Relgion - No + Science = Imagine

Imagine no religion.

No.

How about...

Image religions that adhere to the scientific method. Before you laugh and move on to read something else, stop to think about what that would be like. We've all heard religious gurus tell their followers that science doesn't have all the answers. They are correct. Science doesn't address a lot of questions. Questions of the supernatural or the metaphysical cannot be studied in science since science deals strictly with the natural world. Which of course begs the question. Is there really anything other than the natural universe? Clearly for some of us, we would say: No evidence for such things as of yet. But the supernatural operates on a whole different plane. There is no tangible evidence, no physical laws because it is by definition: not physical. This is spinning out of control before I've even started. Let me try to steer back on course fast...

For many of us that have even just barely used the scientific method in science class we have grown to fall in love with it. As children we built our foaming volcanoes in science fair. We watched the transit of Venus through blackened glass in pure amazement. We enjoyed "Planet Earth" on bluray, or rush to watch the new episode of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman. I can only speak for myself but the discovery of the scientific method (as a tool) might be the greatest accomplishment of the human animal. Nearly everything we enjoy in this comfortable technological age we live in we have the scientific method to thank for it. The scientific method has given us everything from the discovery of common ancestry of all living organisms, to the mapping the human genome, to discovering habitable planets outside of our own solar system. It's yanked us out of the jungles as hunter gatherer beasts to civilized, altruistic masters of technology.

Religion was once science.

Historian of science, H. Floris Cohen and Peter Harrison have both argued science arose from a unique blend of Greek and biblical thought. Cohen states, "Greek powers of abstract reasoning and of thinking up idealized constructions" in combination with "the biblical humility toward accepting the facts of nature as they are, combined with a view of man as fitted out by God with the power to take nature on". Harrison explains that the Protestant approaches to scripture had significant consequences for early science books on the natural world. He goes on to say that the scientific activity in seventeenth-century England were motivated and legitimated by literal interpretations of the Creation and Fall narratives in the Bible. Science in the seventeen-century was used as a means of restoring the human right of dominion over the natural world. This was a conquered consequence of the Fall of Adam.

Oxford historian and theologian, John Hedley Brooke writes, "When natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes insisted that he was discovering the 'laws that God has put into nature'. Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the 'counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being'."However, Historian Ronald L Numbers has argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims." Regardless, it's clear that science was birthed through religion.

In the Middle Ages the leading thinkers in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism attempted to merge philosophy,  religion, and natural sciences. They taught that if religious teachings ever contradicted direct observations of the natural world, then it was necessary to re-evaluate either the understanding of scriptures or scientific facts. Thus, the best knowledge of the universe was a better understanding of scriptures. These findings in the natural world were also not yet equal to the authority of the holy texts. The scientific method (in fields such as planetary orbits and optics) began to be applied by Christian and Muslim scientists in the 11th century.

Ancient beliefs gave way to many of the physical sciences. Astrology was once considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in the academic and political arena, and connected closely to studies, such as meteorology, medicine, alchemy, and astronomy. Alchemy produced a large range of contributions to the physical sciences and medicine. Science came from pseudoscience.

Even today we see a wide range of pseudosciences masquerading as science. There is a very large market for these concepts. Thus, if one is looking for a lucrative career it may be wise to jump on the money train of pseudoscience. Some examples of pseudoscience are L. Ron Habbard's famous engram theory, reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, rebirthing therapy, graphology, metoposcopy, ESP, biorhythms, physiognomy, acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, rolfing, ancient astronaut theory, cellular memory.

These however are not accepted theories or therapies in science. These fields have not yet met their burden of proof conclusively. In the first paragraph of this piece I submitted an idea for a thought experiment: What if religions adhered to the scientific method? Think about what that means. I gave examples in the previous paragraph of pseudoscience using scientific terminology to sound "scientific". That's not what I'm talking about. What I want us to consider is what it would be like to have religions/a religion/ that follows the rules of the scientific method. I'm also not trying to conjure up something that looks like Unitarianism. While a very liberal denomination of Christianity it is certainly not the idea of a church based off the scientific method. However, to their credit they do not give credence to a lot of the supernatural claims of the Bible. They also do not consider the Bible inerrant.

