A difference in Faith?

This story is making the rounds in the skeptics blogosphere. One prominent writer summarized it as follows:

A woman has an autistic 11 year old daughter and cannot afford special care for her, so she takes her to a public school. The mother was recently called in to the school due to a horrific claim: her daughter was being abused. This claim was being told to her by the principal, the vice-principal, and the girl’s teacher, mind you, so the mother was rightly very upset.

The problem: this claim was being put forth by the teacher’s assistant… because a psychic told her.

Read the whole story.

This story really shook me. No matter how much I try to be sure evidence is there for claims, give people the benefit of the doubt, tolerate other people, and so forth, unbelievable harm can come to me and my family due to someone else’s utterly nonsensical beliefs.

This is by no means the first time harm has come to people due to faith in the ridiculous, so I am unsure of why this shook me so much. But one of the thoughts that occured to me was: How is getting advice from a psychic any different than getting advice from a preist? They both believe in things that are unprovable. They both interpret texts and teachings as they see fit. So if this sort of horrid nonsense can happen due to some idiot beleiving a scam artist, why couldn’t it happen due to some idiot listening to a misguided priest?

I was talking to my wife about this. My wife has always been, and always will be, smarter than me with respect to these sort of things (I’m still better in math! LOL).  She pointed out that the mechanism of advice is different.

A psychic has no format. They pretend they are predicting things. They pretend they know what is happening in strangers lives without any evidence at all. It is a proactive advice (and not in a positive way) that is, for all intents and purposes, completely random.  Now while there are some religious leaders who are clearly out of their skulls, for the most part I dont think pastoral advice is given like that, its reactive. This advice is at least based in both understanding the recipient of the advice (the same may be said of psychics) and generally years of training in the teachings of Jesus (Buddha, etc…). The advice is also built around communities and peers. Psychics are one on one and have no responsibility to the community.

Sadly, I was pointed to this awful state of things. What does it take to get some semblance of critical thinking among the masses?

My goal in writing this was to hopefully get some conversation going about why religious advice may be better or worse than psychic advice or even psychological advice. My wife can only handle my temperament in this for so long…. LOL.


Build-a-post: What is God?

As authors and participants in FCG, we can edit each other posts. I thought we could actually build a post together with entries from each of us answering the Question: What is god as Kristen and Buffy suggested. This is better than a comment list as it will be all out front, and not burined in comments in a disorganized way. I will start, but the other authors are welcome to put their entries below or above my entry as they wish. If you are reading this and would like to participate in this build-a-post, contact Amanda to become a participant.

TechSkeptic:

God is an elaborate coping mechanism employed by virtually every human being on the planet to one extent or another, even atheists. This construct allows us to find hope within utter horror, optimism in tough times, and attenuate the fear of dying. since human beings have a virtually uncontrollable urge to find a reason for random events while having an amazing ability to recognize patterns even when they are not there, the God construct arose and became a powerful tool for teaching how to live with each other, understanding the world around us and rationalizing our moral code. But like all human qualities, such as our desire for pleasure or our innate xenophobia, the God construct can be employed for destruction and increased suffering, willingly or not.

I mentioned that even atheists employ the God construct. That seems oxymoronic. But it is true, often the rejection of God leads to the acceptance of another faith based mechanism that provides the same response. For example a Karmic Wheel, The Secret, or any branch of pseudoscience, space aliens or woo.

What is your idea of God?

Hello, Buffy here adding to this post.  I hope it works as I haven’t posted here before.

Many people have their own interpretation of God which, increasingly these days, has more to do with keeping themselves happy than with remaining objective about the likely truth.  This is why, when something goes wrong, people say “there is no God” because their interpretation of God is not someone you have an ongoing relationship with but someone who just steps in and stops bad stuff happening to you.

In order to have an understanding of God it seemed sensible to me to go back to the Bible, to a time when people really did try to direct their lives according to what they believed were God’s laws and (in the NT) a time when many people were willing to die for that what they believed.

So here is what I learned:

- God is a creative force (to get into an argument about evolution v intelligent design is completely missing the point here)

- God is all-powerful

- God is eternal

- God understands everything and nothing can be hidden from him

- God is light (that is to say, holy, pure, without darkness)

- God is love (he desires a relationship with you, he was willing to die for you)

- God is good

- God is a disciplining force (as you sow, so shall you reap)

- God is patient and long-suffering; he always forgives someone who is truly sorry

- God is jealous (that is to say, he cares about your relationship with him, he is not indifferent to you)

- God is spirit (he is and can be anywhere and all places)

One thing I would say, is that it is a mistake to try and scientifically prove or disprove God.  The first step is just to try talking to him and see where it goes from there.

