Why evidence will never be enough – The predisposition towards unbelief
There’s an old saying about the behavior of a persons children – “To those who have kids, no apology is ever necessary. To those who have none, no apology is ever enough”.
There’s a truth in here in regards to the balance between faith and disbelief. To the believer, no evidence may ever be necessary. To the doubter, no evidence will ever be enough.
As always, the balance is found somewhere near the middle of skeptically looking at a belief, but also being open to what may be currently unexplainable.
An example
The problem with dark matter. We know there’s something… we don’t know what it is, but it is having an effect on the space around it. We can monitor the changes going on around it, but not the object itself – we dub it dark matter. But if you can’t actually see it how do you know it’s there? You can see it’s effects and thus know it’s there.
This is called “observational evidence” .
Now, there are billions of people that claim to have spiritual experience (be it Christian or not), and case upon case of unexplained phenomena can be documented. However, this is explained away by ‘rationalists’, and thrown out as superstition –on the basis that it cannot be verified “scientifically”.
So much for observational evidence.
Why can dark matter be verified and not explained away, but spirit cannot? It is because there is a predisposition to not believe in spirit, but not a predisposition to disbelieve in dark matter.
Well, you might say “we can look through a telescope and see the scientific data that points to the existence of dark matter. However, we cannot do that with the topic of spirit.”
I disagree. Here’s how to do it. Buy a mp3 recorder and go and talk with thousands of people who have had “spiritual” encounters or people who know people who have had spiritual encounters, and collect data. At the end of your research time, compile the data into an expensive analyst program, cross reference different experiences, break the information into different groupings, and so on. Then come to a conclusion (whatever that may be) based on the evidence.
The problem that I have with so called atheist skeptics is this bias they have. No matter how much qualitative, observational evidence you might have, it will never be enough. No matter how much evidence you might bring, it will never convince the non-believer. But then again, no matter how much oppositional evidence you bring, it will likely never dissuade the believer either. So who is the real objectively separated researcher?
Abstinence Isn’t A Christian Idea
Because Christians are the ones who are most visibly promoting abstinence in the HIV/AIDs epidemic, there seems to be this idea that abstinence is a “Christian” invention and belongs in the realm of Christian morality. I have a feeling that this is the reason some people are so adamant against it.
HOWEVER, don’t fear. You can promote abstinence without having to give into “close minded” Christian morality. This is the secret – Abstinence does not have its roots in Christianity, Islam, or any other terrible religion. It has it’s roots in society.
“Free-love” has only really gained hold in the last 50 years since the “sexual revolution”. Don’t get me wrong… people have been having sex outside of marriage for thousands of years. However it is only a recent phenomena that it has become so openly practiced and accepted. It surprises me that we are so adamant about something so new and unproven – The people have to have their sex!
At the time of Chaka, the Zulus killed the man and woman if the woman was found pregnant. In the Arab world, the man who ‘”defiled” a woman was killed or castrated. In America we have the concept of “shotgun weddings” – which were literally at the point of a shotgun. Still today in several African cultures, if you are found sleeping with someone’s daughter it is like stealing and you are forced to pay the bride price. Even polygamist cultures have recognized the importance of sex belonging in the marriage. These are just recent examples or society rejecting sex outside of marriage. An honest look at history will show the same trend.
I am not saying that punishment is good.
I am saying that abstinence has been around for a lot longer than the concept of multiple partners has and might be worth looking at.
Let’s not have the ad hominem reaction of rejecting abstinence just because we think of it as a moral issue. Whether you like what you think it stands for or not, the truth is that abstinence is a fail proof way of keeping ones self safe from STD and avoiding pregnancy*.
*Of course someone may be raped, or coerced into sex, but in that situation condoms and “choice” offer no help either.
Why Weak Atheism is a Bunch of Crap
The Hypocritical side of Skepticism
I usually try to avoid writing real forward, provoking articles, but I figure if Michael Meadon can be righteously indignant than so can I.
I am sick of this whole word play of weak vs. strong atheism. Weak atheism being the attempt to call yourself an atheist but still hold on to the title of “skeptic”. Because in actuality, a real atheist cannot be a skeptic, because they can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. Thus the attempt to differentiate weak vs. strong atheists. C’mon… If you’re an atheist have the balls to call yourself what you are – or call yourself an agnostic. Don’t hide behind the momma’s skirt of skepticism.
