Reason, not Faith

If you arrange the education of your child (i.e., home school or private school) in such a way to ensure that they are taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a lie, you are destroying your child’s mind and you are contributing to the intellectual destruction of America.

You are teaching them that science is false and denying them the joy and amazement of investigating the universe and understanding its true grandeur. You are tossing aside centuries of progress in geology, cosmology, biology, chemistry, and physics that we rely on everyday for survival. Even worse, you are teaching them that they cannot rely on logic or reason or evidence – that their investigation of the universe is not only flawed, but meaningless – that no answers are worth discovering on their own, because, by God, we already have all the answers in this one cobbled-together, ancient text.

You are teaching them that blind faith – believing on no evidence or contrary evidence – is better than investigation, application of critical thinking, collaboration, and actual evidence of your claim. You are teaching them to cling to fairy tales and to abandon truth. You have forced them to intellectual slavery where thinking for one’s self is met with disdain and rebuke, but being a sheep is applauded and admired.

You are teaching them to be gullible, to become prey for every charlatan out there that relies on the lack of critical thinking skills to capture, financially or emotionally rape, and dispose of their victims. Where critical thinking is not nurtured and praised, but instead denigrated, they become evermore credulous and unable to make wise choices.

You are teaching them to place allegiance to interpretations of out-dated, Bronze-Age myths above compassion for their fellow human beings and the reality of how the world really works. As a result, they support laws that support their religious goals rather than the well-being of society and the individual rights of others.

You are teaching them to stop thinking, period. You are stunting their intellectual growth, their sense of curiosity, and their ability to eventually contribute to the intellectual growth of society, all by providing God as the non-answer to every question. You are figuratively decapitating them, but literally poisoning the stream of American scientific progress.

You are intellectually abusing your children and willing plunging the United States into an abyss of scientific ignorance and illiteracy. You are responsible for the decline of America’s dominance in science and technology and its rapid decline into a third world country, intellectually. Cures for diseases, improvements in food production, and overall quality of life are heavily reliant upon critical thinking and science; but progress will come to a screeching halt, if we no longer have new generations to carry if forward. Instead of having progress, humanity will be huddled in a corner praying to a non-existent deity for assistance that will never come…and eventually the prayers will change to prayers for an end…any end…to the suffering.

You who claim peace and compassion are causing grave harm….STOP IT. NOW! Or your children and your children’s children will pay the price for many generations to come.

Reality, Knowledge, Their Application, and Anger (Part I)

Reality
 
Image a large circle drawn on a piece of paper.  This circle and the space that it encloses is “Reality”.  Everything that we see or touch or hear is within this circle.  Everything that we have not experienced, but which actually exists, is also within the boundaries of this circle.  Outside the circle everything is imagination only, no true existence.  If God, angels, demons, unicorns, aliens, etc., actually exist, they are within the circle; if they do not exist, they lie beyond it. 

Now imagine tiny dots randomly spaced within that circle.  Those dots represent areas where we had gained some knowledge of our universe, our reality, the reality, when we first began to become aware of our surroundings.  A large portion of the circle is open and without dots, an indication of our level of ignorance at that time.  We knew nothing of what lurked in these areas, the places where people said “There be dragons there”. They were wrong, of course, and jumped to conclusions by making assumptions rather than being content to say “I don’t know what is there”.  Over time, these dots grew into circles of varying sizes as we gained more and more knowledge of the universe and how it works.  There are still large gaps, but much less than before; the size of the actual unknown grows smaller day by day as we discover its secrets.  There are fewer places for the “dragons” to hide.

People still try to speculate on what is in the “white space” of the circle, those areas of reality as yet unknown to us.  Perhaps we will eventually fill the circle as we discover all there is to know in the universe, but more likely, we will find that the rate of expansion of our knowledge will not keep pace with the simultaneous discovery of just how big the circle actually is.  The circle represents every planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, multi-verse, dimension, physical law, etc. that actually exists.  The circle isn’t actually getting any larger, and we are making progress to fill in the gaps, but our understanding of its true dimensions continually improves and artificially inflates our perception of the circle.  We have been working with false boundaries. 

Some like to speculate about a reality beyond reality as a method of embracing the supernatural, a place where God exists.  It is a fallacy.  There is only one reality – all that is, or was, or will be – and everything within in it is natural.  There is no evidence for anything else.  Nothing.  Zip.  Nada.  If reality is simply what is real, what exists, how can there be more than one?  They would both just be parts of the whole true reality.  And where would “beyond reality” be?  It would lie outside the circle, a fantasy.  There is only one reality no matter how distorted and different it may appear to different observers based on their health, emotional state, or personal biases.  Claims of another reality where supernatural beings, gods, exist are hollow.