I hope that was of interest!

Merewen (hi everyone!):

I’ve been pondering the answer to this question for some time now. As a former Christian, it’s been tough to distinguish between what I truly believe and what I’ve always been taught to believe.

I still can’t bring myself to say that I don’t think there is a God. I simply don’t know. I do know that I don’t think the Christian god exists in the way that they believe he does. I don’t believe in Jesus or needing to be saved or even an afterlife.

God is, to me, more of an idea than an actual person or thing. It seems to me that people put all of their faith in the idea of God when they should be putting their faith in other people. The things that people hope God will accomplish are things that we should be accomplishing.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think God is something people came up with to use as a crutch or an excuse… and I can’t believe I’m saying that because I fought so hard against those ideas when I was a Christian.


Satan - Through Buddhist Eyes

One thing I really love about studying other religions is that it gives me another viewpoint from which to see my own tradition.  Since I truly believe that there is but *one* world that we are all struggling to describe our experience of, it makes sense that I would see other religions as different systems for viewing the same thing.  So here’s my best attempt to show that Satan is (a) not a literal being, and (b) a very important device for learning about how our hearts and minds turn towards darkness.

We’ll start with a quote written by Philip Kapleau, in Thich Nhat Hanh’s Zen Keys.

“Sitting astride the senses is a shadowy, phantomlike figure with insatiable desires and a lust for dominance. His name? Ego, Ego the Magician, and the deadly tricks he carries up his sleeve are delusive thinking, greed, and anger. Where he came from no one knows, but he has surely been around as long as the human mind. This wily and slippery conjurer deludes us into believing that we can only enjoy the delights of the senses without pain by delivering ourselves into his hands. Of the many devices employed by Ego to keep us in his power, none is more effective than language. The English language is so structured that it demands the repeated use of the personal pronoun “I” for grammatical nicety and presumed clarity. . . . All this plays into the hands of Ego, strengthening our servitude and enlarging our sufferings, for the more we postulate this I the more we are exposed to Ego’s never-ending demands.”

Doesn’t the language sound familiar?  But here it is obvious that what is being characterized and personified is something that is *inside* us, even as it feels like he is acting on us. As you can see, it’s quite useful in spiritual literature to personify this character, if only to help us understand how it works. It makes sense to think of it as the Enemy, because that is how it feels. But let’s not forget that this is not about objectivity and the existence of some evil person conniving and scheming to unhinge us and separate us from God. This is not about proof. This is not about fact.

This is about our hearts and minds.

“A primary cause of suffering is delusion: our inability, because of a subtly willful blindness, to see things the way they truly are but instead in a distorted way. The world is in fact a seamless and dynamic unity: a single living organism that is constantly undergoing change. our minds, however, chop it up into separate, static bits and pieces, which we then try mentally and physically to manipulate. One of the mind’s most dear creations is the idea of the person and, closest to home, of a very special person which each one of us calls “I”: a separate, enduring ego or self. In a moment, then, the seamless universe is cut in two. There is “I” - and there is all the rest. That means conflict - and pain, for “I” cannot control that fathomless vastness against which it is set. It will try, of course, as a flea might pit itself against an elephant, but it is a vain enterprise.”

~ John Snelling, Elements of Buddhism

Let’s put it into Christian terms:

Creating the “I” is sin. Sin is being separate from God, right? And what is the “I” but an assertion of separation? Like the passage says, the world is one seamless and dynamic unity. In essence, God is one seamless and dynamic unity. But we like to think of ourselves as separate, independent, different. In fact we spend most of our lives trying to figure out how exactly we are going to be different from everyone else, and when we don’t feel original we feel disappointed. We have a basic, even Original, need to declare ourselves separate from everything else.  It’s inherent into how we work as self-conscious beings.

Everything we do is based on separation from everything else. That’s why we have so much anxiety and fear. Because we think we have to protect ourselves from everything and everyone else. We put up our defenses, but all they really do is enforce the separation and strengthen the Ego/Satan.

And we forget that the sameness and unity are so important. That we need to embrace our relation to everything else, our attachments, our similarities. We can try to be rebellious (isn’t Satan often depicted as the ultimate rebel?), but really what good is it?

