Iron Apologetics

The following post contains spoilers for Iron Man 3 and, possibly, the existence of God.

If I believed in a benevolent creator, I could see myself being a huge fan of the guy. Not only would I owe my own existence to him/her/it, but also would I credit him/her/it for the existence of my friends, my family, my planet--basically everything that matters to me. Religion understandably has it’s share of fanatics, but for those who see no reason to believe, we direct our fandom elsewhere...like movies.

I saw Iron Man 3 this weekend. Robert Downey Jr. really owns the role and the inclusion of Guy Pierce as the villain was a great choice. As with most summer blockbusters, it is an explosive spectacle with a passable story as long as you don’t think about it too hard. I, unfortunately, thought about it too hard. I can’t help myself. (If you haven’t seen the movie and like the film of Marvel Studios, go see it. Spoilers begin now.)

Tony Stark spends the lion’s share of the movie out of the armor. This isn’t THAT surprising. Downey Jr’s ability to convey emotion is severely limited when he has a metal hood over his face. And, hey, why cover the cash register? The result of this choice puts the character in harms way pretty much the entire flick. I doubt the audience is worried that the most popular Avenger in the franchise will die, but, in theory, he is almost always killable to any guy with a gun. This leads me to what takes me out of movies most often--characters not acting like real, intelligent people. Tony Stark is always the smartest guy in the room, so if he is forced to MacGyver weapons out of groceries, I assume it’s because he has no other choice. Later in the movie they show that this was never the case--revealing the biggest plot hole of many plot holes. Tony Stark simply calls upon an army of automated Iron Men. Sure, it allows for a big climax, but it also throws into question why Stark never called upon just one or two Iron Men armors much earlier.

Here you may ask: are you going to bring this back to religion or are you turning this into a movie review blog? It’s the former. I’ve found that movie franchises, especially those catering to the demographic I lovingly call geeks, inspire a kind of irrational loyalty at times. I’ve mentioned this plot hole to Marvel fans in the past 48 hours and have been met with rationalizations that are far too charitable to what was actually shown on screen and hostile toward any critical views. Here are some reasons I heard as to why this plot hole is not a plot hole.

1. The armors were trapped under the ruble of Stark’s demolished home.
2. Tony couldn’t summon the armors because he had no way to contact JARVIS.
3. JARVIS couldn’t connect to the home server.
4. Tony was trying to stay under the radar when he was presumed dead.
5. It never occurred to Tony until the moment he used the protocol.

Each of these are grasps at straws to rationalize an emotional belief that the franchise they love is perfect. An critical assessment of these rationalizations shows they break down quite quickly.

1. If the armor was buried, then Tony also couldn’t summon them when he eventually did. If they weren’t buried, then he could summon them anytime.
2. Tony could have asked JARVIS to summon the armor before JARVIS went offline. He could have asked JARVIS when Tony got him online again, which happened long before he finally called on the armor,
3. Tony sent a message to Pepper very shortly after his disappearance showing that either his home server was accessible or that Pepper could have made it accessible.
4. Disregarding the fact the no one should have presumed Tony dead considering Iron Man shot into the sky not far from the attack on his house where news coverage was present, Tony openly admitted who he was to anyone who saw him. Also, he obviously had more desire to have an armor than to stay concealed since he was working on fixing his suit from the moment it was disabled.
5. Tony Stark isn’t an idiot.

Weak reasoning based on assumptions to defend what is an emotional faith in a franchise is essentially secular apologetics. This is just one example. Last year, negative reviews for The Dark Knight Rises prompted death threats from fanatics who hadn’t yet seen the movie. In the tech world, the Apple/Android/Windows faithful refuse to see design flaws in their favorite gadgets; instead, they are "features."

Am I over thinking this? Perhaps. Next week I’ll explore the theological implications of The Fast and the Furious 6.

An Abortion of a Post

A Catholic apologist I follow recently said that “religion isn’t required to show that an unborn child is a human being.” The particular phrasing of this statement makes it obvious. A child of a human is a human. No need for debate there. The less clear question is this: is an unborn zygote or fetus a child? For the sake of argument, let’s say yes, but that still isn’t entirely the point. After all, the corpse of a human is still a human. The morality of abortion must take into account more than black and white definitions.

Killing cells isn’t a morally wrong act by anyone’s standard. If it was, everything from sun tans to common medical procedures would be stigmatized or illegal. A fertilized egg is a very active collection of cells. In my opinion, the main distinction between human cells and human people is consciousness. While the moral argument of aborting a mind cannot be made until the brain develops, the moral argument for aborting a soul can be made at conception...providing one accepts that the spiritual enters the material during orgasmic climax or shortly thereafter. I know breeders tend to say “on my God” in bed, but I’m not sure that’s exactly what they mean. It’s magical thinking, and it’s the foundation for religious pro-life reasoning.