Imagine no dogma just data.

The Holy Books would have been revised multiple times to fit with the new evidence found with each discovery. Verses such as Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 44:24 would have to be scrapped and replaced due to a spherical Earth. The heliocentric view of the planets in our solar system would have to replace a geocentric view as stated in Joshua 10:12–13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30. The creation narrative in Genesis would be replaced to fit what we know in the field of modern genetics. There was never one man and one woman to start the human race. Of course the age of the earth would change from 6,000-10,000 to it's correct calculation of 4.54 billion years according to the scientific field of modern geology.

So we see now that the Holy Books would turn into a blend of science (and philosophy??) books that are ever changing with each new discovery. A.C. Grayling has put out a revision of the Bible called "The Good Book: A Humanist Bible" that resembles what a new "Holy Book" based on sound reason and updated information would look like. In this book he lays out (in chapter, verse format) a humanist approach to living well.


What would a church that followed the scientific method look like? Would there be praise and worship? What about clergy? What about pastors? What about sacraments or rituals?

The church (adhering to the scientific method) would steal from the best parts of church. It would be a social gathering. But instead of clergy it would be full of scientific experts (with upper level degrees) and philosophy professors sharing ideas. It would be more interactive than the usual "shepherd preaching down to the flock" format from a pulpit. The congregation would be participating in the debates and discussions. It would be more interactive than most church services. The sacraments or rituals wouldn't be a part of this church as to evidence proving the wafer you eat doesn't in fact turn into the body of Christ. Same goes for the wine.

I thought about the praise and worship question for a bit and contemplated how interesting it would be to have a religion that worships scientific discoveries and those people that made them. Can you image going to church and singing the praises of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, or Galileo? We could replace "Amazing Grace" with the hymn "Amazing Gravity" ... "Amazing gravity, how strong the pull that saved a mass like me." Some consider Carl Sagan on the same level as a saint. He was, after all, the head of Science PR in last last few decades. The books and PBS series he gave to the world were life changing for many of us. They were beautifully written and marvelously presented. He was brilliant and we loved him like the Catholics love Mother Theresa. (*See Christopher Hitchens book, "The Missionary Position") Sagan would be an example of the religion's (adhering to the scientific method) missionary. A modern day example would be Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye.

So it's obvious how this church (adhering to the scientific method) would be spreading "the good news" ... Mission Statement: To guide each human being on this planet to scientific literacy. There could be community humanitarian organization to feed the hungry and build shelter for the homeless, etc. The best parts of the old books such as "love your neighbor" and "do good unto others" would be followed but that's mostly it. There isn't much in those ancient books that can apply to today and the best parts? Well, we can take those and leave the rest behind to fade into oblivion. (*We'll leave the curing of diseases to modern Western medicine... but thanks anyways, Leviticus 14)

We could replace "laying hands" to heal with treating those members with ailments or illnesses with modern medicine. We could replace prayer with conversation and communication via internet or the magic of cell phones. We could replace psychics, prophets, and mind readers with neurologists. We could substitute lent with eating nutrient rich fruits and vegetables or baptism with proper bathing to promote hygiene.  We could replace tithing with charity or Wednesday night "Bible Study" with Wednesday night game night with the family.

We could replace Sunday school for our children with science class, with mathematics class, history class, physics class, chemistry class, biology class, cosmology class. There is a YouTube channel I subscribe to called philhellenes. He posts some of the most beautiful and profound videos. He's very talented and on this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk&feature=share&list=UUh9g56Xhr_OKqZKxN4b4KrQ He rightly points out that "Religions tell children they might go to hell and they must believe; while science tells children they came from the stars and presents reasoning they can believe." Isn't that the truth? Do not teach children things there is no evidence for. The Church that Adheres to the Scientific Method would not approve.

