MiloCast

Some people claim that “believing in” evolution or not believing in a god requires just as much faith as believing in a religion. They think that scientists say some things and preachers say other things, and which one you believe is a personal choice. Here’s why that’s wrong.

Scientists begin with the evidence. They try to figure out what the evidence indicates. Once they have an idea (a hypothesis), the do tests to try to prove the hypothesis false. If they can’t do that, then they may start having more ideas about what else may be true if their hypothesis is true. However, if they (or anyone else) does prove the hypothesis is false, they throw it away and try to find out what is really true. If they can’t prove it false, and other things their hypothesis indicates should also be true are observed, then the hypothesis may become a scientific theory.

Religious thinkers begin with the conclusion, and try to figure out how the evidence fits in their preconceived picture of reality. When evidence fits what they believe, they point at it as “proof.” When evidence contradicts their beliefs, they explain that the evidence is not what it appears to be, or that their holy book must be interpreted in order to understand what it says.

So the reason I accept evolution, despite the fact that I am not an evolutionary biologist, is that a rigorous system of thinking and testing ideas (known as “science”), has shown that evolution has happened and continues to happen. The reason I believe the earth is billions of years old is not because a white-haired man in a lab coat told me, but because countless tests have shown that the earth must be billions of years old, and corroborating evidence can be found by astronomers, geologists, and many others.

Just in case some are still shaking their heads and claiming that I’m still believing what other people tell me without evidence, let me reiterate the most important part of this. Anyone who is interested can learn more about the scientific method and do experiments on their own. Nobody who believes in a religion is able to do tests to prove the claims made by their holy book.

Because of this, it is impossible for the “scientific community” to maintain a conspiracy and feed the public false knowledge. It’s not even possible for it to start a widespread conspiracy. The reason is that scientists have no reason to agree with one another. Some are religious, some are not. Some think animals should have the same rights as humans, and some do not. If any scientist, or group of scientists, put forth a claim that was false (knowingly or not), other scientists would test it in order to confirm it, and the false claim would fall apart. In fact, disproving the work of other scientists is a great way for a scientist to get attention, and maybe funding for his own research. Also, any scientist who found any evidence to prove a religion would, without any possibility of a doubt, become extremely wealthy and famous. So, science is not anti-religion. Religion, however, is anti-science, because it throws away all the useful rules of deciding what might be true and replaces them with blind faith.

Most importantly, understand this: Science is not a philosophy. Science is not a worldview. Science is not a religion. Science is nothing but a methodology. When people “do science,” all they’re doing is testing their ideas according to a strict set of rules designed to find the truth, no matter what it is.

“I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well.” - Stephen F. Roberts

There’s not much more I can add to this. I just ask that you think about it. As Greydon Square says — you just believe in the god native to your region. That’s the only true reason.

I could be wrong. About what? About anything. If you take issue with anything anywhere on my site, let me know. If I am wrong, I want to be set right.

However, the same applies in reverse. If you disagree with me, you must first admit that you could be wrong as well. If you can’t do that, then your position is not based on reason, and is therefore worthless.

Before I give the impression that I’m an intolerant jerk (too late?), let me say that I consider all the human beings on this planet to be my brothers and sisters, and I truly hope we can all come to agree on the important issues which affect our lives. That’s the only reason I write these articles. Thanks for reading.

Why is the Christian god always referred to as a “he”? If this being has a sex, then it seems there must be a species here, not one single being. That would be backed up by the whole concept of Jesus being a “son” in any sense.

This opens a whole Pandora’s Box of questions, and seems to give credit to the argument of infinite regression. I think infinite regression is kind of a joke argument used by skeptics against a self-defeating argument used by apologists. Apologists claim that man is too complex to have gotten here without a designer, so that proves their god. Skeptics retort that if that’s true, then the Christian god is even more complex, and thus requires an even more advanced designer. You can carry that argument on forever.

The most obvious explanation, in my opinion, is that man created God in his own likeness and image. Yeah, I know, I win a Captain Obvious bumper sticker for that one. But isn’t this something which should be brought up in conversation more often? If God existed and created people, why create them as sexual beings in the first place? Depending on which chapter of Genesis you read, God created Adam, apparently with genitals, without any intention of creating Eve.

The simple fact is that humans have been creating gods for at least thousands of years. All of them are eventually forgotten, as those who worship them die off. Not a single one has a shred of evidence which can be observed directly or indirectly to prove their existence, so the current favorites will be gone soon as well. I only hope that we don’t replace them, or that they don’t vanish because we destroy ourselves and this planet fighting over them.