This post is probably painting me as a bleeding heart pro-choice advocate. I don’t consider myself as such--my view is more nuanced. Unlike religious pro-life reasoning, there is valid secular pro-life reasoning that takes into account the terms of the pregnancy as well as other factors. When the brain and nervous system develop and the unborn child begins to think and feel, I am far less comfortable with abortion. Watching the ultrasounds of my twins, I learned that this development happens surprisingly early. It’s hard to say exactly when my feelings on the subject change. As a rule, I am pro-choice for the first trimester and pro-life for the third, with my opinion during the second trimester contingent largely on the situation--but still leaning pro-life. I think this is a common take on the moral dilemma of the issue. The religious pro-lifers tend to defend their position with images of near-fully developed kids cut out of women’s bodies. This is always gruesome and, at least in my case, a straw man pictorial. In a way, it’s also misrepresenting their own position, considering Catholics focus the lion’s share of their propaganda  on late term abortions while they feel the exact same way about morning after pills.*

*This may be a generalization, but it’s a well informed one. I’m representing the Catholic Church’s position and very few Catholics defect from the Church’s position on anything much less a hallmark like abortion.

Rebuttal, Part Four

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here. You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One, Rebuttal, Part Two and Rebuttal, Part Three also.

Dr. Conway’s wraps-up his post venting his frustrations on a misconception about Christians--that they are stupid. I feel his pain. I spend much of my time correcting generalizations and perverse stereotypes about atheists. Christians, as a whole, are no more stupid then atheists are amoral. That said, it is also a generalization to say that atheists think Christians are stupid. No atheists I know think Christians are stupid (well, maybe Cephus.) More common is the belief that Christians are intelligent people who accept a relatively small set of stupid beliefs. This doesn’t sound like a charitable assessment, but when I hear someone say that a forgiving God is still blaming us for something a distant ancestor did at the dawn of time; or that one guy built a planetary-flood-worthy vessel to house two samples of all life on earth; or that morality is woven into the fabric of the universe--it’s all I can do to not assume that person is stupid.

Christians are not stupid. They didn’t come up with this crap on their own. They are gullible. This tradition of delusions has been passed down and added upon from pagans to Jews to Christians--so it’s obviously hard to shake. Many atheists like myself take care to not be overly hard on believers, seeing how we were once one of you. I don’t want to be stupid retrospectively, but I recognize that I was certainly gullible. As alluded to before, I had a child’s trusting instinct, but this isn’t about me. Let’s assess the Apologetic Professor’s claims directly.

Secular historians credit Christianity with creating the very icon of intellectualism, the modern university system.

They do? If so, great, but lemme guess, in the cases that Christianity is credited, they closely tied religious education to the program. The university system is a by-product of what is ultimately organized indoctrination. I’m glad the more secular landscape of academia took over.

A large number of intellectual disciplines (e.g., chemistry, a lot of mathematics, genetics, existential philosophy) were founded (and understood by everyone to be founded) by Christians.

No examples are made so we’ll just have to take your word for it. Again, this shows Dr. Conway isn’t used to a skeptical audience. There are significant problems with this kind of claim in that these alleged Christians are no longer with us to clarify their beliefs. Hell, Christians and atheists still argue about who can claim Einstein when he wrote more clearly about his religious beliefs then most other academics or scientists of which I’m aware. Regardless, if Dr. Conway’s claim is true, I’m not surprised. Most of the people in the developed areas at the time when these disciplines could be developed were Christian. It’s a numbers game--odds are Christians would do a lot of the developing if the intelligence of the people belonging to various religions and secular belief systems were roughly the same, which I imagine is the case.

Christianity has spread literacy and education pretty much everywhere it has ever taken root.

Christianity gaining popularity and staying popular in the last 2000 years just happens to coincide with all kinds of advancements in modern civilization. I see it as hitting the sweet spot between cultures ignorant enough to seek religion for answers and cultures advanced enough to not need religion for answers. For whatever reason, Christianity has been the preferred faith for cultures valuing equal rights and freedom than, say, Islam. I suppose it deserves a little credit (but, really, look at the competition.)

Contrary to the idea that “faith” is unintellectual, all thinking people recognize that some elements of their most cherished beliefs require faith in something unseen that cannot be directly proven.

Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Depending on your requirement of proof, I have faith that the rotation of the earth will make the sun appear to rise in the morning. Since I can't see the future, I have no proof. I do, however, have extraordinary evidence--I have personal data for over 30 years; eye witness accounts with a sample size of the planet's population; historical records going back to cave paintings; and the knowledge that if the earth's rotation ever did stop, we'd all be dead or never born. It's a far cry from faith in the bible--which, coincidentally, does mention the sun rise being delayed at some point. Look it up. Faith in the sun rising is in no way unintellectual. Faith in the bible, well...

The Rebuttal, Part Two

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here. You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One too.

"Religious Instincts."

Dr. Conway says that one of the few things atheists and theists agree on is that we have religious instincts. Judging from the original post’s comments, this certainly doesn’t seem the case, but I’d be willing to let the professor’s cited studies do the talking...if he only cited any. He merely mentioned that studies have been done. Dr. Conway should know that an audience of skeptics won’t take his word for it. As it is, there is nothing for me to address here. I have no studies, no interpretations of studies, nor specifics on what said studies were studying. Eventually, even the professor states he doesn’t care about this alleged research, nor will I.