In reality this wishful thinking on an evolved church adhering to the scientific method in all it's functions is highly unlikely. Obviously. Religions over time tend to turn moderate and let go of some strict dogma from their holy books. That's in some ways encouraging. If we have to live with these mass delusions at least let them be peaceful. However, for a religion to behave like science behaves would be a miracle to say the least. Each of the big monotheistic religions would die before turn into something that resembles science or a practice that uses scientific methodology.

Some would argue that the reason for this is because at the very core of each religion is something that is profoundly NOT science. I would have to agree. Religions reward faith, guilt, scapegoats, and control where a church that would adhere to the scientific method would reward evidence, reason, logic, evidence. (I thought I should state that one twice). So in rethinking John Lennon's famous song lyric we can say keep "religion" minus the "no" part of the lyric add "science" to the equation and you get to imagine a new type of religion. A religion that adheres to the scientific method.

* Just for the record, I've been doing nothing but algebraic equations for a class so this type of blog would happen. Also, I do realize the irony of writing a blog that imagines science as a religion since all believers say to us non-believers is that we worship science. You know what they say, they don't "have enough faith" to believe in evolution and calling Charles Darwin a saint and imagining worshiping him probably doesn't help our cause. Oops. Oh well.

"Mortality" by Christopher Hitchens

This is the last book written by the late, great Christopher Hitchens. He writes about his last days with us and keeps his wit and clarity sharp as ever. This short book brought me to tears many times as I read through it.  It wasn't just tears of sadness at the way he so beautifully talks about his own demise, but it was also his gut-wrenching humor that drew tears from my incessant laughter. Hitchens is simply... hilarious. This is a must read for Hitchens fans. Agnostics, Atheists, or anti-theists shouldn't be the only people that miss this brilliant writer. He was a master of his craft. And his craft was words. He wrote so well and spoke even better. He is totally irreplaceable; may his works live on. One of mankind's greatest. We miss you, Hitch! We love you. You are immortal.


8/31/2012

Notes on Recent Debates with Believers

Religion is nothing more than a way to make sense of the world. I can understand the need for our species to assign an agent to everything around us. We are after all pattern seeking mammals that crave meaning behind everything. Human history is littered with gods for everything under the sun, and even the sun itself was once a god (Ra). Explanations must be found everywhere. We must have Something/Someone to be thankful to for these elements that sustain life. We have to worship. It's that evolutionary trait passed down to need to be cared for. It's infantile and useless now that we know what we know. Once you understand religion's role in human evolution you can begin to take a step back from it.

One of the greatest ideas the "new atheists" have highlighted is the call to treat religion as a natural phenomenon. Daniel Dennett does this best in his books and lectures. We can't truly study religion and religious belief without detaching it from its privileged status. It's currently on an untouchable pedestal. You may have noticed this if you have ever debated with a believer. You can't argue about a philosophy when those supporting their philosophy can't separate themselves from their biases for the extent of time it takes to have a fair debate about their specific philosophy. *That sentence was way too long but I'm not changing it.

In many religious debates you may notice believers use a myriad of logical fallacies. Some of my personal favorites are the straw man, argument from authority, appeal to ignorance, or the non sequitur. My absolute favorite is the "appeal to ignorance." "You can't prove there ISN'T a God... so there MUST be a God." That's sort of an "appeal to ignorance", "non sequitur" combo right there. This happens constantly in discussions I have with Evangelicals. It's always a struggle to get people of this caliber to meet on the grounds that sound scientific data is where everyone should agree to meet before discussing anything. The respect and thus adherence to the scientific method is when most arguments fall apart before they even begin. I was once having a back and forth with someone on facebook and they basically just said, "What if you are wrong?" An old classic mind fart that is so easy to combat an infant could take this one. Um... What if YOU are wrong? Does that work? HA!