I’m a member of a mailing list for non-theists. I wrote a message to the group today about a point a theist friend of mine and I disagree on in order to start a conversation on that point. Instead, one of the members responded with incredulity that I referred to my theist friend as “very intelligent.” This kind of thinking is a huge hindrance to the skeptical movement for many reasons. What follows is my reply to my fellow non-believer.

I understand where you’re coming from, and you have fallen victim to a very common misconception among freethinkers. We assume that since we are smart enough to see such obvious truths which are so fundamental to reality, we are somehow smarter than anyone who believes in pseudoscience, religion, or any other irrational junk.

What we must realize is that by treating people differently based on that judgment makes us as guilty of intolerance based on ignorance as fundamentalists. If people who believe religious garbage are necessarily not intelligent, then we would clearly see this in the real world: All the religious people would work at McDonalds or be on welfare, and all the millionaires, CEOs, and scientists would be atheists. Obviously this is not the case.

The truth is we simply don’t know what the difference is between a theist’s mind and a non-theist’s mind — not even those of us who are ex-theists. If we did, we’d be using that information to systematically eliminate religion from this world because of the harm it does.

Every intelligent theist makes decisions as rationally and intelligently as we do. However, they base their decisions on a collection of beliefs which contains some very wrong ideas. I’m sure you and I do the same and have some very wrong ideas about other things, although they may be nearly insignificant compared to religious dogma.

Understanding this and treating people with opposing views properly based on these ideas is very important. First of all, treating them like idiots is a stupid way to try to convince them to listen to us. Also, if we approach the problem with an incorrect hypothesis about the source of it, no solution we dream up is likely to be effective in actually fixing the problem.

Every magician has one or more heroes or idols. They may be living magicians, or magicians of the past whose skills reached new heights or brought more prestige to the art. We also have great respect for those magicians we have personal access to who have been into magic for many more years than we have, or who have achieved success in their magical careers. Take, for example, Denny Haney. Denny has earned tremendous respect from magicians worldwide, and those of us lucky enough to be within driving distance of his shop constantly hound him for advice and opinions. His decades as a professional performer, unflinching devotion to ethics, and broad knowledge of every aspect of magic is very valuable to us all.

However, I think we have a tendency to take such resources for granted, and in doing so we limit ourselves tremendously. Consider the computer programmer seeking help from an online group. If he doesn’t demonstrate that he has worked hard on the issue before asking for answers, he is unlikely to be handed the solution. Even if he is handed a working solution, the benefit is minor because it doesn’t force him to improve himself. The same goes for magicians asking Denny what they should buy. He probably knows, but the book he recommends will often go unappreciated, even if we do buy it. We can only improve as magicians once we have earned a solid footing at our current level through study, practice, and thought.

If you are lucky enough to know an experienced magician willing to help you advance, consider them to be a last resort. If you think about a problem on your own, you may invent something new, or improve upon something old. By asking for the solution, you may be robbing yourself (and others) of your own creative contributions to the art. Those you respect didn’t earn that respect by mimicking others — they earned it by making a contribution.

Also, allow yourself to question or disagree with their advice. What is best for one person may not be best for another. If you and your mentor are different (and you are), their carefully selected repertoire may be perfect for them, but it’s almost certainly not perfect for you.

It’s rarely a good idea to “re-invent the wheel,” but if we use something without ever really understanding it, we necessarily limit its usefulness, and our own success.

I was listening to the unabridged audiobook of “The God Delusion” on my way to work this morning, and Dawkins quoted an unintentionally funny bit of advertising copy he had seen for a book. It said that the book “filled a much-needed gap.” Obviously the advertiser meant that the book was much-needed, but what they said was that the gap is what we need — not the book.

Gaps are needed — they’re vital to progress. Without unanswered questions, there would be no science and no curiosity. If we, as a species, didn’t seek out the reason things are so, we would not have the medical knowledge or technology we enjoy and our standard of living would be much lower.

When a gap is filled with a tested and reasonable explanation, we’re all richer for it. When a gap is filled with nonsense like “God did it,” we’re robbing ourselves of curiosity, wonder, and a chance to make the world a better place.

One of the fantastic things about the human species is that every time we gain knowledge, we enrich our lives. We throw away the old ideas that seemed plausible for a while, and the new ones work better — because they fit in better with reality. Maybe we’ll improve upon them later, but for now we have at least shed some ignorance.