Satan cannot oppose God. God is unopposable. It is said that “Darkness cannot co-exist in light.”  In fact, paradoxically, God overcomes Satan by refusing to even compete. Because to compete would be admitting equality. And the small being who separates himself from everything else, or at least, tries to, is weak in comparison to the unity and all-encompassing-ness of God.

What this passage is saying is that most of our pain comes from trying to be separate from God, aka Sin. We are ignorant of the fact that the world is one and that we are a part of it. We are ignorant of our true nature. But just because we are ignorant of it does not mean it goes away. Even when we are most rebellious, we are still loved by God. Even when we most try to separate ourselves from everything else, we are still in seamless unity with it. All we need to do is recognize it and stop fighting.

Relax.   On a very deep and profound level, everything is okay.  There is no need to fear.  It’s the separation that hurts, but really it’s just an illusion.  How can you really be separate from that in which you live and breathe and find your being?  How could you ever be separate from Reality and Truth?  Relax.  There’s no reason to fight it.

Basically what I am proposing is that Satan is a brilliant literary device used to help you understand your own psychology.  None of this really has to do with objective beings sitting over kingdoms of imaginary places full of flames and fluffy white clouds. This has to do with you. It’s your heart that this story is about. You are the characters in the Bible. Essentially, the entire Bible is about *you,* not events that happened 2000 years ago. It’s your story. Listen to it with all your heart and apply it in your life. It’s meant to help you understand yourself and transform yourself so that you can lead the best life possible…one of awareness of your true nature of unity with God/Reality, one of love and trust and compassion.

What do you think?


Changes in Perspective

I began this website with the goal of finding some common ground between people of all belief systems, though the primary focus was between Christians and Atheists.

But right now, I’m finding myself in a position where I’m not sure I can continue to contribute here.

I no longer identify myself with Christians. I honestly have no label for myself right now, simply because I don’t care about labels enough to find one that fits. I’m not an Atheist. But I’m not a Christian either (and what a huge step for me to be able to say that out loud! At least in an online forum… don’t ask me to say that to my friends’ faces.).

 I’ll still be here. Reading. Maybe commenting occasionally.

How ironic that when this happens, discussion picks up around here. :)


Who are the real Christians?

I have almost spent a year talking, debating, and interacting with some really nice religious folks that I have met if the blogworld. In particular Amanda and Buffy come to mind (there are a few others), not to mention a horde of like minded atheists (of course). I have enjoyed their conversation, their thoughts, and their outlook.

I fully admit I have no patience for folks like Vox Day and Min the Gap. That is utter blind faith and it is very difficult for me to read that tripe and respect the author. But to some degree, I can understand it better than i can understand ‘moderate’ religious folks. Once you have taken the gigantic leap of faith that the bible is the word of God, you ignore all the mistranslations, mistransliterations, contradictions and flat out changes (that is an extremely short list), and additions, but still take it to be the word of God, then why wouldn’t you want to take it literally. And I mean damn literally? This is God we are talking about, isn’t it? I mean he wrote some rules. Shouldn’t you follow them? Shouldn’t you go out of your way to make sure other people follow them too?

If god is giving you 613 commandments that include not eating shrimp, not shaving, not wearing mixed linen, having zero tolerance for gays, and all the other total absurdities in the bible, if its really god’s word…why wouldn’t you follow all those? So I have to say, I can understand the blatherings from someone like Min more than I can understand people who’s company I fully enjoy who happen to be religious.

So, to those people, I would like to ask a question:

Without quoting, misquoting, or quote mining the bible,why are you a real christian as opposed to the peckers from Westboro Baptist church (or any of the other disgusting “churches”, i’m not linking to any of them)? If you are muslim, without quoting the Koran, why is your brand of Islam the correct one and not Al qaeda’s or the Talibans?

I am imposing the no-bible quoting rule for a good reason. For every quote or interpretation you can wean out of that book, the WBC folks can do exactly the same thing. Its a no win game. One more disclaimer from me. I am fully aware than many moderate Christians let the old testament slide and focus on the New Testament (which, in it, says that the laws of Abraham still must be followed, so once again, I am confused about letting the OT slide), but yet they still take Genesis on faith (OT), the 10 commandments on good faith (OT again) and so forth. So you really haven’t let it go have you?