To be supernatural is to be beyond natural – not natural, but the only things that are not natural in the universe are those things that are man-made.  The supernatural is merely an invention of man.  Gods, if they exist, must be natural and must therefore be subject to natural laws and are capable of being detected, examined, and quantified like anything else.  If Gods are natural though, there does not appear to be a way that they could be omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent.  So are they still gods or do “gods” only “exist” outside the circle? 

But maybe we are approaching this from the wrong angle, from a limited perspective.  Perhaps there is a way of knowing that is “different” from what we normally experience.  Where does this knowledge come from and how do we obtain it...

Change Your Life - Prepare for Everything

Would you change your whole life on a possibility?  That’s what many Christians want us to do.  On the possibility that we might be wrong about the existence of a god and Jesus, in particular, they want us to embrace the nothingness of faith and believe. 

Setting aside the ridiculous idea that you can just make yourself believe something at will, they are asking for what they themselves are not doing.    Is it possible that I am wrong and that a god exists? Sure, it’s possible, but I would say not very probable.  Is it possible that the Bible is an accurate reflection of that God and that the story of Jesus is true?  Again, it’s possible, but not likely.  They argue that the risks of being wrong are just too great to ignore and that we should believe in order to save our immortal soul from Hell.  We should totally change our lives to account for this highly improbable possibility because to do otherwise would have consequences that would be unacceptable to us.

 

But do they follow this advice?  No, not when it comes to other highly dangerous and more probable events.  It’s possible that a meteor could come crashing through my ceiling and kill me; it’s unlikely, but possible.  Aliens could land on Earth and take over the planet.  Again, it is not likely, but possible and very deadly.    I could be hit by a bus, catch a fatal disease, or any of an almost infinite list of other unlikely and very deadly possibilities.  All of them are more probable than the existence of a god or the discovery that the Bible is true.  But do we or they totally alter our lives to ensure that none of these items will affect us or at least do what is necessary to minimize the negative results?  Do we prepare for the worst of every improbable event, “Just in case”?  No.  Instead, we make an informal analysis of the risk and take reasonable precautions based on the probability of the event and the gruesomeness of the consequences.

Given the horrific outcome of my afterlife should I be wrong about their buddy Jesus, you would think that the answer might be “yes” and that I would change.  But the probability of God/Jesus is so remote that it isn’t worth abandoning reality just to lie to myself about a happy ending.  Plus, if they are right, the consequences of believing in God/Jesus and thus spending eternity with Him are too horrific to contemplate.  To me, that is the more horrible ending; spending eternity with a being that would torture my fellow humans simply because they wouldn’t suspend reason and morality and call evil 'good' just to save their own ass.

So their pseudo-“Pascal’s Wager” is untenable to me and they apply it lopsidedly to their own lives when it comes to all the other deadly, but improbable events that could occur.  They are not altering their lives by hoarding water, food, guns, and fuel.  They are not building bomb shelters and walking around covered in motion detectors and bubble wrap to protect themselves from even moderately improbable events let alone events as improbable as God.  When I see my Christian friends collectively preparing for imminent catastrophe from asteroids and aliens, disease and disaster, or every possible random traffic accident, maybe then I will think they actually believe in Pascal’s Wager themselves.

Jesus, or just the idea of Jesus?

Something which is true should able to withstand scrutiny.  Evidence, both pro and con, would be weighed and and a definitive conclusion presented, or perhaps the finding that there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion.  Likewise, when something is deemed good, we should be able to validate that claim by comparison to other "good" things, or by observing the benefits and risks associated with it.

Many Christians make the claim that God and his offspring, are both real and good.  However, when it comes to defending that notion very few are willing to stick with you long enough to defend the claim.  When confronted with a challenge to these beliefs they fall silent or spew a list of things they believe about God or their 100% certainty and then fall silent without any attempt to actually address the issues presented.

It would seem to me that if God was real and good, they should be able to easily demonstrate those facts, but they never do.  They make some sad attempts at telling us how incomprehensible God is to us intellectually ill-equipped humans all the while regaling us with their comprehension of what God thinks and does and wants.  They never actually present any tangible evidence for their claims or rebuttal for the arguments against the existence of God or his immorality.

