -- and with acoustic guitars -- fed straight (or Strait, rather) to a willing demographic. George Strait granted my motion and gave me the chorus:
"Great," I thought with a sigh. "How many other toothless inbreds have you convinced using that rhetoric?"
There IS Beauty in Nature
After I returned to civilization, I immediately found the lyrics to this imbecilicly quaint little rhyme. I know...I'm a deviant. The song is about a guy who's wife is in the hospital having a baby. The father steps out for a break, sees beauty and happiness and peace in sunsets and rainbows and puppies, and finds God there. The chorus paints a clear -- and very common -- picture of a man who's been raised in a society where God is "there", but the man's not religious. I can relate.
In the song, the father sees another couple who's expecting a child while he's outside pondering the sunset. How many times have you, the reader, stood slack-jawed gazing up at the grandeur of the universe? Some, like George's character, see God there. I see something bigger.
There is wonder and magnificence in the universe. But positing a supernatural being that lacks any explanatory power whatsoever cheapens the true beauty, I think. Why 'God', George? Why not 'Allah', or 'Brahma', or 'Kukulkan', or 'Adora', or 'Tonacatecuhtli'? Why didn't you see any of them? Could it be the culture of your upbringing (one that I hope you won't stuff your children into)?
The narrator also contemplates the beautiful flowers and thinks about how it's almost like they were "planted right there for me". So does the puddle who thinks that the hole it's it was made for it...it fits so perfectly!
A Conclusion That's 'Good Enough For Me'
The final verse goes like this:
Fallacy With A Twang
We're sitting around talking, waiting on the food to come off the grill, when this lovely line comes over the speakers: "I saw God today". My ears refocused immediately. "Oh?" I thought. "You don't say. Tell me more."
Ah yes. Good ol'fashioned teleological argument writ large -- and with acoustic guitars -- fed straight (or Strait, rather) to a willing demographic. George Strait granted my motion and gave me the chorus:
I've been to church
I've read the book
I know he's here
But I don't look
Near as often as I should
Yeah, I know I should
His fingerprints are everywhere
I just slowed down to stop and stare
Opened my eyes and man I swear
I saw God today
I've read the book
I know he's here
But I don't look
Near as often as I should
Yeah, I know I should
His fingerprints are everywhere
I just slowed down to stop and stare
Opened my eyes and man I swear
I saw God today
"Great," I thought with a sigh. "How many other toothless inbreds have you convinced using that rhetoric?"
There IS Beauty in Nature
After I returned to civilization, I immediately found the lyrics to this imbecilicly quaint little rhyme. I know...I'm a deviant. The song is about a guy who's wife is in the hospital having a baby. The father steps out for a break, sees beauty and happiness and peace in sunsets and rainbows and puppies, and finds God there. The chorus paints a clear -- and very common -- picture of a man who's been raised in a society where God is "there", but the man's not religious. I can relate.
In the song, the father sees another couple who's expecting a child while he's outside pondering the sunset. How many times have you, the reader, stood slack-jawed gazing up at the grandeur of the universe? Some, like George's character, see God there. I see something bigger.
There is wonder and magnificence in the universe. But positing a supernatural being that lacks any explanatory power whatsoever cheapens the true beauty, I think. Why 'God', George? Why not 'Allah', or 'Brahma', or 'Kukulkan', or 'Adora', or 'Tonacatecuhtli'? Why didn't you see any of them? Could it be the culture of your upbringing (one that I hope you won't stuff your children into)?
The narrator also contemplates the beautiful flowers and thinks about how it's almost like they were "planted right there for me". So does the puddle who thinks that the hole it's it was made for it...it fits so perfectly!
A Conclusion That's 'Good Enough For Me'
The final verse goes like this:
Got my face pressed up against the nursery glass
She's sleepin' like a rock
My name on her wrist
Wearin' tiny pink socks
She's got my nose, she's got her mama's eyes
My brand new baby girl
She's a miracle
I saw God today
I know many people who became more spiritual after the birth of their first child. I know it can happen. Again I'm not trying to diminish the ideals of the song, as far as the notion that nature is beautiful, and so are babies. But "miracle"? How many times does something have to happen over and over again before it isn't considered a miracle anymore?