I am wondering this because I often hear, what to me is simply the No True Scotman fallacy, i.e. “they aren’t real Christians”. How do you know you are?

If there are comments, I have some follow up questions.


Morality and Preconceived Notions

Min directed me to an article on morality today, since that’s been the topic du jour around these parts.

More accurately, it’s a debate that took place in IRC between a theist and two skeptics. It’s old - the debate took place in 1995 - but that only goes to show that this topic has been around for ages and will continue to be around.

I haven’t read the debate in its entirety yet. I’m through the opening statement from the skeptics, and I want to point out a few things. Mainly, the perception skeptics have of theists/Christians is, quite simply, wrong. Their attempts at putting into words Christian thought and teachings very clearly shows the bias they have against such things, as well as their own misunderstanding of them. I do want to make it clear that many times I will use myself as the intended target, even though obviously it has nothing to do with me personally. I do that for two reasons: 1) It’s easier to type “I” than “Christians” or “Theists” and 2) Since the debate has a lot of generalizations in it, I really am the target as I’m covered by the blanket of many of the statements made.

We do not accept that human beings are inherently corrupt or worthless- and we think that teaching people that they and others are inevitably worthless is dangerous as well as immoral.

This is the first statement that stands out to me in that article. I understand what they’re trying to say. I’m fairly certain they’re speaking of two distinct Christian ideas. The first is that human nature is inherently sinful. Look around. When given the chance, most people have a mentality of “me first.” Even when someone’s family is “the most important thing,” selfishness abounds. Self-gratification. It may be a Darwinian idea, but we really do live in a world of survival of the fittest. That doesn’t mean people are “corrupt.” The second is that we don’t believe anyone is worthy of the atonement we have been granted through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To read the skeptic’s statement, you would believe that I believe, as a Christian, that all humans are worthless. And that simply isn’t true. No human being is worthless as a human. But no human (including myself) is worth what Jesus did. That’s what makes what he did so wonderful. It was the greatest sacrifice ever made, and it proves the greatest love of all time. There’s nothing immoral about that.

Gaining knowledge is nearly always a positive good, and striving to keep people ignorant is probably immoral.

These people would have you believe that I want to keep you ignorant. That I think knowledge is bad. This goes back to what I posted before about reason and faith. Christianity does not exist to keep people in the dark. Reason is not the enemy of faith. Christianity teaches no such thing. It may be that there are people out there who teach this, but they would be wrong.

Another major difference we expect to have with our opponents is that we’re convinced that forgiveness can ONLY be granted, in a moral society, by those who have been harmed. In fact we argue that a belief that forgiveness can be granted by anyone other than the victim is not only immoral but can contribute to other immoral acts. After all, what
is the real incentive for doing what’s right if you can be absolved of responsibility for your acts if you’re just obsequious enough towards some spirit when you ask IT for forgiveness?

I agree! Christians do not only go to God for forgiveness. When I wrong someone, for whatever reason, I have actually wronged two people. The person at hand and God. So I ask both for forgiveness. So right away, their supposition is wrong. How can you argue something is immoral when you don’t clearly understand what you’re arguing against?

Finally, while our opponents will probably argue that immorality and evildoers should NOT be resisted, at least not by mere humans, we insist that humans should resist and oppose immorality as much as reasonably possible in any given situation.

Quite frankly, I have no idea where this one comes from. It seems to be out of left field. I can think of no instance where a Christian would suggest that you not resist immorality.

I’m quite baffled by this whole thing, to be honest. Nearly every preconceived notion these people have is wrong. And quite honestly, I do see why they think what they think we believe is immoral (say that ten times fast!). The only problem is, they don’t know what we believe at all!

I think reading this has opened my eyes to a lot of the problems going on between the two sides around here. Both sides have this idea of what they believe the other side to be like, and they argue around that idea. Unfortunately, it’s not right. That’s why we look at each other as if we’re idiots.

And until we can learn to see the other side clearly, for what it truly is, we won’t get past the feelings that the other side is just full of delusional people.


Atheist Christians

A couple of weeks ago, Amanda wrote a post about an article by Vox Day. Since I recently changed jobs at the same time my wife was having to recover from minor wrist surgery, I didn’t see it until a few days later. By then, Techskeptic and the others had pretty much reviewed it and pointed out the flaws I saw.