I am beginning to believe that it is actually the idea of God/Jesus that these individuals are clinging to rather than the "real" God/Jesus.   If God/Jesus were real, they should be able to easily shut us down when we question them; however, they stubbornly refuse to even entertain the debate.  Perhaps, they are afraid that the belief they hold cannot stand up to the test and they feel it would be devastating to lose that belief.  The idea of an eternal life and a constantly vigilant father is comforting to them and they will lock themselves behind that steel door of 100% certainty and 0% inquiry to ensure that their emotional cocoon is not broken.  They are in love with the idea of Jesus and ideas can be challenged and overturned with knowledge, so they must be protected against any such attack by the most effective means possible- remaining ignorant and unwilling to respond to any challenge by simply ignoring it and going silent.  If they actually believed in a substantial being of morality, justice and love, they would take the challenge head on and demolish us with truth, irrefutable truth and silence us as we too stood in awe.  Their failure to do so speaks volumes about their claims and that 100% certainty they proudly proclaim.    

The Twelve Step Program for Today's Fungelicals

(1) Proclaim existence for that for which there is no evidence.
(2) Dismiss that for which there is evidence.
(3) Reject all scientific results except those that support your agenda, even if they use the same source.
(4) Refuse to directly respond to uncomfortable questions.
(5) Always inject God when you can't answer a question.
(6) Support logic, reason, and critical thinking, except when they are applied to your beliefs, then praise ignorance and blind faith.
(7) Always try to muddy the water during a discussion; it will tire your opponent and give you a meaningless victory. 
(8) Label any challenge to your beliefs as intolerance and persecution while simultaneously being intolerant and persecuting others that believe differently.
(9) Frequently use condescending or misleading statements like "Hate the sin, love the sinner", "It's not religion, it's a personal relationship", or "Jesus believes in you even if you don't believe in Him". 
(10) Remain willfully ignorant while projecting arrogant certainty.
(11) When caught in an uncomfortable question, mention God's Mysterious Ways or point out humanity's limited capabilities and frailties when it comes to understanding the universe. 
(12) Never admit you could be wrong, especially to yourself.

Asimov Was Correct

The writer of this article above gets it wrong. A proper reading of the Bible doesn't start with an atheistic viewpoint or a Christian viewpoint. The proper reading is to view it objectively as it is written and then to explore the implications that arise from that reading. If you do that, honestly, with an open mind unclouded by preconceived notions, you will find that Asimov is correct. Those that read it and find that it represents a moral, loving being are simply being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

Political Correctness is Highly Overrated

Being “politically correct” is highly overrated and often inappropriate.  When you tell me about your wonderful day in church or the moving sermon or the church picnic, etiquette dictates that I should smile, nod my head, and allow you to drone on…and for the most part I would agree.  I am not one to attack every religious utterance, especially when it is clear that the person has no hidden agenda, despite how boring and nauseating it may be to endure it.  However, when you move on to my personal life or when you start to talk about influencing law, children’s’ education, and the rights of others, I have no qualms, in fact, I feel it is my duty, to tell you in no uncertain terms that your ideas and your religion are full of bull.

Being “politically correct” or polite is fine in short, casual conversation, but extending to other arenas is simply irresponsible.  I don’t care if it is your personal religious conviction and that I may hurt your feelings; if what you are peddling is harmful in some way to others, I will not hesitate to tell you how despicable your viewpoint is.  The truth, no matter how raw and uninviting, is preferable to allowing harmful lies to continue.

So, although I support and will defend your right to free speech, if you preach anti-gay rhetoric, or abstinence-only programs, or creationist dogma, or any other misinformed vile dogma, don’t expect a free pass.  We have become a country where speaking out against certain topics has become taboo and religion is the prime recipient of this attack-free zone.  But some religious beliefs, when turned into actions, are dangerous and immoral. 

Homeschooling your child or sending them to some religious school just so you can propagate hatred and ignorance should not be tolerated.  I am not condemning all home schools or religious schools, as some are actually good at most aspects of education.  But those parents that shield their children from scientific truths in favor of religious dogma or continue to trot out homophobic doctrine in place of equality and compassion, I have no tolerance for these.

Just a quick rant.  More on each of these later.

Abolute Certainty

I recently had a discussion with an Evangelical Christian that I know about the possibility of being wrong in her belief. I asked, "My question is, despite your certainty, are you willing to admit that in the end, the possibility exists that you are wrong?".  Her response, "Nope!!! Because I know Jesus is real so therefore I can't be wrong!!!".


To me this is the problem with some of the Fungelical Right.  They will not even allow for the possibility that they could be mistaken - no possibility whatsoever.  Couple that arrogant certainty about their perception with the negative aspects of their religion, throw in a little politics, and you have a recipe for disaster.  They have the potential to become no different than those Christians that  burned witches in the past or the Taliban today.