I’m sick of people coming out and saying blatantly anti-Christian, anti-religion statements and then pretending that they’re open-minded skeptics. If you cannot look at someone else’s viewpoint in an intelligent way, doing justice to the belief system, then you are not open-minded. At worst you are a bigot, and at the best ignorant.
I just have to mention Michael Meadon’s (this article is not in response to Michael Meadon) colorful description of Jesus Christ as a “cosmic Jewish zombie” I suppose that’s one way to look at it. However, I wonder if he actually looks at Jesus like that or if he just likes the reaction he gets out of pissing off Christians. I don’t have a problem with him talking about Jesus like this.. that’s his thing. But please don’t pretend that you don’t hate religion, aren’t biased or bigoted, and that you are a mere weak atheist skeptic. Loosen your nuts man.. call yourself an Atheist (strong A). Atheism is not a bad word is it? If that’s what you are then why try to avoid it?
Oh.. and don’t try and say you’re both atheist and skeptic. Skepticism is a process.. .atheism is a statement.
You know actually (not really – this is sarcasm) I’m a weak racist. I think that white people are better than black people. Intellectually, emotionally, in the way that they’ve evolved, and every way. I write blogs about it, talk about it in interest groups, and pretty much try to incorporate it into my life. I’m pretty damn sure its true… however I admit that I might be wrong – but I’m pretty sure I’m not. That’s why I like to call myself a weak racist.
IMO, people who talk about atheism like this do skepticism a disservice. I guess it’s true… religion brings out the worst in us. You can read a blog by a fellow who can write very good, informative information, showing the unscientific trend of superstitious medicines, urban legends, etc… and then as soon as they bring up religion, their brain goes out the window. In one moment, I can be surprised by the level of open minded skepticism, and in the next totally wowed by the lack thereof.
Honestly, I don’t have a problem with people criticizing religion and/or Christianity.. but use your brains. Why don’t you try applying the same level of scientific method to your research that you do to your other topics? I just read a comment on a blog page talking about “being under the blood of Jesus”. “Doesn’t this mean you are like Carrie (Stephen King)?” was the comment. Wow… I’m pretty sure that that’s not what that phrase implies. Since atheists are so eager to run to their dictionaries and tell you the real meaning of words and phrases, why not try and figure out what Christians actually mean when they say things like that. It would be like someone telling me that they are keeping the secret under their hat, and me mocking them for thinking they could physically keep words under their hat.
What if I took a book by Richard Dawkins, took a few pages, and through creative interpretation came to the conclusion that he actually loves God? You would know that I was full of crap because you know that that was not the intent of the book. However, atheists love to take the Bible and use their own interpretation to show that Jesus was a bigot and immoral amidst other things. Where’s your brain? Hmm.. I’m pretty sure that that wasn’t the point that the authors intended when writing those manuscripts. However, for some reason that bit of proper intelligent critical method is thrown out the window. C’mon.. disprove the Bible… attack it’s validity… but do it intelligently – if you’re gonna attack Christianity then attack its claims, don’t rewrite them. If you’re going to call yourself a skeptic then use a proper skeptical approach – not an anti-intellectual one.
Oh.. and lets talk about confirmation bias. People just love to throw this phrase around (this should win the award for buzz-word of the year) and prove that people are trying to prove their own theories right… hmm… imagine that. It makes me wonder if atheists have confirmation bias or not. Do you think that what an atheist sees, hears, reads, etc… might confirm their own bias that religion is stupid, for morons, and that God doesn’t exist? Oh I forgot.. they are weak atheists and skeptics – so they can’t really have a bias because they are just seeking out the truth – in fact when it comes down to it they admittedly don’t even really know that God doesn’t exist (note my cynicism). How convenient.
Why am I so worked up about this? Is it because I’m indignant that you could actually talk this way about God? No. You are welcome to talk however you want about God –you are not claiming to be a Christian. The problem is that you are claiming to be a skeptic and you are not. There is a word for people who wear the clothes but really don’t know what they’re talking about… its called a “poser”.