. . . What if I'm wrong though? What if there is a hell and I'm going to it? What if .. fill in the blank. I am not even mildly concerned about the absurd concept of eternal hell or feel joy at the idea of eternal heaven? Even the "good" part of the afterlife believers present as an option, I would pass on. Eternal burning? Obviously . . . No. and Fuck you. Eternal praise and worship? Um. . . . No again and Fuck you as well. I'll pass on both.

I remember as a child my Sunday school teacher told us that the burning forever part of hell wasn't as bad as the separation part of hell. Hell was separation from God. That was worse. Not having God around (the omniscient being who allowed hell to be made in the first place) was worse than your flesh burning for all of time. OK, got it. Had I known a little more about human history I may have raised my hand and asked the teacher where was God for the first 90,000 years of human history? Was that time period "hell on earth"? Christopher Hitchens said once in a debate, "..and for the first 96,000 years of this experience, heaven watches with folded arms, lets us go through all of this, with indifference, without pity, and then around 4,000 years ago decides ‘Gee, it's time to intervene’... And the best way of doing that would probably be around Bronze Age middle east, making appearances to stupefy illiterate peasants, which could then be passed on, the news would get to China around 1000 years after that.” But remember the earth is 6,000 years old.. and this is when a Creationist comes out of the closet (or ark) and you can explain to him everything we know about modern biology, geology, cosmology, paleontology, etc etc.

This notion of hell is childish nonsense and anyone with common sense can see through the lie. It's a fear tactic for means of controlling groups of people. If you can't see this by now you may need to dig a little deeper with your brain. Even some of the moderate Christian writers like Rob Bell have chucked this moronic idea of hell into the trash heap of dumb human ideas. But just like some still think two of every animal can fit on a boat, some think we get punished like bad children after death. Pathetic, childish nonsense.


The most unique of discussions I had was a recent one with a Christian acquaintance from the past. She told me that I really am saved still and just had some bad advice/instruction in my life to lead me down the path to atheism. *Remember friends, those that do not want you to think are NOT your friends. I found this fascinating and insulting all at the same time. I guess I've never really thought someone would be so disconnected with reality to think that I may actually find my way back to being ignorant. I don't mean to be hostile but that's what it is: ignorance. Whether this ignorance is by choice or just sheep mentality, every path down that religious road is different. That's just if I decide to steer back my life towards blind faith. So the other option is if I don't and die an atheist (which I can't really be because once a Christian ALWAYS a Christian!) Ignore the creepy connotations of that for a minute and focus on what this really is. I responded after being sort of taken off guard with a simple: "Pascal's Wager" comment. The dumbest idea ever. I am going to suspend what I know of reality so that I can fake "have faith" again just to hedge my bets so that I won't be burned for all eternity by a loving god. <-- *That sounds like a mental patient wrote that last sentence. I'm keeping it!

That covers the comedic fascination of that absurd notion of me still being saved and that I'll "come around".  The part that mostly just pisses me off about this is that it's frankly a sick game of pulling that trigger in an ex-believer's mind. When a person has been indoctrinated (quite literally) all of his/her life as a child/teenager he/she has these triggers that religious people try to pull at: the guilt, the emotion, family peace, etc. It's not only insulting but very low and evil. When you have no evidence or facts on your side you resort to mind manipulation. Religious indoctrination to children is plainly: mental child abuse. This person played that card and that's simply uncalled for. I wasn't bothered by it, but recognized it.

It reminded me of a recent visit home I had. I was in a local restaurant where I saw an older acquaintance from the past who was a Christian. We used to attend the same church/ Christian school. I said hello and smiled. "How have you been?" He just looked down at me with condescension and replied, "I've seen you on Facebook." He didn't need to say more. I knew he was showing his disapproval of my atheist and pro-evolution links and notes I post. I was transported back in time to church and the pastor calling us out for laughing. It was a feeling of being caught, being in trouble. The feeling of an older authority figure coming down on you for "acting up" or "rocking the boat". Of course that's childish but it's what is at the very core of all things religious: Fear/Control/Totalitarianism. I recognized the trigger and brushed it off and moved on to the salad bar. *Alright you guessed it, I was at Pizza Hut!