It seems that an unjust jump must be made to say that the instincts and tendencies we may have are religious in nature--although it’s impossible to say not knowing exactly what specific instincts are in question. To fill out this post, I’ll guess.

Most of us have an innate barrier to sexual attraction toward those with which grow up, especially siblings. Looking at this tendency from the perspective of our culture, it appears like a moral instinct. Apologists claim moral instincts are evidence of God. Is this one of the religious instincts to which Dr. Conway refers? If so, I can explain this example without be pointing out the clear evolutionary benefit to incest aversion--seeing how it usually doesn’t bear offspring or increases the risk of birth defects. I’ll explore other seemingly moral instincts in my Rebuttal. Part Three dealing with morality.

I mentioned in my post to The Apologetic Professor that some people are naturally more trusting than others. We could call this a trusting instinct, which is highest in children. Parents know, kids will believe all kinds of crap. This is why I am opposed to religious indoctrination. It’s not fair to the kids. Their cognitive faculties aren’t completely online and will accept any answer to whatever basic inquires they may think up. Dr. Conway mentioned Santa, which largely works against his argument. Kids believe Santa not because they have a Christmas instinct, rather because they have a trusting instinct. A near defenseless youngster believing his or her world-wise parent is a survival trait that would be continuously selected from an evolutionary standpoint. Most people think Darwin set back apologetics only in regards to the Argument from Design, but evolutionary biology acts as a valid hurdle for many a theist assumption.

Finally, Dr. Conway states that he thinks probabilistically. As a poker player, I approve, although I wonder where faith comes in when one thinks God is only probable and not certain. I also question the probabilities the professor assigns to the variables. Just because two things are possible, doesn’t make them equally likely. This, again, will be a common thread as the rebuttal continues.

The Rebuttal, Part One

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here.

First and foremost, thanks go out to The Apologetic Professor. It takes a high level of confidence in one’s beliefs to offer it to an entirely new, and let’s face it, less-than-receptive audience. Luke has this confidence. He also was willing to lend his audience’s eyes to a point of view contrary to what he believes. This is not common, not at all.

Here’s were it gets mildly insulting, Luke, but bare with me. The Apologetic Professor wasn’t my first choice for this meeting of the minds. I contacted the authors of other apologetic blogs first, most notably Apologetics315 and Truthbomb Apologetics. My motives were selfish to a degree. I knew these sites had a page rank higher than my own which would translate into my words reaching further into the interwebs. I got a lot of “thanks, but no thanks.” I pressed on researching other Christian blogs, finding few I liked, but many that were reputable within their community. I reached out those who were my peers in popularity. No takers. At this point I was going to cut my losses and write a post about how Christian apologists are so insecure about their own arguments that they’d rather preach to their choir than potentially save souls. I couldn’t deal with rejection any other way than to assume they were worried my words would topple the house of cards they built for their flock.

I never wrote that post. A last scan of Google brought me to The Apologetic Professor. At this point I was more concerned with content than metrics and his content was far more appealing than what I saw up until then. I found that Luke was an actual Professor of Psychology, which didn’t worry me nearly as much as it normally does when I find an outspoken believer in the education system. Sure, he’s well spoken and intelligent, but he also injects humor into otherwise dry and polarizing material. I’m a sucker for humor.

Thus ends my back-handed compliment. On to the the first part of my rebuttal.

“Seek and you will find.”

The Apologetic Professor offers decent advice, but not great. We see things through our own subjective lens developed by both conditioning and experience. Every story I've heard about signs from God are dripping with confirmation bias and superstition. We tend to find what we want to find, especially when the experiment is uncontrolled. So seek away...using the scientific method.

The whole point of the scientific method is to strip away biases and take the observer as much out of the equation as possible. Praying for a sign, seeing a white bird fly past at some point throughout the day, and interpreting the bird as the requested sign is pointless. Praying specifically for a white bird to fly past at high noon and recording the results is a much better start to ascertain the power of prayer. Find a way to objectively test your hypothesis, then test it, then repeat the test. Otherwise it's all just good vibes and vapor miracles.

And please, apologists, never assume the atheist you're speaking too hasn't sought God. Some haven't, but most have. I don't have stats for this other than anecdotal evidence and the fact that most people in the world are born into religious families and cultures. The topic of God comes up, often, and most of us pursue it. After all, who wouldn't want a personal relationship with a supreme being? I sought a few variations of the God Luke believes in. I didn't find him.

I will continue the rebuttal to the Apologetic Professor's post in three more parts to cover the three major points of the piece. Until then, check the comments from the original post. They are doing my job for me.

Death and Penalties

So we have Dzhokhar Tsarneav in custody, a kid with a charge of “using a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death.” It’s an impressive crime, insofar as crimes can be impressive, but I kinda wished they tacked on a possession of marijuana charge for good measure. As it is, this kid either faces life in prison or the death penalty, which got me thinking more about the surviving Boston marathon bomber.