The man in the song was convinced before his child was born. He wasn't a nonbeliever beforehand. He's one of those people who already has an ingrained image of God. And whenever something wonderful happens -- like the birth of his daughter -- he immediately credits this image. He hasn't thought through any of it because, like most religious occurrences, it's purely emotional. I'm not trying to undermine his faith here; I'm saying that if he'd really THINK about it without letting the emotional agitation of childbirth to get in the way, he might not be so quick to give credit of a natural and ordinary process to a supernatural and extraordinary idea.
We atheists can find beauty, peace, and joy in nature and babies, and we don't need a God to have it. In the immortal words of Douglas Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
More of my adventures with Country music can be found here.
-STA
She's sleepin' like a rock
My name on her wrist
Wearin' tiny pink socks
She's got my nose, she's got her mama's eyes
My brand new baby girl
She's a miracle
I saw God today
I know many people who became more spiritual after the birth of their first child. I know it can happen. Again I'm not trying to diminish the ideals of the song, as far as the notion that nature is beautiful, and so are babies. But "miracle"? How many times does something have to happen over and over again before it isn't considered a miracle anymore?
The man in the song was convinced before his child was born. He wasn't a nonbeliever beforehand. He's one of those people who already has an ingrained image of God. And whenever something wonderful happens -- like the birth of his daughter -- he immediately credits this image. He hasn't thought through any of it because, like most religious occurrences, it's purely emotional. I'm not trying to undermine his faith here; I'm saying that if he'd really THINK about it without letting the emotional agitation of childbirth to get in the way, he might not be so quick to give credit of a natural and ordinary process to a supernatural and extraordinary idea.
We atheists can find beauty, peace, and joy in nature and babies, and we don't need a God to have it. In the immortal words of Douglas Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
More of my adventures with Country music can be found here.
-STA
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Uh, Well Yes But...
STA: "Wait...so, God sent Jesus to be killed as payment for sin?"
Theist: "Yes, the Bible tells us so!"
STA: "All sin?"
Theist: "Before and after; from now until the end of days."
STA: "So, there shouldn't be evil in the world."
Theist: "What?!"
STA: "Yeah. You said that evil 'came into the world' because of the Fall -- the Adam and Eve thing, right? What the Catholics call Original Sin?"
Theist: "Uh...yes. Bad things happen because of the sin of Adam."
STA: "But you just told me that Jesus paid the price of forgiveness for all sin!"
Theist: "Yeah, but..."
STA: "So bad things shouldn't happen in the world. Either that, or Jesus didn't have enough to cover that one. So evil shouldn't exist, and no one should be going to Hell for Original Sin."
Theist: "Uh...well yes, but..."
Silly Christians, logic is for nonbelievers!
-STA
Theist: "Yes, the Bible tells us so!"
STA: "All sin?"
Theist: "Before and after; from now until the end of days."
STA: "So, there shouldn't be evil in the world."
Theist: "What?!"
STA: "Yeah. You said that evil 'came into the world' because of the Fall -- the Adam and Eve thing, right? What the Catholics call Original Sin?"
Theist: "Uh...yes. Bad things happen because of the sin of Adam."
STA: "But you just told me that Jesus paid the price of forgiveness for all sin!"
Theist: "Yeah, but..."
STA: "So bad things shouldn't happen in the world. Either that, or Jesus didn't have enough to cover that one. So evil shouldn't exist, and no one should be going to Hell for Original Sin."
Theist: "Uh...well yes, but..."
Silly Christians, logic is for nonbelievers!
-STA
Friday, April 25, 2008
Disbelief = Faith?
I've been in a discussion with a few people, one of whom claim that it takes "blind faith" to be an atheist (yeah, and he's not even a Christian!).
You non-believers reading this have probably had this accusation hurled at you a dozen times or more. You believers have no doubt used it while you were backed into a corner. For your sake, I'm making this post.
Faith of ANY Kind
It DOES NOT take faith (of any kind) to NOT believe something. Think how ridiculous that sounds: I have faith that Santa isn't real. I have blind faith that there are no leprechauns! Unless you change the meaning of the word, there's absolutely no way FAITH has anything to do with NOT believing a thing.
I can't stand the word anymore...even when other's take it to mean trust. Faith, to me, is not trust. Humanity's ball and chain -- to use Pat Condell's words -- is a plague and people continue to self-infect daily.
I Once Was Blind...
