I Don't Know And Am Happy About It

 Today's little ditty is a bit all over the place, but then again, so is my mind. Enjoy.

And keep circulating those tapes.

Religious Sensitivity

Going back to the roots of this blog with today's post, in which I'm perplexed by what offends religious folk.

A Minor Diatribe

 So I think I may in fact make this a weekly thing, putting my thoughts down on video. Sometimes I find it easier to get my point across and sometimes I find it just more fun. So here it is, my exasperation with anti evolutionist thought.

Is Agnosticism Better?

In a recent comment left for me here I was asked is being agnostic on the subject of god is the better choice rather than atheism. In short, no, I don't it is.

It is true, there is no scientific way to either prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, and I think most atheists will acknowledge that fact. So in a strict scientific sense I am agnostic where god is concerned. That being said, I am in practice an atheist concerning god because the probability of a divine creator is of such an tiny magnitude that for all practical purposes he might as well not exist anyway.

I see no reason why god deserves special attention when it comes to this subject. There are so many other things in our culture that are dismissed as false, yet you can apply the same argument to these things. Here's an example, all but the smallest children know that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Yet strictly speaking we can't with 100 percent certainty scientifically say there is NO Tooth Fairy. We should all be agnostic when it comes to the Tooth Fairy, but we're not. We all know it is false and live our lives accordingly. Bertrand Russell makes this point quite humorously in the story of the celestial Teapot, and I suggest you Google that, for he explains this far more elegantly that I.

It seems to me that there are many things in the world that we should technically be agnostic about, yet we aren't. So why should we give a special pass to god? Just because there are a few books written about him? There are more books written about Harry Potter. If J.K. Rowling were to say that Harry Potter were in fact a real person, should we then apply the above logic to the boy wizard? Of course not.

So yes, in a very strict scientific sense, we should all be agnostic about pretty much everything, including god. However we all make assumptions based on the available evidence about what we choose to believe, or rather, not believe. For me that means that I choose to live my life under the assumption that god is not real and unless some evidence to refute that assumption is produced, will continue to do so. And the same goes for the Tooth Fairy, too.

Richard Dawkins puts is so well that I'll close with a quote from him, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

The Staying Power of Religion

Apart from the social and community aspects of day to day life, I have to admit I really have no idea what use religion has in our lives anymore. It's fairly well accepted that religion was created by man in order to help explain the natural world. However today science has taken the place of religion in explaining the complex world we live in and does so exponentially better. Instead of using a godhead to answer any questions we might have as to why something happens, instead we have learned to observe and experiment and come up with the real answers as to why things happen and occur in nature.

Having said that, you'd think that once the main reason for religion was removed, people would be throwing off these illogical beliefs right left and center. However it seems the opposite is true. Religion, unlike almost every other superstition seems to have a staying power that the others don't.

I really don't have any answers as to why this is, but I do have a suspicion. I blame the parents, and this is why. Think of the many superstitions and illogical beliefs we all hold as children. Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy for instance. When we reach a certain age and our skills at reasoning improve we come to the conclusion, (rightly) that these things cannot possibly exist. And our parents are right there supporting these conclusions.

However the opposite seems to be true when it comes to religion. When children question how all these fanciful stories in their parents holy books can possibly be true, instead of having their suspicions confirmed, (like in the sake of the aforementioned Mr. Claus) children are told that these stories, unlike the others, are indeed true and with an entire congregation of other adults backing the parents up, is it any surprise that kids end up believing this for the rest of their lives?

All that being said, is there anything that can be done about it? I don't know. I think the best way to combat this though is to keep religion out of the schools, something that is being hotly contested in the States right now. only by teaching children the skills necessary for critical thinking can we hope to beat back the dominance of religious superstition in the world today.

Plant a Seed...

Quite often I hear religious folk talking about planting a seed in the minds of non-believers. Well I'm here to say to all the atheists out there, it's time to plant some seeds of our own.

I'm not saying that we need to go out and spread the word or any of that, I'm suggesting something a little smaller, but perhaps more effective.

It seems to me that there are a lot more atheists out there than most people suspect. It's just that more often than not, atheists tend to be pretty quiet about their lack of belief in any supernatural power, and in this day and age, while I don't agree, I can understand it. That being said, I think more atheists need to come out of the closet. Just by living your life and showing more people that you don't need religion to be a good person, we can all start planting those seeds in others minds.

It may not be much, but I'm sure that by doing this alone we can cause more people to question whether or not they need any god in order to lead a full and productive life.

The Positive Side of Atheism

In a lot of my posts I've focused on what I believe to be the negative aspects of religion. While I do stand firmly behind my opinions, I realise that I can come across as a tad negative. So in this post I want to get away somewhat from religion, and focus on what I see as the positive aspects of being an Atheist.