Then, more recently, she pointed out that MIn had written another post on his website. It had been several days since his post too, but a few things about it caught my attention. In the first paragraph, he says that atheists take their morality from Christianity and then try to make it secular in order to insulate themselves from Christianity and take ownership of that morality. Then, in the second paragraph he uses an example of an atheist who raised money for charity (I’ll revisit this shortly). To rationalize his thinking, he says that involves the Golden Rule and calls it a Christian concept.

He follows with an exerpt from the Vox Day post, before continuing. I won’t deal with that here, and you’ll see why soon.

Then, he uses Common Ground to critize atheists, and basically calls us poseurs for being involved with CG. He says that this project is the exact opposite of what we believe, and that we’re being parasitic to Christian foundations in our attempts here.

My first comment was a bit snarkier than it should have been, and for that I apologize. However, he did respond to it, and it was actually quite eloquent. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it was very well said (speaking as a former believer).

However, his entire post and all of his comments had only one question toward atheists.

For example, not very long ago an atheist decided to raise money for a charity. Why would they do such a thing? The concept of loving your neighbor is a Christian concept, not a secular one. In fact, if you were to derive morality from science, you would end up arguing that the helpless should be left without help so that the fittest may survive.

Notice that the question was immediately followed with a defense for whatever answer may have been given. However, it may surprise MIn, and some other readers to know that the Golden Rule is not a Christian concept. It’s actually far older, and is included in Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Secular Humanism, and several other philosophical viewpoints throughout history. Another name for it is the Ethic of Reciprocity. Ironically, the Golden Rule isn’t just a human concept, but it also appears in the animal kingdom. An individual helping others can help perpetuate a species. Basically, someone in the distant past observed what makes a group productive, and wrote it down. It wasn’t even written down by just one person, but several of different locales and periods in history. If someone studies such things, it’s not a difficult thing to see.

Then, I was accused of “quoting” what he believed, but I think he’s being a bit defensive on that part. Here’s my first comment:

So you’re belief in the punishment of Hell or reward of Heaven doesn’t play into why you do good things and avoid the bad ones?

Whatever, MIn.

If you’ll notice, unlike him, my comment had a question mark. Yes, it was a bit snarky, but saying that I was trying to tell everyone what he believed was very disingenuous when he’d just spent and entire post, and two comments, stating what atheists believe.

I responded by explaining that atheism simply means that a person does not believe in deities. Atheism has nothing to do with philosophy, but it can influence it. Where atheists get their philosophies for life would probably be too long to list. Specifically, I told him to quit stating what atheists believe. In all of his tirades about atheism, there was only one question involved, and I answered it above.

Well, in his next response, he says:

Berlzebub, when I talk about Atheism I’m not specifically singling you out as much as talking about the philosophy behind Atheism, and what must derive from it.

I have two problems with this statement, one I’ll come back too soon. The first is that he’s not using his noggin for anything besides a hatrack. Saying that a person “must derive” something from atheism is like saying a person “must do” anything. This is a blatantly false statement, because even Christians believe in free will.

Then, he says this:

As for your further statements, you’re right. Atheism says nothing about morals, but you have to construct them from somewhere, and I would challenge you to list your personal morals and compare them with traditional Christian morals and see how the stack up.

It may surprise everyone, but I’m not going to take him up on this challenge, for two reasons.

1. He’s leaving it up to himself to define “traditional” Christian morals. He uses his own views about atheism and what must be derived from it, so I would expect him to use that same methodology for Christianity.

2. Regardless of what reasons I give, he can claim them to be Christian based. Even though, it may surprise some to know that the Golden Rule is probably in the New Testament because Christianity is derived from Judaism. It can be found in Leviticus 19:18, and Leviticus 19:34, which were written well before Christianity got its start. The entire Old Testament is taken piecemeal from Judaism scriptures. So, MIn claiming that his moralities are Christian is questionable.

However, now I’m going to get back to some points that I said I would revisit. MIn said he isn’t singling me out, but in his post he mentioned an atheist raising money for charity, and Common Ground (which I’m right now typing this post on). So, he may not be singling me out, and there may be another atheist who raised money for charity “recently”. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, I would like people of faith, regardless of which one it is, to stop making blanket statements about atheists, and in particular, making a statement about the reasoning behind atheists actions when it is only their opinion of what the reasoning might be. If MIn isn’t interested in finding common ground, I’m okay with that. He can live his life, and I’ll live mine. However, his attempts to say what atheists believe, when they are just his opinion, is the direct opposite of his “Golden Rule”. It says “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, doesn’t it? In that case, how is MIn practicing his Golden Rule? He’s making blanket statements, accusations, and giving the answers that he believes to be true. Plus he doesn’t specifically talk about a singular atheist when he goes on a tirade. Instead everything is about “atheists”, or “the atheist” (as in “atheists must”, or “the atheist must”).

