TRUMP CARD

"Of all the supposed virtues, faith is the most overrated."
--Christopher Hitchens




With regards to conflicts between science and religion, there seems to be two camps of believers: Those who may not understand how, but the two must be compatible (i.e. there is no conflict, only misunderstanding based on incomplete information). And those who subscribe to the mantra "if religion and science disagree, go with religion" (i.e. religion wins by default).

The first camp is the one which I adopted in college, and I think it is the most common among religious people, especially those who at least make an attempt to be intellectually honest without disregarding their religion completely.

The second camp seems to be common among those who value faith more than critical thinking and science, such as fundamentalists and Bible literalists. A third camp would be for those who cannot be intellectually honest without disregarding religion completely, and thus become disbelievers.

From time to time I hear people say that belief in things like evolution and the big bang, etc. are not necessarily in direct conflict with religious belief. Usually they cite the fact that most people in this country are believers of some stripe and at least 45% of the population accepts evolution and the big bang (I don't feel like looking up the actual figures, but it is close to that). This means that a substantial portion of the population believes in religion and accepts evolution and the big bang. I don't know for certain, but I would think that most of these people would fall into the first camp.

It may, in fact, be true that some people have been able to reconcile their religious beliefs with various scientific theories and discoveries. They may even consider such discoveries to be supporting of their beliefs. But this reconciliation does nothing to negate the diametric opposition between the scientific method and faith.

The two methodologies stand in direct conflict with each other. Faith, for instance, is the acceptance of something as true without evidence to support it. Some may claim to have knowledge through their faith (whatever that means...). And some may even claim things to be true in the face of evidence to the contrary (i.e. Young Earth Creationists).

The scientific method does not allow for this kind of thinking. It demands evidence. Without evidence, one cannot claim anything to be true or accurate.

And so we see that faith (accepting something without evidence) is, in fact, the opposite of the evidence-based scientific method. Science has no more room or tolerance for faith than it does for any other bias. It is designed to squash such presumed conclusions at their core. A belief supported by evidence trumps an assertion with no evidence every time. Any thing less than this is neither rational nor intellectually honest.

So, tell me again why faith is a virtue?





BONUS MATERIAL:

Bill Maher explains why faith is nothing to be admired (Warning: some language):

The Daily Show on Christian persecution from gays:

 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

SULTAN OF SPIN

"99% of everything done in this world--good or bad--is done to pay a mortgage. So, perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone rented."
--excerpt from "Thank You For Smoking"





One of the primary aspects of the Mormon temple ceremony revolves around a dramatic (or cinematic) telling of the creation story according to both the account in Genesis and in the Book of Moses (a "revelation" from Joseph Smith and now part of Mormon scripture). By and large the Mormon view of creation is similar to mainstream Christianity with some added revelations (read: assertions), such as Adam and Eve were given some form of Mormonism around the time of their eating of the forbidden fruit.

The apparent fuzziness of this proposed historical timeline is matched by many current Mormon teachings surrounding creation. Mormon Think has a great article which explores many of these teachings which seem to conflict with what science shows us. More specifically, I want to touch on two points made in the Mormon version of creationism: no death before the Fall of Adam, and the age of the earth.

The first topic, no death before the Fall of Adam, is taught very subtly in the church, to the point where many people who have spent years attending services are not quite sure if it is official Church doctrine. I wasn't even sure, so I looked it up. Here is what the Bible Dictionary (a study guide included with Mormon scriptures) has to say about death and the Fall of Adam:

"Fall of Adam. The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There were no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14:16–17).

 

"The fall was no surprise to the Lord. It was a necessary step in the progress of man, and provisions for a Savior had been made even before the fall had occurred. Jesus Christ came to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s individual sins.

 

"Latter-day revelation supports the biblical account of the fall, showing that it was a historical event that literally occurred in the history of man. Many points in latter-day revelation are also clarified that are not discernible from the Bible. Among other things it makes clear that the fall is a blessing, and that Adam and Eve should be honored in their station as the first parents of the earth. Significant references are 2 Ne. 2:15–26; 9:6–21; Mosiah 3:11–16; Alma 22:12–14; 42:2–15; D&C 29:34–44; Moses 5:9–13. See also Flesh."

Did you catch the part about "no death" in the first paragraph. Ya, that's pretty incontrovertible proof that the Church still teaches that there was no death before Adam and Eve (whose very existence is equally tenuous and unsupported).

