MiloCast

When there is a disagreement, one side has the task of justifying their ideas. But which is it? The burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive claim. A positive claim is one where an assertion is made, such as claiming that a god exists or that one owns two dogs and a parrot. Other examples are claiming that a god does not exist, or that your neighbor does not own a lawnmower. Anyone claiming any of those things could be justifiably challenged to provide evidence to back up those claims.

This means that the skeptic has no burden of proof. If a UFO nut claims that alien spacecraft have visited the earth, and a skeptic says “I don’t think so,” the UFO nut can not demand that the skeptic “prove him wrong.” It just doesn’t work that way. If the skeptic made the claim that such a thing was impossible, or that there is no life beyond the planet Earth, then the other guy would be justified in asking for evidence.

This is easy to see as a plain fact when looked at practically. If this was not true, then anyone could come up with random ideas all day long about fairies, magic dust, unicorns that sneeze rainbows, and leprechauns that turn invisible at will, and everyone would be obligated to believe every single one of those things until they are proven false.

The easiest way to think about it is to consider that, until an idea is proposed to a person, they can have no opinion. Nobody is born believing in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or Yahweh. Someone has to put the idea into their heads in the first place. That person has the responsibility to justify their beliefs. Unfortunately, many people aren’t raised to think skeptically, and they accept any old garbage told to them by an authority figure. I guarantee that if nobody was taught their parents’ religion until they were legally adults, all religions would disappear from this planet.

Well, I had a lovely chat with a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses last weekend. It’s about time! I’ve been waiting forever for them to show up at my house. Somehow it has taken them years. I have only a tiny spark of hope that they might do some investigating for themselves, but it was worthwhile.

The most interesting point in the conversation was when I brought up the story of Lot. I had asked the ladies if they read the bible. Of course they said yes. I asked if they read all of it, or just certain parts. They claimed to read it all. So I mentioned the story of Lot and asked them what they thought of it. The more talkative one somehow assumed I was questioning Yahweh turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for simply looking behind her, and went into an apologetic about how it wasn’t looking that was the crime, but the “longing” she was doing for such a terrible place. Fascinating, but not really relevant in the bigger picture.

The part I wanted to discuss was when Lot, under pressure from the evildoers of Sodom to deliver a pair of angels to them for gang-rape, instead offered his virgin daughters to the mob. No, I’m not joking. Read Genesis 19. Seriously. Remember now, this is the man that was so righteous that Yahweh sent actual angels to his house to lead him out of town before all the fire and brimstone. Lot said that he had these virgin daughters, and the mob could do whatever they wanted to them, but to leave the “men” (the mob didn’t know they were angels) alone, because they were under his roof, and therefore his protection.

Interestingly, recounting this tale was returned with a shy smile and a blank look. This story was news to them. I encouraged them to read it. Maybe they will.

The point is, if you think “the bible” (there’s no original, many different published versions, and no possible way of reconstructing what the original said) is the inerrant word  of the almighty creator of the universe and provides the moral guidelines you should live by, you might want to read it first. Just saying.

While contemplating the ludicrous  scribblings of an apologist, I had an epiphany. Creationists, and other people who allow religion to limit their thinking, do not only fail to have any curiosity (because their religion already has all the answers), but they persecute anyone who is curious. Consider the whole concept of a geocentric universe: Once you believe a story that says a magic invisible man created Earth for humans and gave us a light bulb called the sun, you’re all done. There’s no need to consider the sun rising in the morning or setting in the evening. Obviously the sun is a mere accessory for Earth — we are the center of the universe as we know it.

Then some guy has the nerve to make observations, write things down, do some math, and ask questions. With nothing other than solid evidence to back him up, he claims that Earth orbits the sun.  What happens? The Catholic Church persecutes him and places him under house arrest until his death.

Of course, now that the  fact is completely indisputable, the church has apologized. But that’s not the point. That they were completely wrong is not the problem at all. People are wrong all the time, and they disagree with others all the time. What is so aggregious about their behavior is that they forced their self-imposed limitations on others. It’s like being afraid of the monster under the bed, but refusing to turn on the light and look. Silly, sure. But when it becomes evil is when you punish your brother for trying to check under the bed himself.

For those who choose to limit their sphere of knowledge, that is a sad thing indeed. But inflicting your ignorance on others is just evil.

While trying to explain to a theist why it isn’t their fault that they were raised irrationally, I hit upon a fantastic rule of thumb. Basically, it goes like this: “The less likely you would have been to believe something if you had heard it from an unknown source, the more you need to examine it before accepting it.”

Parents force religion onto their children before they learn to think about something before accepting it as true. For young children, accepting their parents’ words without question is vital — it keeps them from getting hit by cars and burning themselves in the kitchen.

The same idea applies to anyone we trust. Spouses, parents, teachers, and friends have undue influence on us. So the next time someone tells you about some government conspiracy, a new-age “alternative” to medication, or a UFO sighting, consider the facts before believing them — even if they are someone you love.

As time passes, the whole idea of religion just gets sillier to me. We live in a world where most people  believe in something they can not see. The results of their prayers are indistinguishable from random chance, good things are attributed to their favorite deity, and bad things are written off as beyond our understanding.