First, there’s way too much unneeded discussion on the guy. I know the 24 hour news cycle needs to fill time and I’m as tired of Justin Bieber stories as he next guy, but it’s already starting to sound like the bomber is a victim in the narrative. Frankly, I don’t care if the surviving bomber came from a culture where brothers stick together and was stuck with a manipulative extremist sibling. I don’t care if he came from a hostile environment, was indoctrinated or was born with a dusting of psychopathy. We are all victims of our brain chemistry, genes, upbringing and surroundings--that doesn’t lift responsibility off the guilty. If these topics matter, we need to address them with solutions in mind that can be applied to our future safety. If his culture is the problem, the culture should be changed. If Islam promotes extremism, then Muslims should fix that or the rest of us should judge them accordingly. I don’t know what parts of the story are true anymore, but it applies to all the acts of violence in the news from here to the dawn of man.

My second thought is this: how are Christians supportive of the death penalty? While not all Christians are conservative and not all conservatives approve of capital punishment, there’s no argument that there isn’t massive overlaps in this ideological Venn Diagram. Not only do Christians need to ignore everything their namesake preached from “turn the other cheek” to “love thy enemy,” they also are taking responsibility for hastening the criminals decent into hell without a fair shot at forgiveness. I don’t mean forgiveness from society, I mean forgiveness from the Almighty in which they believe.

Ironically, atheists are generally liberal who are generally against capital punishment. I don’t have the hold up of breaking a divine law that transcends humanity. “Thou shalt not kill” is an awesome guideline, but I can waive it when taking a serial killer permanently off the board. Apparently Christians can waive it too, but only hypocritically. Not only do they endorse infinite torture for finite crimes by worshipping the God who instates it, they do their best to limit the chances of rehabilitation/confession/conversion/whatever they believe is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. It really boggles my mind that these types of Christians claim the moral high ground on anything.

The Vampire Clause

Geeks Without God

I started listening to a newish podcast that is right up my ally called Geeks Without God. It is exactly what the name implies. I already listen to a couple atheist shows and a couple pop culture/comics shows--but this consolidates my interests! They do a "five questions" thing that I figure I could answer while pimping their program.

1)  What is the best movie you’ve seen in the last thirty days?

Looper. This wasn't my first viewing of the flick, but even without the surprises it beats out the other crap I've seen lately. It's original, it has time travel, and it has a catchy score--three things I look for in movies (I obviously don't fill this criteria very often.)

2)  Who is your favorite atheist character?

I'm a fan of the DC comics character Mister Terrific, even though he has no right to be an atheist. Not only does he work alongside demigods like Superman and Captain Marvel Shazam, but his universe also has Greek gods chatting with Wonder Woman, Biblical angels, and the personified wrath of Jehovah called The Spectre!

3)  What is your geekiest hobby?

I just read a lot of comics. Currently Saga, Chew, Superior Spiderman, Batman, Wolverine and the X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, All-New X-Men, Green Lantern, The Invincible Iron Man, and most recently The Private Eye.

4)  What is your favorite sandwich?

A tuna sub with a little mustard, onion and Lenny's hot pepper relish.

5)  What is the stupidest thing anyone has said to you about your atheism/agnosticism?

That I can't have morality without a higher power. I'm not sure how a social creature could not have morality, but apparently every theist who argues with me is just one missed church service from sociopathy.

Happy Mr. Patrick's Day!

Happy St. Patrick's Day from a guy with no time for saints!

Take an argument for God to appraise
Debunk it and watch them rephrase
To language that confuses
And maintains their excuses
To feel superior to atheists and gays

The bible is a guide to morality
(Providing we ignore the brutality)
But the guide is unwise
When it no longer applies
To any semblance of modern reality

Biblical spectacles were so ambitious
Now consider their absence suspicious
Yes, the poem is satirical
To show a divine miracle
Is, was, and forever will be fictitious

Here are a few from the archives.

Here are some others I found via Google+.

Maybe I should get into Haikus. :-)

The Last Word

If you are a regular visitor to this blog, it’s a pretty safe assumption that you have an interest in at least one of the two most polarizing topics of conversation--religion or politics. Really, the only way to heat up a conversation faster is with sincere “yo’ mamma” jokes. I try to keep the dialogue civil and keep up the appearances of a meeting of open minds...but let’s not kid ourselves. Arguments are battles. It’s perfectly natural for us to want to win. It’s a desire that, at times, even clouds our judgement.

Simply being aware of this aspect of the human conditon can offset it, but only to a point. To get me the rest of the way to fairly assessing my opponents’ points, I’ve started ending debates with an admission of sorts. If I’ve learned anything new, I let them know. Not only that, I let them know in the order that they would want to hear it. For example, if they actually offered an argument that makes me think the possibility of a deity is just a little more likely then before, I’ll point that out. If they corrected a flaw in an argument I use, I’ll admit to it and assure them I will no longer use the faulty argument. If they bring to light a novel way of looking at things, even if this way doesn't change my mind about anything, I will still offer whatever praise I can for originality. And if all I can commend is my opponent’s friendly disposition, then I will do so.

