Pick A Side

What side are you on? Are you on the side of faith with insufficient evidence or the side of proper scientific methodology. You have to pick a side here. No middle ground. Some things in life are not so black and white. This type of thing is. It's the most important thing. It's how you view the universe. If you are willing to subject your claim to scientific scrutiny (which weeds the sound theories from the failed theories), instead of just saying you "have faith" in your theory, then you have to give extraordinary evidence for these extraordinary claims. We would all agree that alien encounters, virgin births, walking on water, magic underwear, resurrecting bodies, remote viewing, talking animals, transubstantiation, or whatever the claim may be are extraordinary claims. Thus, they require the unusually large amount of evidence to support them.

It was Carl Sagan who said that the more we want something to be true the more careful we have to be and the more airtight the evidence must be to support our claim. If these claims do not pass the rigorous barrage of trying to disprove the stated claim then it is a failed theory. Scratch it, start over. Or accept this failed theory as a theory you accept on faith with insufficient evidence. People that say that these claims are true with insufficient evidence are lying to themselves and others. One must admit it's ultimately a faith-based claim or one is lying. Simple as can be. There is no wiggle room here.

There are impossible leaps in reasoning people take on a daily basis. These leaps are called leaps of faith because they have insufficient or no evidence to support them. When forming their belief system in God people take a massive leap of faith. The argument between deism and atheism is an argument that can be made. This argument makes a little more sense than the argument between atheism and theism. Deism claims that there is a God but that's all we can know about this God. If you ask who created this God of deism they would say that this God is eternal, outside of time and space, so we cannot know him/her/it. He/she/it is a "First Cause", someone or something behind the Big Bang setting all of this in motion. Fair enough, but why not just cut through the theatrics though and P.C. nonsense? Everyone knows it's easier to get along in most societies when you believe in God, opposed to being an open atheist. Why can't we just say that we don't know what's behind the Big Bang (yet! *see M-Theory) so by default that makes me an atheist? It's splitting hairs I think.

However, the theist claims that we as human beings (mere mortals) can know what this God wants, desires, what makes him/her/it angry or jealous (one of my favorite God emotions), etc. This God also cares about the affairs of mankind. This God cares about one animal species on this one small planet (one of billions) rotating around a star (one of billions) in a random corner of this specific galaxy (one of billions). Not only does he care, but in Christian scripture, he sends his son (also himself) down as a blood sacrifice to appease an ancient law that he set up himself. Really stop to think that whole story through.

This leap from Deism to Theism breaks down quickly when looking at evidence. There is zero evidence that can link an all powerful God to a theists view of God. *This includes any random pick of the major monotheist Gods, not to mention the vast amounts of other Gods and Goddesses in our past. the leap from deism to theism is too great of a leap. there is not sufficient evidence. The Deism claim is shaky enough. Theism breaks down almost immediately. Thus it must be considered a claim based on faith with insufficient evidence. So be honest if you believe this. You don't have evidence so you have faith with insufficient evidence in a Theistic God. Christopher Hitchens once rightly pointed out that even if all the miracles of Jesus were proven true (including the resurrection) that still wouldn't prove that he was the Son of God or that the rest of the Bible is true. That wouldn't prove salvation or hell.

The same goes with UFO sightings.  There is not sufficient evidence that these are ships from other planets visiting us. Those that spot Unidentified Flying Object and make the immediate link to alien ships from a far off star system are on par with the leap of faith from deism to theism. Remember the more you want something to be true the more you should scrutinize it and expect excessive amounts of supporting evidence. Another good detector for cutting through the woo woo is if the truth claim can be faked. Things that are extraterrestrial or supernatural have a very high tendency for hoaxes. For the power of the Holy Spirit look at Marjoe. For crop circles look at Bower and Chorley. Question your first reaction. When you see bright lights in the sky do you think meteors or satellites or do you think flying saucer? If you view a flying saucer why does it immediately have to be from an intelligent, extraterrestrial species from a distance star system? Does the human brain hallucinate? If it was a real craft you just saw isn't it more likely that it is some new secret military craft from the U.S. (have you seen our defense budget lately?)

Whether it be KONY 2012 or Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign I think we've all had the wool pulled over our eyes. We've all taken a hoax and ran with our first instinct without checking all possible evidence first. I've been fooled so many times in my past and even to this day but I keep trying to remind myself to be skeptical about everything. The human brain is incredibly fickle and I encourage those that believe in supernatural beings or extraterrestrials to read as many books as you can on neurology. Some of the latest information to come out to the public on the human brain is fascinating. It answers so many questions, such as why we believe in anything at all. Science has given us the keys to understanding not only ourselves but the cosmos. We should run everything we encounter claimed to be truth through the sharp jaws of scientific testing.

Whether you admit it or not you are on one of these two sides. Some say that the side of "faith with insufficient evidence" is just the lazy way out. If you don't want to think too much about these deep things, then just say God loves us all (excluding the infidels of course) and move on. You could even be a moderate religious person, one that cherry-picks passages from a holy book and makes loose interpretations. You can wax poetic on television, burring the line between self-help guru and Christian evangelist. Don't forget to smile like Olsteen or Marjoe when you ask for the flock's hard earned money. Or you could be a fundamentalist and take your holy book literally like others do. When genetics, through DNA testing shows that you are dead wrong about Adam and Eve, you could choose to ignore the evidence. You could choose to be on the "faith without sufficient evidence side" of the spectrum. Maybe you pull a "pascal's wager" or fancy a "god of the gaps" old hat look. Whatever your hoax, whatever your cult, whatever your preferred New Age archeologist or New Age psychic, you are faced with picking a side. Which side are you on?