These Christians have a worldview. Fine. We all do. But when something arises that conflicts with my worldview, I examine it, question it, and gather more information to either confirm or reject it. If I get enough evidence, I abandon that part of my worldview. It matters to me if I am actually right or wrong; it is not enough to just think that I am right, I want proof. They do the opposite, apparently. If something disagrees with their preset worldview, they automatically reject it instead of examining both to see which is correct.  They have absolute certainty that they are infallible.  Hey, everyone's the Pope!

The only way they can be absolutely certain is to have absolute knowledge. Anything less than absolute knowledge would allow for some piece of information to exist that disproves their position. If no god exists, then as far as I know, no being has absolute knowledge, so therefore, anyone would be mistaken (delusional) to claim it. If a god does exist, then god would (by most definitions) have absolute knowledge, so that means that they each think that they must be god since they have this absolute knowledge and certainty. Sorry to disappoint them, but gods they aren't.

These types of people are not open-minded by any stretch of the imagination.  If you are not open, then you are closed. A closed mind is a dead mind.  Seriously, anyone who has absolute certainty that they cannot be wrong, that it is impossible for them to be wrong, has a serious god complex.

Mental slavery is mental death, and every man who has given up his intellectual freedom is the living coffin of his dead soul. - Robert G. Ingersoll

Twenty Five Years Too Late, Oprah

Oprah has announced that after 25 years her talk show will end its run in 2011.  It's about time.  I have no doubt that Oprah is well meaning and has had the best of intentions while hosting her show, but she has been the single biggest showcase for alternative medicine nutjobs and other purveyors of nonsense.

People like "psychic medium" James Van Praagh "communicating" with the dead, Jenny McCarthy with her anti-vaccination propaganda, Suzanne Somers and bizarre and dangerous cancer cures, and Rhonda Byrnes with the wishful thinking of "The Secret" are but a small sampling of the guests that Oprah has unashamedly promoted on the show.  The misinformation that these guests spout ranges from laughable to the outright deadly.

Oprah has made billions with the show, magazine, and other ventures benefiting from the gullibility of her audience.  She has taken no responsibility for the dangerous trash that these guests have tried to sell to the American public.  But you are responsible Oprah.  You have built an empire and have great wealth and power.  To quote Uncle Ben Parker (of Spiderman fame): "With great power comes great responsibility."  It's time that you start recognizing the impact that you have and take the appropriate actions to ensure that you are not endangering the lives of your fans by supporting these wackos on your show.

Goodbye Oprah.  It's 25 years too late, but goodbye and good riddance.

Faith or Reason

Critical Thinking
Focused, organized thinking about such things as the logical relationships among ideas, the soundness of evidence, and the differences between fact and opinion.

Dogmatic
Characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

Faith
Belief without, or in spite of logical proof or material evidence.

Agnostic
One who holds that God is unknown or unknowable.

Atheist
One who does not believe that there is a god.

Those who believe in god do not rely on evidence for proof, but instead accept the existence of god on faith. In a discussion, they may occasionally try to use certain information as evidence, but ultimately they claim faith is sufficient.  If they hold these views without trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, then I have no major issues with them.  I simply disagree with them and hope that they will start to critically examine what they believe.

Unfortunately, this group lends support to those that I do have a major issues with --- the dogmatic faithful.  This group generally asserts that God exists, the Bible is the revealed word of God, and only through a belief in Jesus does our life have any meaning, period!  It is this group that tries to push their beliefs on the rest of us through any means possible.  Their only justification for what they believe is that the Bible says so.  They do not examine the Bible or church dogma critically.  They praise blind allegiance and are in opposition to any investigation of truth other than the Bible.  They stifle scientific progress and the benefits to mankind that flows from it (e.g., stem cell research, genetic therapies derived from evolutionary theory, AIDS prevention through contraception).

Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in god.  Some atheists believe that it is impossible to know if god exists, while others believe it is possible to make the determination, at least in theory.  So you can have agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists.  Atheism does not mean that someone is stating emphatically that god does not exist.  While some individuals may hold this view, it is not the common position.

Atheists do not base their lack of belief on any dogma or ancient scripture.  They use their minds and critical thinking skills to examine the evidence and to draw the most reasonable conclusions from the available information.  We are willing to change our views in light of new evidence - the dogmatic faithful are not.

Many people often mistake attacks on the Bible as examples of atheists being as dogmatic as the faithful.  This is not true.  A critical review of the Bible shows many contradictions and scenarios that are inconsistent with certain concepts of god.  If we define god with certain defined characteristics and then show evidence of inconsistencies related to that definition, then we can say emphatically that that particular definition of god cannot be correct.