Examples of general phrases to end a positive exchange with another human being:

Thanks for the conversation, you are a congenial voice for your worldview. I hope to chat with you again.

I feel better about Christianity/Islam/Hinduism/Magic: The Gathering now than I did prior to our talk.

Gosh, you're swell.

You get the picture. Truth be told, I get to use these closers more often than not. Many religions pride themselves on brotherhood and non-confrontational missionary work and it shows. Your results may very, especially if you tend to engage trolls.

Still, they can't all be winners. Some people are too passionate about their faith to have a calm conversation with someone who isn't seeing things as they do. Others are going through a type of cognitive dissonance which makes them so uncomfortable they attempt to make it stop by sabotaging the debate. In poker, we call this going on tilt. A player gets mad about a bad beat and starts to play sloppy--this can quickly end a game by, most often, the tilted player losing all his money, or the tilted player gets lucky with their erratic behavior and hits big--taking the other player out of the game. The "tilted" debater can force the same two outcomes by either descending into irrational name calling or prompting a similar reaction from you. My advice? Don't return crazy with crazy. Diffuse the argument with a simple closer and move on. Atheists have a bad enough wrap as it is without more of us throwing around f-bomb laced ad hominems.

Examples of general phrases to end a negative exchange with another human being:

I understand your frustration. I'll think about what you've offered, please consider thinking about what I've offered. (this works even if you have no intention of thinking about their argument further.)

At least we can agree that one of us is right. (I like ending this with a winking emoticon.)

God bless. (Sure, you don't believe in God, but they do. This may or may not be said mockingly depending on your nature, and may or may not be taken as mocking depending on theirs.)

The Truth Is Out There, We Just Can't Reach It

I used to debate theists on the merits of evolution, the origins of the universe, and the foundations of morality. I never thought I’d say it, but those were the good ol’ days. I’ve had seven of my last ten apologetic opponents throw literally everything into question as soon as they realized they weren’t debating a newb. It's finally happened. They've come to the conclusion that there’s only one defensive strategy when the entirety of human knowledge is mounting against their belief: to throw human knowledge under the bus.

Epistemology (\i-ˌpis-tə-ˈmä-lə-jē\) is the study of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity. Apologists have their own theory on the validity of knowledge--that is, knowledge is only valid when grounded in the divine. There is no truth, only Truth. The capital “T” relates the word to the imaginary and changes the definition to the less accepted yet, in their minds, more accurate attribute and/or synonym of God.

The apologist is applying the philosophical argument that objective truth is impossible to determine to the naturalistic worldview. This speaks to my aversion to pointless philosophy, and yet, I must admit, I can’t refute their claim. When I take into account thought experiments in which our reality could be an elaborate holographic simulation or our brains could be drugged and electrically stimulated to perceive things that are false, I intellectually have no choice but to accept that any objective truth is out of my jurisdiction. Where the apologist goes wrong is their claim of exception.

Any philosophical argument for why I can’t know what I believe can also be applied to Catholics, Fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Scientologists, Buddhists, Pagans, Occultists, Rastafarians, whatever. In a naturalistic framework, we are all in the same uncertain boat. Claiming divine revelation of capital “T” Truth isn’t an argument based on reason or logic, it’s a claim of exception based on probable myth--which tends to be unconvincing to those who actually value reason and logic. Moreover, believers face further uncertainty simply by subscribing to a supernatural worldview. Sure, their brains could be in something as pedestrian as vats, but also could their brains be telepathically manipulated by any number of magical entities (gods included,) forever beyond our ability to quantify. For the supernaturalist, all bets are off, giving any epistemological high ground to the naturalist.

While I can’t deny philosophical uncertainty, I see no reason to apply it. Absolute truth is beyond our grasp, fine. Then there’s no point in trying to grasp it. I’m pragmatic. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck--that’s good enough for me. It’s a duck--especially if others agree. There is something to be said for consensus reality. Essential truth is what we can ascertain about our consensus reality, and science is the most objective method to ascertaining this truth. When I say something is true, I mean it is the best, most objective data available. It’s not capital “T” Truth, but then nothing is.

Not Blessed, Lucky

Flip a coin. Call heads. It’s heads! Congrats, you are on the winning side of what was a 50% probability. This means that your guess of a random, binary outcome was correct. Few would say it was because the god of loose change smiled upon you. However, the few become many when the odds become increasing hard to overcome. Take the long-shot win of a lottery for example. It is understandable that one would conclude that reality is playing favorites. Since the universe can’t make choices, an agent with control over the universe is invented to explain the great fortune of some and the misfortune of others. I would guess this is one of the many reasons that contributes to the origin of religious belief in almost every culture.