How exactly would one have BLIND faith that, say, there are no homosexual pigeons living inside a watermelon in Sabugal, Portugal? I'm sure that to believe such an absurdity would take "blind faith" -- believing it without a single SHRED of evidence. If we found just one bird living inside of just one fruit anywhere in the world, then I suppose it'd just take "faith" to believe that there are homosexual pigeons living inside a watermelon in Sabugal. But "faith" of any kind to NOT believe it? Get real!
But Now I See...The Light
Think about a light bulb. The light can only be in one of two states: on or off. There's no middle ground there; no "in between". Even if it's dim and barely on...it's still ON and not OFF. That's how belief works. It's a binary state: you either believe something, or you DON'T. (Saying "I don't know" changes the question to one about knowledge...not the same thing as belief.) If you can't say "Yes" to the question "Do you believe...", then you DON'T believe. It's just that simple.
So to believe something without any reason to do so, you need "faith". To believe something in the face of evidence of the contrary, you need "blind faith". But to not believe something because there's insufficient evidence to do so, you don't need faith of any kind.
You just need your head screwed on straight.
-STA
You non-believers reading this have probably had this accusation hurled at you a dozen times or more. You believers have no doubt used it while you were backed into a corner. For your sake, I'm making this post.
Faith of ANY Kind
It DOES NOT take faith (of any kind) to NOT believe something. Think how ridiculous that sounds: I have faith that Santa isn't real. I have blind faith that there are no leprechauns! Unless you change the meaning of the word, there's absolutely no way FAITH has anything to do with NOT believing a thing.
I can't stand the word anymore...even when other's take it to mean trust. Faith, to me, is not trust. Humanity's ball and chain -- to use Pat Condell's words -- is a plague and people continue to self-infect daily.
I Once Was Blind...
How exactly would one have BLIND faith that, say, there are no homosexual pigeons living inside a watermelon in Sabugal, Portugal? I'm sure that to believe such an absurdity would take "blind faith" -- believing it without a single SHRED of evidence. If we found just one bird living inside of just one fruit anywhere in the world, then I suppose it'd just take "faith" to believe that there are homosexual pigeons living inside a watermelon in Sabugal. But "faith" of any kind to NOT believe it? Get real!
But Now I See...The Light
Think about a light bulb. The light can only be in one of two states: on or off. There's no middle ground there; no "in between". Even if it's dim and barely on...it's still ON and not OFF. That's how belief works. It's a binary state: you either believe something, or you DON'T. (Saying "I don't know" changes the question to one about knowledge...not the same thing as belief.) If you can't say "Yes" to the question "Do you believe...", then you DON'T believe. It's just that simple.
So to believe something without any reason to do so, you need "faith". To believe something in the face of evidence of the contrary, you need "blind faith". But to not believe something because there's insufficient evidence to do so, you don't need faith of any kind.
You just need your head screwed on straight.
-STA
Friday, April 4, 2008
Nothing Works Like Prayer
Sorry for the delay, folks. I've been in the process of moving to a new Small Town, and the move has been a bit crazy.
But nothing like this:
Idol Hands
Fifteen-month old baby Ana Worthington died on the second day of last month. Her parents belong to the Followers of Christ Church, a church that preaches against the use of medicine, opting instead for prayer to cure illness. Ana died from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection that could have been treated with simple antibiotics.
But her parents chose Jesus.
Madeline Neumann died March 23rd from a rare but treatable form of diabetes. Her parents blame her lack of faith on her death, and claim that she will be resurrected soon. All the 11-year old needed was a shot of insulin.
But her parents instead chose Jesus.
Faith Isn't Medicine
I was recently criticized for speaking out against irrationality. I hope these two recent cases of child murder shake you to your core. If they don't, you may be beyond hope. I realize that these are just the minority of crazy nuts, but this is how faith can allow for such atrocities. Madeline's parents last took her to a doctor when she was just three years old. Her siblings still live with her parents. The investigators in each of these cases claim that the parents were not crazy nor neglectful people; they just believed that prayer would work.
Regardless of your religious believes, think about Ana and Madeline the next time you are confronted with a choice of faith over medical science. It seems that we atheists are the only ones who are telling these insanely irrational people that their highly incorrect in their way of thinking. But why does it have to be just non-believers? Christians, if these people are in your minority, then YOU should stand up against them too. They will most likely listen to you than to someone who doesn't believe in their God.
I've got to go. I should probably do these stories more justice, but it will have to wait. Once I get settled in my new Small Town we can continue. Don't worry, unlike Jesus, I'll be back!