One thing I'm asked quite frequently is, "how can you be happy not believing in anything?" With the follow up, "doesn't it depress you knowing that your life has no meaning?" My response to this is of course I'm happy, and no I'm not depressed at all, and here's why.

Let's begin with the first question. What I take as the meaning behind it, is how can I be happy not having a god to believe in, and to me the answer is quite simple. I don't see any scientific evidence for god, an afterlife, or whatever else supernatural. To me I find that to be a source of immense happiness. What that means, is that for me, this life is all I've got so best make it count, because I don't get the afterlife as a mulligan.

Knowing that there is no grand design fills me with more happiness and wonder than god ever did. Here's an example of what I mean. My entire existence is so unbelievably improbable that by all rights I, meaning the exact combination of genes that make up my DNA, shouldn't exist. The fact that I do indeed exist, despite the odds, can do nothing other than make me smile. Think of it this way, how happy do you think you'd be winning a huge lottery jackpot? Pretty happy, right? Well consider that the odds of you being you are far more unlikely than winning not just one, but several jackpots, in a row!
The fact that life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years to get to the point where I can exist, is to me is something that continually fills me with awe the more I learn about it.

As for the second question, who says my life has no meaning? For me, I find it far more liberating knowing that it's me, not god, that I'm accountable to. Going back to an earlier point I made, I don't believe there is an afterlife, so therefore to me, the meaning of my life is to enjoy as much of it as I possibly can. By creating the means to enjoy my own happiness I am far more fulfilled than I ever found I was relying upon god. And I don't require a book to provide me with any moral compass, I rely instead on my own, again something that has evolved over millions of years.

But more personally the meaning of my life, to me, is not to squander this gift that the universe has let me experience, and that's my life. When I think of the sheer improbability of the confluence of events that led to the creation of life on this planet, I'm not going to waste it hoping for something better once I'm dead.

So to all those who think that in order to be an atheist means a life of depression and hopelessness, think again. To me it's been nothing but uplifting and even more importantly enlightening. Studying the science of how the universe and life came into being has provided me with an enormous amount of happiness and meaning. In my opinion, only once you begin to understand how something really works can you truly appreciate it. To me atheism was the first step in understanding life, and I couldn't be happier.

Arrogance Redux

Before I get into my latest rant, I'd like to apologize for the lack of new posts in the last month. I've been rather busy, but going forward I will do my best to update on a weekly basis. So look for my newest blog on Monday or Tuesday of every week. With that out of the way, there's something I'd like to talk about.

Last year Richard Dawkins released a book called The God Delusion, and just recently Christopher Hitchens published his latest book, God Is Not Great. While both of these books have received praise from many critics and have enjoyed time on many bestseller lists, there has been one recurring theme I've noticed throughout a lot of reviews that I've read. Even in reviews that are positive, most reviewers cite the arrogance of both authors as being a detraction from the overall work. I have to admit this is something that tends to stick in my craw.

I've touched on this is a previous post, but I feel the need to revisit the topic. Is being knowledgeable in a topic, and displaying that knowledge arrogance? If it is, then I guess you could say they are arrogant. You could also level that charge at myself and I guess you would be right. I, however, tend to look at it another way. I don't see how having a basic understanding of the facts pertaining to any subject, and being able to communicate that understanding, as being anything near arrogance. Both of these men approach the subject of god from a scientific perspective, and if you do so, there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity, there just isn't, it doesn't exist, it's that simple.

If you approach any question from a scientific perspective you are limited to what can be proven. Much like mathematics, the numbers have to add up. Two plus two equals four, and no matter how much better it would make you feel if they added up to five, they don't, the answer will always be four.
And that's where both Dawkins and Hitchens begin their books. Scientifically speaking, of all the knowledge science has revealed, none of it supports the idea of god. While the two books take different approaches to the topic, Dawkins book is rooted in the science, while Hitchens delves more into the history of various religions, both maintain science as the bedrock of their analysis.

I realise that I may be repeating myself, but again I have to ask the question, why is it that only when the question of god is brought up that relying on scientific evidence is perceived as arrogance? Going back to my earlier example, we don't label mathematicians as arrogant for solving mathematical equations, not do we call doctors arrogant for treating an illness with the correct course of therapy. Stating the facts of the matter in this case is, in my opinion, anything but arrogant, instead I consider it pragmatic, rational and completely reasonable.

Although maybe I've answered my own question. At one time, god was believed responsible for almost everything. Any scientific advancement that challenged his perceived power was met with extreme animosity. Galileo and Copernicus spring readily to mind. I'm sure that in their day they were both considered arrogant for trying to demean the greatness of god. But with time humanity has come to accept the theories that both these men, and others, have put forward and embrace them as scientific fact.