So, in effect MIn is parasitically using the Ethic of Reciprocity for his own means, but changing it so that it only has to apply to those who believe the same as him. If that’s what is considered Christian morals, then I can happily say that I am not a “Christian atheist”. My rules apply to everyone, and not just those who agree with me.

Will MIn ever change his mind about atheists? I doubt it. That would involve him actually sitting down to talk to one and actually attempt to understand. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that he has any interest in that.


Go to church, be happy

A new study claims that people with religious beliefs are more likely to be happy than those without.

The reason?

Research suggests religion can act as an “insurance policy” against the adversities of life.

I’m not really sure what I think about that statement. Do I view my faith as an insurance policy? Certainly not.  But perhaps that’s what other people would call my assurance of salvation. But I’m not sure why my assurance of an afterlife would affect my happiness in this life.

Does my faith give me joy? Yes. Does it help me overcome adversity? Absolutely. But is it an insurance policy? No.


Two People; Two Perspectives

Now here’s an article that ought to generate discussion.

Min has taken the same article I wrote about not long ago and come away with a different conclusion than I.


Science was always first

In my blogosphere meanderings, I have often come across the phase “Science is finally catching up with the bible“, or something to that effect. It has always confused me, for saying something like this displays a deep misunderstanding of how science works and why it is such a robust mechanism for understanding the world around us.

The thing is, just because we document and understand something, does that mean it hasn’t always been happening? When we discovered Neptune (the planet, not the god), did it just pop into existence? Or was it simply there all the time and we just were unable to measure it? When Watson and Crick discovered DNA, did it just pop into existence or was it there for as long as complex, multicellular species have been on this planet? When the first people came to North America (Indians, vikings, Chinese, Columbus, take your pick), was North America there before the discovery or not?So, these days we find that the Earth is round, Dinosaurs roamed the earth, disease is spread by germs, the sun is moving through space, and so on and so forth. And due to widespread quote mining of the bible, these all look like things science is catching up with. The scientific fact has always been first whether we have discovered it or not. The scientific fact was first, whether or not one species on the planet happened to realize it or not.

There are two huge problems with this idea of Bible First. The first is that observation is only the first step in the scientific process, which also includes hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. Without all four steps (others attribute more steps, but lets keep it to 4), science is not happening. So only observation gets us to things like:

  • if a leper comes to a community, soon other people become lepers
  • there are a lot of stars
  • the moon and sun are both round
  • when blood leaves a person, they die

    • And so forth. So as science comes to understand why you need blood, how the moon stays in orbit, and what light is made out of, biblical literalists attribute these discoveries with foreknowledge in the bible, when in fact it is only fore-observation (observations that were made long before the new testament, old testament and also shared by many other cultures and religions). Any accurate observation that exists in the bible or any other religious text, of course will also be a scientific observation, but thats not science, thats just the first step.

    The second reason why this ‘Bible First’ concept is wrong is that there are many things in there may not even have been observations, but instead wild guesses or wild interpretations, just being dead wrong, or is contradicted by other verses. For example, while something in the bible claims roundness of the earth and that it may be interpeted to claim rotation, there are plenty of other places that to an equal extent (of quote mining) claim flatness and immovability.

    Another example: God has often been used to explain why humans display altruism, he commands it and that is why we do it. Only recently have we discovered that monkeys and other animals in fact display altruism also. Altruism, for those with only a cursory education in evolutionary science, seems to be something that is anti-evolution. The thinking is that altruism does nothing to help the individual, so why would evolution provide a mechanism for this feature of what was previously only thought to happen in humans? Therefore, God stuck that feature in us.

    Turns out nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, evolutionary theory predicts that there are few, if any, characteristics that are shared among human beings that are not shared by any other species. The feature may look a little different (and if different enough, we may classify a new species), or work to a different degree, but functionality should be shared in other species. Further, since evolutionary theory doesn’t involve individuals, with respect to the success of a species (obviously mutation may happen on an individual level), a characteristic like altruism must help a group of creatures for it to remain as a species characteristic.