It’s not all simply a numbers game of financial gain either. Say, you meet the right person and fall in love. It can feel like a supernatural force brought you two together to fulfill an ultimate destiny. Humans are romantic like that. In reality it means that you were open to sharing your life, found someone compatible of the pool of hundreds of people you come across weekly, and had your feelings reciprocated. There are many such seemingly serendipitous events in our everyday life.

My favorite microcosm of luck confirmation bias is finding the bright side of a calamity. Consider that you are spared the full consequence of some misstep of tragedy. We’ve all heard someone say how blessed someone was for surviving a car accident. “You must have a guardian angel,” they say, “God was watching out for you.”

This combination of optimism and superstition is at the heart of faith. We can see the silver linings of such dark clouds and dress them as a deity who didn’t cause the accident, but rather rescued someone from the jaws of death. It's not only mistaking angelic intervention for human ingenuity in the form of seat belts, airbags and crumple zones; it's not acknowledging that shit happens, both good and bad. Belief in magic informed our past, but moving into the future we should all keep in mind...we’re never blessed or cursed, just lucky or not.

Don't Assume Your God is an Asshole

Pascal's Wager is a gamble for a favorable afterlife built on one wild assumptions after another. If you use this, you're assuming there is a God first and foremost. Then you assume there is an afterlife. Then you assume there are multiple versions of the afterlife. Then you assume that belief can dictate where you go in the afterlife. Whether your assumptions are correct or not is no big deal up to this point, but that all changes when you assume that you know the very specific nature of God and what he wants from you. If you're wrong, then you could be the one forfeiting heaven just as easily as anyone else--Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, whatever. In fact, by making the wager you are worshipping a false idol, a damning sin in most deities books. The end result of the wager is the same for everyone. You are guessing at something that, if you are wrong, could earn you hell. Opting out of the wager is the safest move to avoid the "having other God's before Him" scenario.

The only reason to make the Christian assumptions is to accept the authority of the bible, and, let's face it, if nonbelievers did that then there would be no need for Pascal's Wager in the first place. Turning the gamble on it's head by assuming God will reward atheism and punish theism suddenly puts believers at risk. Why would God reward atheism and punish theism? I could answer "mysterious ways" here and make my wager just as valid as the next apologetic argument, but if you think about it, it is consistent with our own nature. I don't want my kids to worship at my alter, I want them to think for themselves. If I was an absentee father I certainly wouldn't expect them or likely want them to the look for me. Since God shows no sign of his existence, at least to me, He is like an absentee father, but if theists want to assume He's a narcissistic asshole as well, I hope they are comfortable in their very real codependency with a very imaginary master.

Shave and a Faith Cut

Little known fact about Occam, he labeled his razors.

Gay Marriage Opponents are Bigots

It’s no secret that the religion fueled, hot button issue of the day is gay marriage. Like it's religion-fueled issue of abortion, gay marriage one of those nasty debates where generalized accusations fly based solely on one’s stance. Gay marriage supporters are endorsing immoral behavior. Gay marriage opponents are bigots on the wrong side of history. Both sides not only deny the accusations, but frame them in such a way that they no longer makes sense. I’ll argue that only one side of the issue has internally consistency.

Gay marriage supporters deny the claims by refuting the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible, which is the only possible reason homosexual behavior can be seen as immoral. This makes me happy on a few levels. Since the America is pretty evenly divided on the morality of homosexuality, that means roughly half the population refute the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible. Considering how many people belong to Bible-centric religions in the US, this means that most of them aren’t nearly as sold on their faith as survey data shows. They are my favorite kind of Christians--those that are Christian in name only. The most secular gay marriage supports make the accusations against them nonsensical in their warranted rejection of “sin” as a concept.

The opponents of gay marriage originally pushed that homosexuality was a choice, but this argument didn't hold up. First, there was a problem calling the majority of those who are an authority on homosexuality, gays themselves, liars. Second, there was a problem that if homosexuality is a choice, then so should heterosexuality be a choice. The straight opponents refused to accept this. Now, opponents deny claims of bigotry with their “hate the sin, not the sinner” rhetoric. Denying a person rights and branding them immoral for who they fundamentally are is the definition of bigotry, but focusing their intolerance on the one action that separates the gays from the breeders (that is, homosexual sex) is a loophole in the bigotry label--at least in their eyes.

This loophole is many things, but internally consistent isn’t one of them. Since the only way to see gay sex as immoral is by appealing to Abrahamic religious traditions, then we should measure their entire argument by the same standard. The bible repeatedly states that sins of the heart and mind are just as damning as sinful actions. Hell, it’s even in the commandments. Thou shalt not covet is an entirely separate command from thou shalt not steal. When using the bible as their guide, the unavoidable and internal homosexual attraction is just as sinful as the active and external homosexual sex act. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that gay marriage opponents are, in fact, bigots.

Gaps All The Way Down

“God of the gaps” is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. (from Wikipedia) History has shown us that many gaps can and have been filled as scientific knowledge grows. So much so, in fact, that it is perfectly reseasonable to assume that there is a natural explaination for our remaining gaps. Theists tend not to come to this conclusion, for obvious reasons, but I wonder how long this conclusion may be avoided.