You may get a believer that will admit that when the rubber meets the road it just boils down to faith. Blind faith. Faith with insufficient or no evidence. Admittedly. This is refreshing when honesty pours out like this. Some, if pressed to that point of personal honesty, will admit that. It's somewhat rare, but of course can be laughed away when pointing out a simple question of why is your "personal faith" any more valid than say a Muslim's personal faith.. or fill in your religion and time period?. Oh, because the Bible tells you it is. Right. The Bible says it's true = the Bible is true. Genius! I have debated with a few "educated" believers that say they have mounds of historical evidence if only I would look at it. I will obviously look at any historical evidence presented to me, but if we are going to do this scientifically then your evidence better be extraordinary and there better be a lot of it. Of course there isn't when it comes to "proving Jesus was the Son of God and died for all of our sins". I require AT LEAST as much evidence as "doubting Thomas" was allotted in the book of John before I begin to talk about Saviors and hell. I think it's only fair.

And so we go around and around in circles with believers. We have problems getting them to "come down" to our level to debate by jumping off their high horse of "special privilege" because they have "the perfect book". Then the next step is getting believers to acknowledge the scientific method as a tool to understand reality. That's almost as hard as the first obstacle. As Sagan said "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works." They have to meet here before we can go over the evidence of the believers beliefs. If you are so lucky to have achieved this massive achievement and can have a legit debate about religion then that's when the real fun begins. OK so... Who wants to have some fun?

Tactical Approach

What's the best approach to lead theist friends to atheism?

If you are an atheist what is more important to you: 1. Seeing a theist friend come to the realization that the idea of god is nothing more than a construct of the human mind throughout human evolution or 2. that your theist friend comes to the realization that science is the the best tool ever devised to understanding how the world works? It's very difficult leading a theist back through all the unfounded nonsense they accepted as fact because this ordained fellow said this, or this old book said that. It's a challenge to get them to meet you on the same page which is: "I don't know". It's hard to know where to start.

Each atheist has their own path to atheism. Some had to be de-converted like myself. Others were brought up from atheist parents and just stayed the course. For those that are active atheists it can be difficult to get our theist friends to talk about theism or atheism. There are a few exceptions in my personal life, but not many. Most ignore the subject due to "keeping the peace". Which I used to understand (comfort level), but no longer do. I do not agree with bottling things up. As friends or family, I despise not communicating our differences. The human animal is so sensitive to disagreements. I always notice I am when proven wrong about something I thought was true. I feel like I'm getting better at noticing that and understanding the merit of that, but it's a work in progress. It's healthy. It's easy to knee-jerk reaction everything.

There is this idea that the "new atheist" movement is militant (in a bullying verbal/written form). It's just as fundamentalist as the theist fundamentalists that they are "trashing". Despite the obvious flaw in logic in that last sentence, it's clear that there is push back against the "four horsemen"  (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (RIP)) not just from the obvious theists but from agnostics and even some atheists. In general, atheists are not used to standing up and fighting for their ideology. People do not like the abrasive approach of these "new atheists". I guess because having a youtube channel, public debates, lectures, or releasing books for sale are abrasive approaches. I'm not sure I get the "abrasive attack" characterization. I can see how people may have thought Hitchens was a smart-ass at times but he was incredibly polite to all the people he debated (a.k.a. intellectually destroyed) and to the host of whatever show he was on. Same goes with Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. The closest I've seen Dawkins being angry was in an interview with O'Reilly (how can anyone not get annoyed with O'Reilly's attack interviewing style though?)