-STA
But nothing like this:
Idol Hands
Fifteen-month old baby Ana Worthington died on the second day of last month. Her parents belong to the Followers of Christ Church, a church that preaches against the use of medicine, opting instead for prayer to cure illness. Ana died from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection that could have been treated with simple antibiotics.
But her parents chose Jesus.
Madeline Neumann died March 23rd from a rare but treatable form of diabetes. Her parents blame her lack of faith on her death, and claim that she will be resurrected soon. All the 11-year old needed was a shot of insulin.
But her parents instead chose Jesus.
Faith Isn't Medicine
I was recently criticized for speaking out against irrationality. I hope these two recent cases of child murder shake you to your core. If they don't, you may be beyond hope. I realize that these are just the minority of crazy nuts, but this is how faith can allow for such atrocities. Madeline's parents last took her to a doctor when she was just three years old. Her siblings still live with her parents. The investigators in each of these cases claim that the parents were not crazy nor neglectful people; they just believed that prayer would work.
Regardless of your religious believes, think about Ana and Madeline the next time you are confronted with a choice of faith over medical science. It seems that we atheists are the only ones who are telling these insanely irrational people that their highly incorrect in their way of thinking. But why does it have to be just non-believers? Christians, if these people are in your minority, then YOU should stand up against them too. They will most likely listen to you than to someone who doesn't believe in their God.
I've got to go. I should probably do these stories more justice, but it will have to wait. Once I get settled in my new Small Town we can continue. Don't worry, unlike Jesus, I'll be back!
-STA
Friday, February 29, 2008
Everybody Leap!
It's leap day again, the time when science has shown that we need to add an extra calendar day so that the Christians can worship Jesus on his "real birthday". Right? Wouldn't want to be late or anything...
Ha.
But seriously, since today is all about jumping, I wanted to focus on the "leaps of faith" that a lot of believers make in order to justify the conclusions they reach. [Note: we'll get back to Fallacy Friday next week!]
ACA, Praise Be To Ye
Before I start, I need to plug the Atheist Community of Austin (TX) and the Atheist-Experience, the local TV show they sponsor. Even though the show is local, each episode gets a podcast and Google video, and they've heard from literally all over the world. I'm a huge fan of the show and can honestly say that I have the host, Matt Dillahunty, and the other co-hosts to thank for helping me to understand what atheism is. They helped me de-convert!
The reason I'm mentioning them is not just for the plug. One of the talks that co-host Don Baker gave in an episode last year is where I will draw the main meat of this post from. Don should be credited for the idea of this.
The Mathematics of Belief
When Christians and other theists talk about "faith", generally mean it as "believing something that you have no evidence for". It's basically an uneducated guess and therefore the likelihood of it being correct is extremely small. If you start stacking these guesses one atop the other, that chance of being right gets multiplied. The combined effect of all these assumptions is that you end up with an almost 0% chance of being 100% right.
Don counted around thirty of these "leaps of faith", jumping from one unfounded belief to another--from atheism (no god belief) to theism (the batshit crazy kind). That's like taking thirty wild guesses, each depending upon the previous, and arriving at a true conclusion. I won't go through them all; you can check out the video here.
Jump for Jesus
So believers, hopefully you'll understand why I don't believe the things you do, and why I think you're crazy for believing them.
Leapfrog
I hope you can see how each of these statements (each being a shot in the dark with no proof for any of it) multiplied together leaves you almost dizzy. If not, consider an experiment: like in Office Space, make your own "jump to conclusions" pad, or "leaps of faith" pad. Mark out squares on the ground big enough to physically jump to. Space each square out, and name each one based on your own personal beliefs. Try to scale it to how hard you really feel each square should be to mentally leap to as best you can (I wouldn't be able to actually do this, as I don't think there's enough surface area on the planet for the space between Leap #1 and the starting square). Remember, the space represents the "faith" required to reach the next platform. If you had actual evidence, then you should just be able to walk across the squares.
I guess one could argue that if you accept Leap #1, making the jump to the rest is a breeze. Hell, if you're willing to accept that fuchsia space gnomes are holding the planet up by the strands of their pubic hair, I guess accepting that they're all named "Merry Sunshine" isn't that hard!
-STA
Ha.
But seriously, since today is all about jumping, I wanted to focus on the "leaps of faith" that a lot of believers make in order to justify the conclusions they reach. [Note: we'll get back to Fallacy Friday next week!]