The best example of a closed gap is Darwin’s shutdown of the argument from design. Of course, I realize there are still individuals and backward denominations that dismiss evolution as a valid explainer of the world’s biological complexity, but if the slow-to-come-around Catholic Church is on board, it’s safe to say that the others are simply in denial. From most of my interactions with honest theists, their main beef with “evolution” is that it is incomplete--meaning that it doesn’t take into account life’s ultimate origin. We should recognize this for what it is: a misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution’s scope, a moving of the goal post from the argument of design to entirely different argument, and a detour from one closed gap to another open gap.

Darwin closing one of the biggest gaps unintensionally converted many theists across the world. Atheist favorite, Richard Dawkins, wrote that he would still be swayed by life’s apparent design if not for the Theory of Evolution. However, explaining the complexity of life doesn’t explain the existence of life. Our biological origin is still an open gap. Science calls it abiogenesis. We have some ideas how it could have happened, but no reproducable experiments to prove which hypothesis is correct. Like the other gap of note, the ultimate origin of the universe, we are unsure. Whether you’re in the quantum foam camp, the violation of causality camp, or any of the other camps that could all be possible from what we see at the quantum level, there’s no smoking gun...yet. My question to theists is this: would settling your lingering questions allow you to let go of God? Humanity is crazy smart. I used to think some answers would be forever beyond our grasp, but now that I have a clearer sense of where science is going, I wouldn’t take anything off the table. My advice? Don’t take atheism off the table. It’s already the most reasonable worldview, and it’s getting more reasonable everyday.

I realize this is my second post directed towards theists in a couple weeks and I'm fully aware that mostly atheists read this blog. I am trying to engage some believers so that I'm not always preaching to the choir (ironically.)

Whether you are theist or atheist, I'd be interested in your opinion of the truth of this statement:

Theists accept that there are some things are beyond our understanding while atheists accept that there are some things we don't yet understand.

Thanks for reading.

Maybe You Have Too Much Faith To Be An Atheist

The Twofold Problem of Fairness

Christians believe, by definition, that there is but one way into heaven and that is the acceptance of Jesus Christ. From here, there are as many disagreements as there are churches. I picture a sliding scale with “live according to Christ’s teachings” on one side and “have complete faith that Jesus died for our, and, more importantly, Adam and Eve’s sins” on the other. Most Christian traditions value both ends of the spectrum, but all seem to implicitly or explicitly place more weight on one more than the other. I’d argue both premises for the most widely distributed religion in the world are flawed by something I call the problem of fairness. In fact, I will argue it, right now.

Let’s look first at “live according to Christ’s teachings.” This is already ambiguous in that the biblical carpenter sends mixed (if not contradictory) messages about how to live. While a problem in it’s own right, it doesn’t factor into my argument from fairness, so let’s imagine Christ’s message is wholly positive and consistent with modern values.

The problem of fairness lies in the fact that not every person has the same opportunity to be good. A poor child without a positive role model--say with a deadbeat dad and an alcoholic mother--statistically has a much higher likelihood to sin than an upper-class kid with an intact family. I’m talking about the BIG sins here--theft, rape, murder--harmful deeds rather than the less-than-honorable thoughts some theists claim are their equal.

Ask yourself, why would God judge someone born into a culture that doesn’t value ethics and must sin to survive as harshly as someone who wants for nothing and was raised into a compatible moral code? As the world is, the Almighty needs to grade on a curve. If He was truly fair, we’d all be put on the same playing field and terms like “the cycle of violence” would have no meaning.

On the other end of the spectrum we are more concerned with belief and less with sin, yet the problem of fairness is still in full effect. For a child born into the “correct” faith of such-and-such flavor of Christianity, indoctrination makes acceptance of Christ natural, but consider a Indian kid who dies before he is ever exposed to religion outside Hinduism. Consider people of a different place and time isolated from evangelization. Consider someone like me who has a skeptical disposition and seeks truth in the form of evidence and logical consistency. If, in fact, it’s Christ’s way or the highway to hell, God has screwed us all with a scarcity of or an aversion to the one true God.

Atheists often cite the problem of evil as a defeater of a benevolent God, but I tend to opt out of this cliche despite it’s obvious truth for two reasons. First, Christians often have a response chambered from their apologetic source of choice--usually placing the responsibility of evil on man, citing free will or the fall from Eden. While neither avenue is valid (considering that God’s omnipotence in regards to the future implies a lack of free will and the fall was preceded by evil serpents) the chambered response shows they’ve heard it all before and have defended their mind against conflicting input. Second, an atheist admitting that evil exists at all will prompt some Christian debaters to detour the conversation to the argument from morality because they only define “evil” in terms of their religion. I’d rather the debate stay on topic. Replacing “evil” with “fairness” is both more specific and more accurate for my biggest problems with religious dogma.

Sadly, the world isn’t fair. This leaves two options: the universe is unguided and shit just happens, or the universe is guided by a force unlike what the Abrahamic religions have to offer.