So the issue is knowing where to start in getting your theist friends to the ultimate mental/physical freedom of atheism. I've noticed when debating fundamentalist Christians, (people that still attend the church I attended throughout my childhood for example) they do not take science seriously. Not only do they not take valid scientific theories like the theory of evolution seriously but they do not respect/adhere to/practice the scientific method as a whole in every day life. In other words, they do not think scientifically about things. Obviously these theist I'm speaking of are not informed enough on the subject they object to: Evolution, for example. That's clear, but the core of the problem is: they do not understand how science works.

What if it's better for the theists I'm speaking of to start with discovering science and most importantly the scientific method. Maybe it is better for some to go the Kenneth Miller route. Kenneth Miller is a theist and a evolutionary biologist. He has fought publicly in the courtrooms against the teaching of Intelligent Design in the biology classroom in public schools in the U.S. He understands that Creationism is not science. His book is called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution". However before this book, it may be important to point to your theist friends in the direction of some basic books on science methodology. Maybe point to some works by Carl Sagan. If we can get the theist to meet us in the "I don't know. you don't know" arena then we can have an actual debate about god or no god.  No specific privilege for God said so in my book. Science has to be the measuring stick.

In a recent "Big Think" youtube video Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why he is an agnostic and not an atheist. Neil is a genius astrophysicist and a personal hero of mine. I love his passion for advancing science literacy to everyone around the world. Though I find some fault (not much though) in what Tyson says in the video about his characterizations of atheists I do have to wonder if he hits the nail on the head near the end of the video when he says, "I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place. Just get you curious about the natural world." This may be a more effective approach to leading your theist friend to atheism. Get them started with science. Share with your theist friends the joys and the usefulness of skepticism. Get them obsessed with being a skeptic. It's absolutely critical and above all: evidence, evidence, evidence! Extraordinary amounts of it for an extraordinary hypothesis.

If we get the theist to become a scientifically literate individual then we will get them to become a step closer to reasoning away a theistic view of God then.. a deistic view (which is always the last to go, but seems to go quickly once we've let go of the infallible "word of god") At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves as atheists what we really would wish for our theist friends. We obviously want to help set their minds free from being a mental/physical slave to a celestial dictator. However, more importantly we want them to understand the natural world through the tools of science. This to me is the most important. This most likely (not always) will lead them to the path of at the very least, agnosticism. It takes magnificent mental acrobatic maneuvers to know enough science and still believe in any holy book as literal truth. Show your theist friends the wonders of all things science and let the brain do the rest.

The Sun Is a Star and Your Choice Of Radio Program Sucks

I remember when I was young hearing that our Sun was a star. I honestly do not remember if I learned this simple fact in my science class at the Christian school I attended or heard this on T.V. I promptly told my father. My father told me it wasn't true. He told me that our Sun is a Sun; it is not a star. Well, yeah but ... As silly as this sounds it cuts to the problem with growing up in a religious environment being educated in a religious school all of my life. With each discovery in science we find out human beings are clearly not the center of attention in the universe. As Carl Sagan said correctly, "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." At first we had to be pulled off our pedestal by coming to grips with the sun (a star) not orbit around the Earth, but vice versa. Then we had to come to grips with the fact that our Sun was just a star among many stars in a vast galaxy. Then we had to accept the evidence that our galaxy was not the only galaxy, but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Now M-theory is suggesting that there may be more than one universe. The mind boggles at these realizations that are backed up by physics and math. We also have found that life can form in the most inhospitable environments. Bacteria were recently discovered to thrive in arsenic. Life may not be so unique. And as famous physicist Lawrence Krauss said, "So the real thing that physics tell us about the universe is that it's big, rare event happens all the time — including life — and that doesn't mean it's special."