ACA, Praise Be To Ye
Before I start, I need to plug the Atheist Community of Austin (TX) and the Atheist-Experience, the local TV show they sponsor. Even though the show is local, each episode gets a podcast and Google video, and they've heard from literally all over the world. I'm a huge fan of the show and can honestly say that I have the host, Matt Dillahunty, and the other co-hosts to thank for helping me to understand what atheism is. They helped me de-convert!
The reason I'm mentioning them is not just for the plug. One of the talks that co-host Don Baker gave in an episode last year is where I will draw the main meat of this post from. Don should be credited for the idea of this.
The Mathematics of Belief
When Christians and other theists talk about "faith", generally mean it as "believing something that you have no evidence for". It's basically an uneducated guess and therefore the likelihood of it being correct is extremely small. If you start stacking these guesses one atop the other, that chance of being right gets multiplied. The combined effect of all these assumptions is that you end up with an almost 0% chance of being 100% right.
Don counted around thirty of these "leaps of faith", jumping from one unfounded belief to another--from atheism (no god belief) to theism (the batshit crazy kind). That's like taking thirty wild guesses, each depending upon the previous, and arriving at a true conclusion. I won't go through them all; you can check out the video here.
Jump for Jesus
So believers, hopefully you'll understand why I don't believe the things you do, and why I think you're crazy for believing them.
- Leap #1: A god exists.
Woah, that's an enormous leap right outta the gate! You'd have to back up that big-ass claim with some serious evidence if you're gonna convince a skeptic. Because faith doesn't require evidence, this main leap is justified in the believer's mind.
- Leap #2: There exists only one God.
This narrowing of belief shuts out any belief other than the monotheistic sort. I've capitalized the word "God" to formalize it with the Abrahamic Big-Three. It can be argued that a polytheist pantheon of gods makes more sense from a practical standpoint than one god, but I'm not going to brabble about it right now. Again the non-believer asks, but how do you know that?
- Leap #3: God is intelligent.
This starts to define God, yet it starts open up a whole can of worms, so to speak. Intelligence implies a physical brain and the limitations inherent in the definition of a "being". As a skeptic, I'd ask what level of intelligence does this god have? How is it measured? I assume it's "more than us". Again, how do you know that? (Note: This will be a caveat that each "leap" must cross.)
- Leap #4: God is all-powerful.
Great...more logical problems. The issue of omnipotence also encompasses the free will problems as well (like if humans have free will, then they effectively have power that God doesn't have). Another issue is the "omnipotent paradox", something I hope to be covering in upcoming videos.
- Leap #5: God is self-creating.
This gets into First Cause arguments and an infinite regress problem, but it's needed for the sake of "theistic logic".
- Leap #6: God decided to create the universe.
A conscious decision to do something is completely at odds with the idea of God being perfect. If this god is complete, there is no need to create the universe. If you're perfect, you can't want anything.
- Leap #7: God created the universe and everything in it
This jump has the same problems with Leap #5. There's also the logical catch of an all-powerful God wanting to create a universe, but that the universe already existed.
Leapfrog
I hope you can see how each of these statements (each being a shot in the dark with no proof for any of it) multiplied together leaves you almost dizzy. If not, consider an experiment: like in Office Space, make your own "jump to conclusions" pad, or "leaps of faith" pad. Mark out squares on the ground big enough to physically jump to. Space each square out, and name each one based on your own personal beliefs. Try to scale it to how hard you really feel each square should be to mentally leap to as best you can (I wouldn't be able to actually do this, as I don't think there's enough surface area on the planet for the space between Leap #1 and the starting square). Remember, the space represents the "faith" required to reach the next platform. If you had actual evidence, then you should just be able to walk across the squares.
I guess one could argue that if you accept Leap #1, making the jump to the rest is a breeze. Hell, if you're willing to accept that fuchsia space gnomes are holding the planet up by the strands of their pubic hair, I guess accepting that they're all named "Merry Sunshine" isn't that hard!
-STA
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Seeing Is Believing?
I've talked about faith so much that it makes me sick, but still it's an almost daily battle. One of the main contributors to my sorrow is the Judeo-Christian holy book. The bible is filled with stories and metaphors of people who didn't believe and were subsequently punished or hurt for it. The book breeds this ideology of faith so much so that it still affects humanity to this day.
You Gotta Have Faith!