Unequal Authority

The argument from authority is one of the most commonly used debate tactics for the simple reason that the debater, any debater, can’t know everything about all the topics a debate will inevitably spill into. Contrary to what many theists believe, omniscience doesn’t exist, so an appeal to experts is both useful and necessary...as long as they are in fact honest experts. Unfortunately, the argument from authority is also one of the most common fallacious debate tactics. Lately, I’ve been thinking about the difference.

An easy way of upping the authoritative worth of your given authority is by using consensus of unbiased individuals. A scientific consensus is among the strongest because the consensus centers around experimentation and evidence. You’d be right to ask if there is evidence available, then why is an authority even needed? If I needed to refer to basic principles of physics in my argument, I could easily demonstrate that the equations we learned in school that govern motion actually work. I don’t need to take my teacher’s word for it, I can run basic momentum/acceleration/gravity/whatever experiments myself and observe that the results match what is expected. Authority is only needed when the experimentation goes beyond what I can carry out. I could go gain a higher education and rent time on super computers or particle accelerator to run results that would convince me of such-and-such scientific principle, but I am either unwilling to do this or simply don’t have the resources. In this case, taking the word of a scientific consensus is an acceptable substitute. It is acceptable because the findings and results are repeated by other scientists who have a vested interest in accuracy. If something incorrect as accepted, then everything built on that something will also be incorrect. Things are peer-reviewed and double-blinded to eliminate biases. Competition breeds better science, a concept the often science illiterate free-market capitalists should appreciate, but I digress.

Let’s compare science to history. The evidence in this case are records which have a varying degree of authenticity. Video records are by far the best, followed by audio and the more easily ‘shopped photographic records. These both are only available in the modern age--which can often be backed up with other modern records, even living witnesses on occasion. Moving back in time we only have written records. Before the printing press, these records are subject to deterioration or else revised editions which could have been altered purposefully or incidentally. Remember the childhood game of telephone? Like that. Further back still, these written records are controlled only by the elite minority educated enough to read and write. It’s understood that the further back the records the less reliable they are. The historian with a focus on whatever time period in question surely knows more than I, but I will always remain more skeptical of him or her than a scientist reporting results. For all these reasons it becomes rarer and rarer that historians come to a consensus the older the age in question.

Appealing to a consensus among theologians is more problematic. Whereas science relies on gathering evidence without biases and history relies on interpretations of possibly biased records, theology (in most cases) relies on interpretations of possibly biased records with the intention to justify a bias. Catholics, for example, appeal to the authority of the Church, a group with a vested interest in maintaining their relevancy. Of course there is a consensus among Bishops that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ, but this is as meaningless to anyone outside the church as a consensus among high schoolers that they shouldn’t have homework on Fridays. Or as I analogize to Catholics, who are often Republicans due to their pro-life stance, a consensus among non tax payers that taxes should be raised isn’t exactly an unbiased consensus.

A motto of the freethinker is to "always question authority." It's a good motto. How do your trusted authorities hold up?

The Pre-Debate Questionnaire

I’ve logged in more debate hours than I care to mention here on the Internet, and what I’ve learn most is that theists are all unique little snowflakes. There are so many stories and scriptures available to adopt and then to adapt to fit one's own level of credulity, I can't assume anything about what any believer believes. This ignorance leads to debates going off the rails from general confusion and unavoidable straw men arguments.  If I don't know my opponents position, how can I possibly accurately represent it? So, from now on, I'll be using this short questionnaire to get the debate off on the right, if not awkward, foot.

Pre-debate Theist Questionnaire

1. What specific religion best represents you?
   Churches have split over dogma differences so often that the label of “Christian” doesn’t tell me enough. To know what you believe, I want to know with which faith you most identify.
2. What doctrine(s) of your religion do you not subscribe to, if any?
   To know you as an individual, I recognize that every belief of your adopted religion may not apply. If so, I want to know where you deviate from your faith.
3. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
   This comes up surprisingly often no matter which argument for God we discuss. Give me a heads up in advance if it’s even worth bringing up this aspect of science.
4. Do you believe in hell and/or the devil?
   I should be able to surmise this from questions 1 & 2, but if the answers are vague or something is forgotten, this answer will prove useful.
5. Do you see your holy book as entirely literal, entirely allegory, or some of both? If both, how do you determine the interpretation?
6. How would you describe your level of belief toward the God in question?
   Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
   De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
   Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

I don't have a Pre-debate Atheist Questionnaire, seeing how we have less specifics to our atheism, but we should be able to answer the inverse of question six.

How would you describe your level of skepticism toward the God in question?

Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

(I don't include pure agnostics because I don't see any reason why they would engage in a debate without a position to argue.)

The “God in question,” from above, is an important distinction from just “God” for the atheist. I would tackle an argument for a vaguely defined creator very differently than I would for claims that Yahweh specifically is real. In fact, my assessment of personal belief would also vary. I’m a de-facto atheist in regards to Vishnu, but agnostic towards a god defined only as an agent existing outside our universe.