My father may not have understood the terminology in basic cosmology. It's sort of the same thing I suppose as not understanding that homo sapiens are apes. (Hence uniformed statements like and I quote.. , "I didn't evolve from no ape.") The words theory in "the theory of evolution" confuse many of the Christian faith too. There is a germ theory, a theory of gravity, a theory of special relativity, etc etc. It simply doesn't mean that the theory of evolution isn't chalked full of facts (each tested and proven over time).
I was thinking of these memories today as I sat at a red light. I was listening to "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. This audio book was a gift from a friend. I've listen to it a few times and thought I would listen to it again today. As I'm enjoying and nodding my head in agreement to many points in the last tracks of the audiobook, I notice the car next to me blaring an audiobook or talk radio. I quickly turned down Sam Harris to pay attention. It was a preacher talking about sin and how sin can spread like a disease in a church. He was going on about how homosexuality was wrong and the sin of two people in a relationship living together who are not married. It was sort of the type of indoctrination I was exposed to as a child.

Now I know it's all nonsense of course, but it just made me realize even more that when religion starts to seep over into the real world, we have a real problem. As Hitchens puts plainly - Religion poisons everything. It rejoices in slave-master mentality. It's a dead way of thinking of the relationship of humanity with the cosmos. It's incorrect. Simply, it needs to die off like all the other myths throughout human history. We are not the center of it all. We have evolved to be self-centered like the rest of the animals but our big brains have overcome these misconceptions. We know what's up now. We are awake finally! It gives me chills to put this into context of the evolution of our species. We are amazing creatures. We don't need these superstitions anymore. The real universe is fascinating enough. We are aware at a great moment in human history. The death of faith. The death of religion. Front row seats!

So, I turned up my radio for counterattack. He looked over. I smiled, the light turned green, and off we went. That was me no less than a decade ago. Getting pumped up listening to preachers talk about God and feeling passion for evangelism. It's such a long winding road back to that day my father said to me that the Sun is not a star.

The sun is not a star. We are not animals. We are unique and God loves us. Funny thing is... as you grow up, you realize things aren't so simple, but you don't have to be afraid! It's quite different then the "leap of faith" you may have made accepting God. This is the opposite of a "leap of faith". You can set your feet soundly on grounded evidence-based facts. The reality of this natural world in which we live for a flicker of time, is beautiful. Discovering facts about this universe through science is the most noble of career paths, the most exciting of ventures, and the most productive way to live one's life. In the words of Carl Sagan, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

*Originally written 4/18/2012

The Souless Human Animal

I think that one of the single most important realizations the modern human being can have is the simple realization that you are in fact a species of animal among many others on this planet. Not just one of many species of animals on this planet right now at this very moment or within your lifetime, but one of billions, probably trillions of species of living organisms over billions of years on this planet! This will immediately give those reading this a reaction. Some will detest this statement saying how it is false. We are much more than animals, we are created in the image of God, we are beings with souls. Some will agree with this statement but also say we have a special purpose or some sort of role in the great cosmic plan. We can split hairs and play language games about this, but the core principle of human = animal is HUGE. You have to really grasp that. Not just biology majors, everyone! We are wired to not step out of our own heads to see ourselves in nature. We have big brains that have big imaginations and throughout human evolution we invented many different beliefs about ourselves and our origins.

When I used to be religious I remember feeling elation at times when I prayed or thought about the majesty of God and his love for me. I used to reflect on my purpose which was of course His will which of course was me talking to myself in my own head. That same elation times a million is something I feel when I realize that simple fact that I am a human animal on this beautiful planet. I am here and I am lucky enough to live in such a wonderful and free country that I can be free to study this natural world around me and the cosmos. How amazing. I'm here through a long line of genetic "winners" through natural selection. How precious life is and how abundant at the same time. I have to say as well that death and grieving of loved ones or friends can be dealt with much more honestly thinking this way too. It's real and it's final but it's natural. Thinking about one's own death by thinking this way helps me be more at peace with my own death someday (hopefully far far away). It's natural comfort in a pitiless, indifferent universe that is so grand and so vast.

Live life! Be happy! I mean come on, just look at all of this! What the fuck?! Seriously, what the fuck? haha! Look up at the stars! Look at yourself. We're all made of the same things. That simple fact is worth more than all the stories in old books combined.

*Originally written 5/3/2012

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?