Take for example, the story of Balaam's talking ass in Numbers 22. In a nutshell, the king of a town called Moab was afraid for his people because God's chosen people were destroying everything in their path (like good little believers do). This king sent forth for a guy named Balaam, a prophet. The king's men asked Balaam if he would mind putting a curse on these Israelites. Balaam talked it over with God, but of course these were God's people they were talking about, and God ordered Balaam not to curse them. Balaam told the king's men to go back to their country because Yahweh wouldn't let him curse their enemies.
The men did, but not taking 'no' for an answer, the Moab king sent another larger band of men for Balaam. They found Balaam and delivered the message from the king: "now do not refuse to come to me. I will load you with honors and do anything you say. I beg you to come and curse the people for me."
Being the ever-obedient one, Balaam replied that even if the king gave him is whole palace of silver and gold, he still couldn't disobey his God. He offered to let the men stay the night there before traveling back. Here's where it gets screwy...
No! I Mean, Yes! I Mean, No!
The bible says that Yahweh came to Balaam that night, and said "Have not these men come to summon you? Get up and go with them! But do only what I tell you to do." Once again, this is an example of God sending mixed messages. This can be explained if one considers the pantheistic religions of which Judaism and Christianity (and others) were molded from, but that's another topic.
So in the morning, Balaam saddles up his donkey and heads back with the men to Moab. The bible says that "God's anger was kindled because he went"...WTF?? So God says, "don't go!", then he says "okay, go" and then gets mad because he goes?! Perhaps Yaheweh's getting Alzheimer's?
As if this weren't enough to sell the story, it gets even loonier! So Balaam is riding his donkey, traveling back with the men from Moab, when God sends an angel to stand in the middle of the road. Balaam can't see this "angel of the lord", but his donkey can, and doesn't want to continue on down the road, but veers off into the open countryside. Balaam hits the donkey and steers her back toward the road.
Think about it, he's ridin' along, and his donkey leaves the road, so he strikes it and steers it back toward the road. Remember, Balaam can't see the angel that God sent to block the road cause he was pissed that Balaam went.
The angel then moves up the road a little ways and stands in the road between two vinyards, where there are walls along both sides of the road. The donkey has to squeeze right up against the wall to go past the invisible angel, and doing so, it crushes Balaams foot into the wall. Balaam of course beats his ass's ass again.
The angel then positions itself at a narrow passage (like maybe a bridge or something) where there's no way for the donkey and rider to go around. Get the picture -- it's like telling a joke, there's power in the one-two-three. The donkey can't go around the angel, so it lays down in the road. By this time Balaam is fed up with this damned stubborn donkey and lays his riding stick across its head one more time.
Talking Outta My Ass
The bible -- the holy book that some people believe every word of -- then says that Yahweh gave the donkey the power to talk! It tells Balaam that it doesn't understand why he beats it all the time, to which the infuriated (though not-so-much amazed) Balaam replies that he'd kill it if he only had a sword. The donkey then asks, "Am I not your donkey, and have you not been riding me all your life? Have I ever behaved like this with you before?"
"No," answers Balaam (now remember, a man is having a conversation with his donkey). God then opens Balaam's eyes so that he can see the angel standing there. Balaam bows down beside the donkey, in yielding to the angel of the lord.
The angel then says, "Why did you strike your donkey three times like that? You are lucky she turned aside or I would have certainly killed you by now, though I would have spared her." Huh? Wait, I know the story is trying to teach the lesson that you should just believe without evidence, but let's not forget that the donkey *could* see the angel, but Balaam *could not*. How would sparing the donkey but killing the rider be justice?
Balaam says to the angel, "I didn't see you standing there, but if what I'm doing displeases you, I'll turn back." The angel tells him to keep going, but to say only what he/God tells Balaam to say.
Flip-flop! So...wait a sec....huh?! So the point of the story was...to not go, but then go, then not go because God's angel is blocking the way, but because he can't see it he thinks his ass is just malfunctioning, so he beats it, but that's bad, so he should go anyway?!
Oh, Just Do Whatever The Hell You Want
There are tons of these kinds of screwy stories. There's the ultimate tale of "put your trust in God" with the story of Doubting Thomas, who wouldn't accept that Jesus had risen until he actually poked his fingers into the deity's wounds. The bible is filled to the brim with these kinds of stories, teaching the "value" of belief without evidence is always better.
I hope you can see that it isn't.
-STA
You Gotta Have Faith!