Not a single person has a sound reason for their religious beliefs. If such a reason existed, they would have spread it and large numbers of people (if not everyone in the world) would have converted to their religion. Instead, each religion has a set of teachings which were written by people who didn’t know that germs cause illness and that washing your hands prevents the spread of disease.

It’s just a thing people do. Like becoming obsessed with a favorite TV show or celebrity. Some people are so into a video game that they dress up as characters from it and go to national conventions. Humans are a social species, and we like to find others to identify with to become part of an in-group. Religion fills that need very well. The problem is that it comes with a lot of baggage which cause people to do harm to one another.

Basically, being a devoted member of a religion isn’t any different than being a devoted Star Trek fan who speaks fluent Klingon and goes to all the conventions in costume. It’s all a lifestyle choice. So if you have a pet religion at the moment, take a look at it. Ask yourself why you believe it, and what reason you would give someone else so that they can believe in it. You’ll find that it all comes down to the fact that you choose to accept it without reason because you feel like you’re accepted somewhere. You can find that in many other places without all the built-in guilt, fear, and tales of eternal hellfire.

I realized recently (probably fairly late to the game), that there is a simple refutation to all religious beliefs. It can not be contradicted by any honest person. There are only two possible responses: Think about it honestly, or choose to ignore the truth.

Here it is:

Anyone who believes in any gods does so for no other reason than somebody else telling them to. If their religion has a holy book, they only believe the book to have authority because someone told them it does.

That’s it — plain and simple.

If there was any proof of Islam, Christians would convert.

If there was any proof of Hinduism, Jews would convert.

If there was any proof of Buddhism, Muslims would convert.

The simple truth is that more people de-convert and become atheists than convert from one religion to another. Recent polls show that the fastest growing group on surveys about religious affiliation is “None.” Makes perfect sense to me. As a society, we have moved further from superstition, and have become much more capable of dealing with the natural world as it is. Some of this comes from understanding the previously unexplained.

I am happy to see that reason is overcoming superstition at a growing rate. It has come to the point where theists are publishing books with which desperately try to refute the legitimate criticisms of their preferred religion — and failing in that task.

I have started reading a couple of books in that vein, and will write about them on this site. In the meantime, you may perform an extremely simple test. Go to the book store and find a book which attempts to attack rational arguments about how their particular religious beliefs don’t hold water. You will probably find that their representation of the argument against is pretty accurate — they don’t want to be accused of skirting the issue. Next, read their “refutation.” It will always be wordy, imprecise, and will fail to back up any of its claims with facts.

These are exciting times indeed for human enlightenment.

I was listening to the podcast “A Christian and an Atheist” on my way to work this morning, and I had a lot of thoughts about things which were said, but even more about things which were not said. In my next few posts, I’m going to go over some of those things. In this episode, Emery (an atheist), interviewed Pastor Scott Barger. They discussed a list of questions Barger had prepared for atheists.

The first question from Barger was how so many atheists could claim the knowledge that no god exists. He further claims that such people should more honestly refer to themselves as agnostics.

I have two main thoughts about this. The first one is that atheism is simply disbelief in any gods. The fact that some atheists will go further and claim that no gods exist is simply a matter of choice. This shows a misunderstanding of atheism, which was also hinted at when Barger refers to atheism as a “system” and to atheists as people who follow that system. For more on this, see my article “Everything You’ve Heard About Atheists is Wrong — Except one Thing.”

Secondly, the unstated implication of Scott Barger’s question is that people who claim that no god exists should be agnostics, because agnosticism allows for the question to remain open. Obviously, this sentiment stems from his belief in the existence of a god, and his desire for the rest of us to leave the possibility open in case we’re wrong. There are, however, two major flaws in this idea. First, an atheist is open to new information, and can be convinced of the existence of a god if the evidence is presented to us. Most of us will freely admit that. However, agnostics take the position that it’s impossible to know in either case. So while they would, in theory, be convinced as quickly as an atheist in the presence of evidence, their philosophy precludes even looking for such evidence, since they don’t believe there is any possibility of finding any for or against.

Also, and most importantly from a logical perspective, is the simple fact that leaving yourself open to the possibility that there may be a god does not mean that it is just as likely as the non-existence of a god. It’s not a 50-50 bet. Based upon the evidence we have, there is no reason or evidence which indicates that a god exists. That makes the bet more like 100-0 against than 50-50.

Full credit for civility goes to both Scott and Emery for this conversation. It was a respectful, non-combative conversation, which is rare between theists and non-theists. In fact, I don’t remember ever hearing a conversation in which points were made strongly by one side and conceded by the other. I can only hope that these concessions mean that our global conversation on these issues can begin to shed the tired old arguments which have long since been decided and discuss the core of the matter.

Putting up good content regularly requires a lot of time. I did it for a few months, then I asked for some feedback from you (see most recent post before this). Nearly two weeks have passed since then, and not a single person said so much as “hello.” I intentionally did not post since then so it would remain the top post, and get more exposure.

So, I’ll be posting irregularly when I have something I really want to write about, but I will no longer add content multiple times weekly. I was hoping to have a community of readers who were interested in discussing some of these topics, but maybe most of my readers are hitting the site through Google searches.

Also, I have already posted the most important topics I really wanted to get out there, and I don’t want to be repetitive. I will maintain the site for the foreseeable future in the hope that people will stumble across my favorite essays, and hope that I do some good in the world.

Shawn