Even Christians do this — to a point. They have finally accepted that the earth orbits the sun (albeit after committing murder in defense of their wrong ideas), and more and more Christians accept the truth of the fact of evolution. This is good, because the evidence is so overwhelming on both points that only an idiot or someone who intentionally refuses to be educated could disagree if they were presented with the facts.

Why is it, then, that when “truths” of the bible are utterly discredited, the Christians go on believing everything else that hasn’t been shown to be absolutely incorrect — yet? They believe in God because he created man in his own likeness and image — literally. No man — poof — man. Now that they must accept evolution, they just claim that God created the beginnings of life and set evolution in motion. Why the need to insert a god at all?

The bible was the indisputable word of God for a while. Now it’s not. But it’s somehow still “true” in some sense, and the increasing number of holes in its claims don’t seem to diminish that idea in some people’s heads. I still believe that most self-proclaimed Christians haven’t read the bible — they listen to a man in a pulpit tell them what certain small parts of the bible say, and then spend an hour telling them what they should believe it means. Apparently it can’t be taken literally — then you’d either have a bunch of Christians going on murder sprees or becoming atheists.

Christians: Nothing you believe about Jesus has any provable basis in reality. Many things you believe about Jesus and the bible have been conclusively shown not to have happened. Why are you clinging to these stories? Many religions, believed just as strongly as yours is, have long since been abandoned because they are no longer relevant to this world. There was no less evidence for those than Christianity, and many of them were older and lasted longer. It’s time to give up the big Santa Claus in the sky and become grown-ups.

Ever notice how, when a Christian says they used to be an atheist, they expect that to carry some weight? The implied message is that they know both sides of the story, and they finally understand the truth.

But tell a Christian you used to be an Christian, and you’re still an idiot — either they think you were never a “true Christian” — whatever that is — or you somehow had the truth but got confused.

The interesting thing is that an ex-religious atheist can probably give many evidence-based examples of reasons why what they once believed just doesn’t hold water. An “ex-athiest” Christian can’t give a single valid reason why Christianity is true. They can give you thousands of reasons why they want it to be true, but not a single solitary reason it is even remotely probable.

What is it about some people that makes them prefer to believe something they would like to be true when there is no evidence for and plenty of evidence against? What drives an otherwise normal person to dismiss validated scientific research for no other reason than that it conflicts with their baseless beliefs? Some of them even know they’re completely full of crap, and they put out misinformation and just plain lies about science, evolution, and anything else which doesn’t agree with their religion. They seem to think that there’s some kernel of truth in their mythology, and any piece of it which is obviously untrue must be defended for the greater good.

Maybe it’s just the frustration talking. I encounter theists on a regular basis, in person and online, who all act exactly the same predictable, ridiculous ways. They can’t give a straight answer to a question because that would require being honest, which necessarily conflicts with their beliefs. They use every logical fallacy in the book with ease. They repeat blatant lies which have been disproved long ago. As someone who cares about the truth, and that other people understand the truth, this just frustrates me to no end.

A common claim among Christians who found their faith later in life (after childhood, when most people are indoctrinated), is that they “used to be atheists.” Technically, that’s true. Everyone is born an atheist, by definition. However, there are different types of atheism. There is “default atheism,” also known as “weak atheism,” which simply describes a person who was never indoctrinated into a religion. Then there is “strong atheism,” which describes people who have decided based upon actual information that there is no valid reason to believe in any gods.

So a weak atheist converting to a religion is simply a gullible person accepting irrational claims made by other human beings. You don’t see strong atheists converting to religion, because they value the truth. The closest we can come to knowing the truth is to base our opinions on the best evidence we have. If a strong atheist were to convert to a religion, there would have to be a reason compelling enough for him to explain to other strong atheists. If such an argument existed and was valid, all strong atheists would convert to religion, because it would be the most convincing position based upon the facts. However, this has clearly not happened.

I am well aware that I have used strong language in this article, including repeated use of the word “indoctrination” to describe the way people gain their religious beliefs, and the use of the word “gullible” to describe adults who accept baseless claims about a religion as holy truth. I stand by everything I have said. However, any evidence which shows that I was mistaken will be acknowledged and I will amend my statements if such information is provided. At this time, the only exceptions I can think of to what I said above is that I believe a strong atheist could convert to religion without evidence if he experienced brain damage.