I think that we are witnessing the last gasp of irrational religious thought. Science has stripped god of all the power he was once believed to posses, and now the only question left is his mere existence. Religions' back is up against the metaphorical wall, and all it has left is ad homonym attacks on its detractors. But apart from a few secular people, (I'll get to them later),
it seems to me only these irrational people are attempting to label these two men as arrogant in stating that the evidence is not only overwhelming for the case against god, but that there isn't one shred of evidence to support his existence.

It's not arrogant to say the emperor has no clothes... it's just common sense.

Is It Rude To Question?

This is a question that I first came across reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. He asked why is it that you can question everything that someone believes, aside from their religion? You can question why someone believes a certain political, economic or moral point of view, but when it comes to the question of why they believe in a certain deity, well that's just not done, it's impolite. Why is it that asking someone to support their assertion of a supernatural power is off limits, when everything else is on the table? Personally, I think this taboo has emerged due to the lack of any evidence of these gods. You can rationally debate politics, (though it is getting harder these days) But when it comes to religion, there is no rational justification for these beliefs, and to someone who considers themselves an otherwise rational person, this can poke a rather large hole in their beliefs. So I think it's become rude in this day and age to question religion dues to the embarrassment these questions create.

Now, I say it's considered rude to question people's religion, but that's not strictly true. Really it's only considered impolite to question the beliefs of people who subscribe to the major religions. It's perfectly acceptable to question those who believe in Zeus, Ra or Enki. In fact most major religions scoff at these so-called lesser religions and will constantly call into question their validity. So just to get this straight, in today's society, it's okay for a christian to question the faith of a worshipper of Athena, but it's not okay to in turn question the christian's faith. Seems rather hypocritical to me. If you're so confident in your faith, shouldn't you welcome questions, rather than avoiding them by creating a social stigma around asking why?

To illustrate my point, let's take smokers. In our democracy we allow people to smoke. It's been proven beyond any doubt that smoking is extremely dangerous to your health, yet we believe that people should be able to smoke if they so choose. That being said, smokers are one of the most ostracized members of society. It can be argued that while not as dangerous as smoking, religion has been responsible for countless acts of violence and murder. If we can call someone to task for smoking due to its dangers, shouldn't we question religious folks for the exact same reason?

In our world there is so much that you can get away with simply by claiming religious belief. Women can be beaten for showing skin in some Muslim countries, yet if the same were to happen in a secular society, it would be a criminal offense. And let's not pat ourselves on the back for living in a more open minded culture. In most western countries we allow Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses to get away with refusing medical treatment to their children due to religious beliefs.

These are behaviors that would outrage any among us if a secular person were to display them.
I think it's time to hold all religion up to the same scrutiny that we do everything else. We don't accept medication on faith alone, we require rigorous testing to prove that it's safe.

Isn't it about time we did the same with religion?

Comfort of Faith Part 2

Just a quick addendum to my previous post. I should clarify that I wasn't saying everyone who is comforted by faith is living for the afterlife, but that those who do, are wasting the only guaranteed time we all have.
My life will only be so long, but every hour I'm alive is something tangible to be experienced. All I'm trying to say is that I'm going to experience the life I Have to the fullest and not bank on an improbable life after this one as promised by many faiths.

The Comforts of Faith

The answer I seem to receive the most from people when I ask them why they believe in whatever supernatural entity they believe in, these are my two most common responses. The most common is without a deity, the universe makes no sense to them. I'll address that one in a later post. The second most common answer, and the one that frustrates me the most though is, "well I just find belief to be comforting."

This answer bothers me for a few reasons. The first of which is that I know, for the most part, where they're coming from. That was the last vestige of belief that I myself held onto on my path to atheism. It can be reassuring to think that there's something after your body ceases to function, that there's some all powerful being looking out for you, that there's a purpose to life.

Now I'm not saying I have all the answers, far from it, but I thought I'd share what I've come to realise about these concerns. There's more in this world, the here and now to find solace in, than in some benevolent omnipotent sky god. Why can't your own happiness, however you define it, be the purpose, the driving factor in you life.

Is the world really so bad that the only way to get through the day is wishing for some imaginary paradise. I just can't understand that point of view. Even on my worst days there's always something I can find that makes me glad just to have ability to enjoy it, whatever it may be.

But what I find the most disheartening about this view is it makes people lazy. Lazy to seek out the wondrous in this world. Lazy to attempt to find answers to the mysteries all around us.

Why bother, after all, if it's so much better elsewhere?