    Basically it doesnt matter what what science discovers, religious literalists will always be able to twist words, quote mine and cherry pick in order to get the new discovery to match something in the sacred text. Science is always first when it comes to understanding mechanisms, and further, accurate observation also falls under the realm of science as it is the first step. Just because the observation may have been made in prebiblical times doesn’t mean that it doesn’t fall under the realm of science, but we simply need to observe it again for verification (note, no burning bushes have ever been observed again), hypothesize, experiment, and verify. Science is always first in that an accurate observation, no matter when it was made, is part of the scientific process.

    Many of the religious attribute scientific development to this concept of “science was wrong before” or “science doesn’t know everything“. This sort of thing further displays misunderstanding of the scientific process and why it is so robust. Its not that science is never wrong, there certainly have been a number of places, but the thing that makes it robust is that is it a living process. New observations are made, new hypotheses are thought of and tested, new experimental results that give light to the new observations are reviewed skeptically by a vast community. Some things that have been attributed to the scientific process were not part of it, because they only incorporate the first two steps, observation and hypothesis generation, but leave out experimentation and verification. For example, blood letting and the whole idea of humors. It was a hypothesis that was never experimented and verified. This lead to high mortality rates by those using the theory. Another example is Lysenkoism, which lead to widespread famine in Russia. Clearly lysenkoism and blood letting are examples of how limiting ourselves to observation and hypothesis only is dangerous. Current ‘theories’ that do not have any experimental evidence or verification (or at least so little as to be worthless) and rely on observation only (mostly anecdotal and cherry picked observation) are homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, astrology, ESP, water witching and many many more areas and yet many of them are thought of as scientific or medical practices. These are huge industries and could easily pay for the expense of double blind tests (the best tool there is for weaning out nonsense). In fact, any practitioner of any of these fields could take home a million dollars today if they wish to proceed and pass the experimentation and verification phase.

    Aside from having previous incorrect hypotheses attributed to science, there is also the fact that science is a cumulative process. It’s not that Newton was wrong about physics, its that he was inaccurate. His model of physics doesn’t work at very high speeds (near the speed of light), something Einstein and Lorentz taught us. Even Einstein did not like the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and yet, no theory of atomic scale physics matches the data better. This is also true of the Bohr model of the atom, and Darwin’s theory of evolution, it’s not that they were wrong, its that these theories were inaccurate based on newer, more precise observations, both of these theories have now been expanded to cover understanding of almost every aspect of physics and biology. The challenges and discrepancies, no matter what literalists tell you, are not at a level of debate for people who are not deeply entrenched in the science itself. They ask things like how a specific protein moves from point A to point C, or how does quantum information get passed even if the matter on which the information was encoded is destroyed.  Science works in small steps, very rarely making a huge strides. This journey is one that weans more information, more robustly, and in a way that is more useful to humanity than any other way of gleaning information. Its always there first with deeper understanding than we have ever had.

    If one day, the only explanation is: God did it, I’ll be on board. Until then, I’ll leave you with Thunderfoots videos (they are pretty good and cover many topics, you need to be able to look past the sarcasm). Skeptico has a good post on how the scientific method moves use forward, while observation-only is always a dead end.


    Build-a-post: What is God?

    As authors and participants in FCG, we can edit each other posts. I thought we could actually build a post together with entries from each of us answering the Question: What is god as Kristen and Buffy suggested. This is better than a comment list as it will be all ...


    Satan - Through Buddhist Eyes

    One thing I really love about studying other religions is that it gives me another viewpoint from which to see my own tradition.  Since I truly believe that there is but *one* world that we are all struggling to describe our experience of, it makes sense that I would see ...


    Changes in Perspective

    I began this website with the goal of finding some common ground between people of all belief systems, though the primary focus was between Christians and Atheists. But right now, I'm finding myself in a position where I'm not sure I can continue to contribute here. I no longer identify myself with ...


    Who are the real Christians?

    I have almost spent a year talking, debating, and interacting with some really nice religious folks that I have met if the blogworld. In particular Amanda and Buffy come to mind (there are a few others), not to mention a horde of like minded atheists (of course). I have enjoyed ...


    Morality and Preconceived Notions

    Min directed me to an article on morality today, since that's been the topic du jour around these parts. More accurately, it's a debate that took place in IRC between a theist and two skeptics. It's old - the debate took place in 1995 - but that only goes to show ...