Skepticism is important. To me skepticism means the world moving away from being ruled by superstition and towards being ruled by actuality. Without skepticism we are stuck in the land of ignorance. Skepticism is going to get cultures to question things like female genital mutilation, the killing of twins in some societies, and religion which is based on fear and manipulation instead of relationship and transformation. I am not attacking skepticism… I’m not even attacking atheism. I’m attacking the asshats who dishonestly use skepticism as a human shield for their bigotry.
Oh… but maybe I cant be a skeptic as a Christian. What if I don’t believe in Bigfoot, Aliens, or animistic medicine? Can I still look at things through the lens of disbelief and necessity of evidence? Is it possible that I could have used skepticism to come to my beliefs? Or am I discounted because I because I believe in a God?
Listen here. Skepticism is not about believing in God or not believing in God. It’s about taking a balanced look at the world and using a reasonable, rational approach to come to your conclusions. Skepticism should never lead to skepticism. It should leads to answers. And if your answer is atheism, than that’s great. But at least admit that you’ve moved beyond the realm of skepticism into disbelief or truly be a skeptic and talk about religion with some level of intelligence and respect.
Confirmation Bias
Do atheists have confirmation bias or are religious people the only ones who are predisposed towards their own beliefs?
Rethinking the Supernatural
Supernatural – Above Nature
Does God work supernaturally?
Rethinking the supernatural. The key problem I find with this word is its common use. Sort of like awesome – we use it so much that we don’t really remember what it means and have given it our own meaning.
So I talk about God and the supernatural work that He has done in my life; or the supernatural healing that occurred; or the supernatural peace that He gives. But little do I know that I am actually disenfranchising myself from my skeptical brothers and actually encouraging a growing schism of misunderstanding.
Let me take a big step and assume that when most Christians use the term “supernatural” what they are actually meaning is “miraculous” – which has more to do with timing than effect – and probably more accurately: preternatural which simply means “exceptional or abnormal – out of the ordinary course of nature” – . When an atheist uses the word supernatural, they mean “outside of nature / ridiculous”.
So without further ado, my skeptical understanding of the supernatural .
Note: I started writing a big long article and decided to just cut it all and condense it to these points.
- God is supernatural because he created nature
- God created physics
- God works within his own law of physics
- God can manipulate the law of physics to make the universe do what he wants while still staying true to natural law
Same thing we do with technology - God’s miracles are not supernatural by definition (because they operate within the realm of physics) – they are miraculous
Side note: most religious people (IMO) do not use a strict definition of the word supernatural, but use it to mean “”miraculous” - Most Christians use supernatural as a superlative
- Because of the above points, miracles can be explained scientifically (if you had the ability to understand the science behind them)
- Just because something can be explained does not mean it isn’t a miracle
You still have to ask the question of why it happened
Improperly removing the how from the why
It is ridiculous to try to discount miracles and faith just because there might be a scientific explanation. Of course there could be a scientific explanation. The miracle is not in the effect, but in the uncanny timing.
Addendum: A Definition of Faith
Having had several conversations recently it’s become apparent that I need to define the word faith – especially Christian faith.
Typically faith is described as (in a nutshell): belief in nothing – belief based on lack of evidence. This may be how faith plays out with many “”believers” , however, when I talk about faith this is definitely not what I’m talking about. So let me put up a new definition for this blog.
Faith: Trusting someone whom you have no prior reason to trust in.
Christian faith is not (or at least should not be) believing in something which you don’t (at a root level) believe is real. It is based on the knowledge that God exists.
An atheistic skeptic will say this is not valid because you cannot prove that God is real. However, faith doesn’t hang on being able to prove to the atheist that God exists, but on a personal conviction that he does and that he is trustworthy.
An Example of Open Minded Skepticism
I haven’t yet read Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great About Christianity”, but I stumbled upon this review by atheist Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and was impressed with his open-mindedness. This review is a great example of how skepticism should really work –not the blind (dogmatic) hate for religion which is generally so prevalent in atheist circles (and incorrectly labeled as mere skepticism), but an honest read of a topic which he most likely disagrees with and the idea that there might actually be something to learn from a theist.
"As an unbeliever I passionately disagree with Dinesh D’Souza on some of his positions. But he is a first-rate scholar whom I feel absolutely compelled to read. His thorough research and elegant prose have elevated him into the top ranks of those who champion liberty and individual responsibility. Now he adds Christianity to his formula for a good society, and although non-Christians and non-theists may disagree with some of his arguments, we ignore him at our peril. D’Souza’s book takes the debate to a new level. Read it." – Michael Shermer (publisher of “Skeptic” magazine)
Why Atheism Is Not Free Thinking
- Strong atheism makes the absolute claim that there is no god(s)/spirit – it is based on disbelief.