Take for example, the story of Balaam's talking ass in Numbers 22. In a nutshell, the king of a town called Moab was afraid for his people because God's chosen people were destroying everything in their path (like good little believers do). This king sent forth for a guy named Balaam, a prophet. The king's men asked Balaam if he would mind putting a curse on these Israelites. Balaam talked it over with God, but of course these were God's people they were talking about, and God ordered Balaam not to curse them. Balaam told the king's men to go back to their country because Yahweh wouldn't let him curse their enemies.
The men did, but not taking 'no' for an answer, the Moab king sent another larger band of men for Balaam. They found Balaam and delivered the message from the king: "now do not refuse to come to me. I will load you with honors and do anything you say. I beg you to come and curse the people for me."
Being the ever-obedient one, Balaam replied that even if the king gave him is whole palace of silver and gold, he still couldn't disobey his God. He offered to let the men stay the night there before traveling back. Here's where it gets screwy...
No! I Mean, Yes! I Mean, No!
The bible says that Yahweh came to Balaam that night, and said "Have not these men come to summon you? Get up and go with them! But do only what I tell you to do." Once again, this is an example of God sending mixed messages. This can be explained if one considers the pantheistic religions of which Judaism and Christianity (and others) were molded from, but that's another topic.
So in the morning, Balaam saddles up his donkey and heads back with the men to Moab. The bible says that "God's anger was kindled because he went"...WTF?? So God says, "don't go!", then he says "okay, go" and then gets mad because he goes?! Perhaps Yaheweh's getting Alzheimer's?
As if this weren't enough to sell the story, it gets even loonier! So Balaam is riding his donkey, traveling back with the men from Moab, when God sends an angel to stand in the middle of the road. Balaam can't see this "angel of the lord", but his donkey can, and doesn't want to continue on down the road, but veers off into the open countryside. Balaam hits the donkey and steers her back toward the road.
Think about it, he's ridin' along, and his donkey leaves the road, so he strikes it and steers it back toward the road. Remember, Balaam can't see the angel that God sent to block the road cause he was pissed that Balaam went.
The angel then moves up the road a little ways and stands in the road between two vinyards, where there are walls along both sides of the road. The donkey has to squeeze right up against the wall to go past the invisible angel, and doing so, it crushes Balaams foot into the wall. Balaam of course beats his ass's ass again.
The angel then positions itself at a narrow passage (like maybe a bridge or something) where there's no way for the donkey and rider to go around. Get the picture -- it's like telling a joke, there's power in the one-two-three. The donkey can't go around the angel, so it lays down in the road. By this time Balaam is fed up with this damned stubborn donkey and lays his riding stick across its head one more time.
Talking Outta My Ass
The bible -- the holy book that some people believe every word of -- then says that Yahweh gave the donkey the power to talk! It tells Balaam that it doesn't understand why he beats it all the time, to which the infuriated (though not-so-much amazed) Balaam replies that he'd kill it if he only had a sword. The donkey then asks, "Am I not your donkey, and have you not been riding me all your life? Have I ever behaved like this with you before?"
"No," answers Balaam (now remember, a man is having a conversation with his donkey). God then opens Balaam's eyes so that he can see the angel standing there. Balaam bows down beside the donkey, in yielding to the angel of the lord.
The angel then says, "Why did you strike your donkey three times like that? You are lucky she turned aside or I would have certainly killed you by now, though I would have spared her." Huh? Wait, I know the story is trying to teach the lesson that you should just believe without evidence, but let's not forget that the donkey *could* see the angel, but Balaam *could not*. How would sparing the donkey but killing the rider be justice?
Balaam says to the angel, "I didn't see you standing there, but if what I'm doing displeases you, I'll turn back." The angel tells him to keep going, but to say only what he/God tells Balaam to say.
Flip-flop! So...wait a sec....huh?! So the point of the story was...to not go, but then go, then not go because God's angel is blocking the way, but because he can't see it he thinks his ass is just malfunctioning, so he beats it, but that's bad, so he should go anyway?!
Oh, Just Do Whatever The Hell You Want
There are tons of these kinds of screwy stories. There's the ultimate tale of "put your trust in God" with the story of Doubting Thomas, who wouldn't accept that Jesus had risen until he actually poked his fingers into the deity's wounds. The bible is filled to the brim with these kinds of stories, teaching the "value" of belief without evidence is always better.
I hope you can see that it isn't.
-STA
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)