- “Free thinking” is not based not upon absolutes, but upon doubt and suspicion.
If there is no empirical evidence, the “free-thinker” doubts and challenges the validity of the claim. Whilst a free-thinker might criticize a religious persons faith on the lack of scientific proof, they have to acknowledge that they cannot prove otherwise and that there may be evidence of which they are unaware of.
However, the strong atheist is so adamant in their disbelief that they make the bold statement that “there is no god”. They are not only saying that there is no evidence pertaining to the existence of a spirit, but going so far as to say that there never will be. Ironically, the very one who ridicules the religious for their claim on “absolute knowledge”, in one fell swoop both dethrone and take the throne for themselves.
Free-thinking is supposed to be about the ability to think outside of a box. Looking at a claim without the lens of superstition. Point: There is a difference between doubt and disbelief. Doubt itself does not disprove something, but instead frames the groundwork for critical examination.
On the other hand, disbelief does not frame the groundwork for anything other than advancing its own agenda of theology. It doesn’t give a platform to critically examine anything. It is about bolstering it’s own philosophy. It is neo-faith.
Lastly, it is important to realize that doubt does not always lead to disproof. A critical difference from disbelief – while initial doubt might lead to greater understanding, disbelief can never lead to anywhere except back to itself.
Defining the Terms of Religion
The reason of this initial post is to set stage . Most people misunderstand each other based on differing understandings of the same wordl, so it’s important to know what we’re talking about. For instance, the word “enough” is a relative term, that unless defined leads room for miscommunication and argument. How much is enough?
Likewise, when talking about faith, religion, dogma, and even Christianity, one’s person definition (while possibly being categorically correct) may not testify properly to what another person understands them to be or how they actually work out in that persons life.
Typically I have seen atheists try to “own” the definitions of these words, “educating” a “religious” person on what it is they are actually part of. In defense of atheists the world over, I stand on your behalf and say, “yes” atheism is not religion as popularly defined by the atheist world. However, the dogmatic view of religion which is so commonly used by our atheist friends, is also not how I would define religion and not how I would define a proper Christian faith.
So for the sake of record, let me lay out how I define these things:
Worldview = how one interprets the world – how you look at the world
Dogma = what’s important to your worldview.
Religion = This is tricky as i feel we need to have two words to properly define it. I’ll do the best I can:
- religion (with a lowercase r) – Organized Religion – an institution focused mainly on the keeping of dogma and sacred texts, often set forth by a religious hierarchy – generally talked about as a group of people. This is the popular understanding of religion.
- Religion (with a uppercase R) – is an individuals response to their personal understanding of morality, life, the Universe, and everything. This is generally how I will use word Religion.
- The difference in these two understandings is how you can find someone who will claim that they are “Religious but not into religion”.
Christianity = see above notes under “Religion” – a worldview
- christianity (with a lowercase c) – Organized Religion – an institution focused mainly on the keeping of dogma and sacred texts, often set forth by a religious hierarchy – generally talked about as a group of people. This is the atheists popular understanding of Christianity. “I’m a christian therefore I believe in Christ ” – focused on association
- Christianity (with a uppercase C) – is an understanding of morality, life, the universe, and everything through the knowledge that there is a God, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord. – “I believe in Christ therefore I’m a Christian” – focused on an individuals understanding of God. This is generally how I will use the word “Christian”.
- The two definitions are very different as with one I find myself joining a club and “paying my membership dues”. With the other I, I look at the world in a certain way and find myself amongst a group of like-minded individuals.
Atheism = the belief that there is no god or gods / disbelief in spirit – a worldview
**********************
All the following definitions can be found at: www.dictionary.com
world·view
noun
- The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
- A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
dogma
noun
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
- a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; “he believed all the Marxist dogma”
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
- a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
- a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
- prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
- a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
re⋅li⋅gion
- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
- a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
- the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
- the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
- the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
- something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
- religions, Archaic. religious rites.
- Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
a⋅the⋅ism
- the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
- disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
- Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
- The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
All of the above words can be looked up at dictionary.com
Permalink Comments Off