Now, I could pull out lots of evidence of fossils of dinosaurs and various extinct plants, etc., but instead I will point to a lesser known bit evidence against this religious claim which you likely use every day: oil. You see, scientists know how oil is made. It is takes millions of years for DEAD organic materials to turn into oil. This stands in direct conflict with the Mormon claim that there was no death before Adam and Eve. If this were true, then there should be no oil.

Mormons have addressed this issue in various ways. Some outright dismiss science. Some concoct a half-baked reconciliation that the plants and animals in fossils and petroleum and coal were from another incarnation of this world. I have actually heard people teach over the pulpit and during religion classes that the earth was constructed with parts from other earths containing dinosaur fossils or that dinosaur fossils came from asteroids... Really? This is on par with the now outdated (but still believed by some) notion that the Lost Tribes of Israel live in the center of the Earth (or the North Pole). No kidding.

For over 100 years the Mormon Church taught very plainly that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. With the rise of geology, cosmology, anthropology, and evolution, we now know that the Earth is much much older than that (about 4.5 billion years old). Now the Church has changed its tune:

"While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77–79 ), an attempt to establish any theory as the official position of the Church is not justifiable."

That's quite the dodge there. They don't officially accept or reject either position. The most interesting thing about this statement that "the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth" is that its own scriptures reveal that, in fact, it has. In Doctrine and Covenants 77:6-7 Joseph Smith clearly states that the earth is only about 6000 years old:

"6

"Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

"A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

"7

"Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

"A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh." [emphasis added]

Not only do these verses indicate that the earth is only 6000 years old, but that the final judgement and end of the world will occur in about 1000 years from now. This is similar to the mainstream Christian notion of dispensationalism. But, of course, this final count down to extinction will not start until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, after which Christ will rule as King of Earth for the last 1000 years.

And what is their evidence of all this? An unsubstantiated belief that Joseph Smith wasn't lying about a book with no supportable historical, archaeological or genetic evidence. So is it any wonder, then, that the claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is just as contradictory to scientific evidence? Again, Mormon Think offers a great rebuttal and resource concerning this Mormon claim:

Summary of [Sequence] Age Dating Correlations Covered:

".there are a number of different ways that annual sequences can be counted, ones that do not rely on radioactivity or rocket science to understand:

• Bristlecone Pines: The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
• European Oaks: The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations).
• German Pine: The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
• Lake Suigetsu: The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
• Dunde Ice Core: The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
• Greenland Ice Cores: The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
• Antarctica Ice Cores: The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
• Devil's Hole: The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core climate data.
• Coral Heads: The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
• Radiometric Correlations: the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
• Final Summary: the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old."

In the end, Mormons fight science more than they like to admit. Many Mormons have college degrees (at least in the U.S.), and those in the scientific fields try desperately to find reconciliation between their deeply held beliefs and what actual evidence and science point to. According to the chart on the left from the Pew Forum, Mormons are less likely to accept evolution than even Evangelical Christians who are notoriously anti-evolution.

I will end with the following quote from former Mormon prophet Joseph Fielding Smith (grandson of Joseph Smith's brother, Hyrum Smith) concerning the obvious conflict between Mormon creationism and science:

"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

"... I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so....

"... Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, section "Evolution and Religion Cannot be Harmonized", 1:141-142}
 

RIDE ON

"The Horsemen are drawing nearer
On the leather steeds they ride
They have come to take your life
On through the dead of night
With the four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die."
--Metallica "The Four Horsemen"



In the past 10 years or so there have been a number of books published about atheism and various religious beliefs, many of which were spurred on by the attacks on 9/11. Out of these have risen a number best-sellers by four authors, in particular: Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Christopher Hitchens (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). These four men of different scholarly backgrounds have collectively become known as The Four Horsemen (some times called the "New Atheists"), due in large part to their books which seek to dismantle the supernatural claims of religion. As much as I highly recommend these books, this post is actually more about the religious responses to these books and other efforts of the New Atheist movement's push back on religiosity.

Rather than going through specific rebuttals to the books listed above (such as Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion), I want to address some of the arguments which religious apologists and theologians use to counter atheist arguments. For instance, one of the key aspects of the books above and one of my own arguments against religion is a lack of evidence supporting their claims: "Without any evidence for the extraordinary claims you make, I have no choice but to withhold belief." Because of this, some apologists have responded with books about supposed evidence for god and how atheists are either in denial of the evidence or are too stupid to understand it.

One such response is from the infamous Ray Comfort (Banana Man), in his book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think. The funny thing about Mr Comfort's book is that his "evidence" seems to be that atheists really do believe in god but deny his existence. Furthermore, while he ridicules atheists for denying his evidence for god, he also explicitly states that he knows for a fact that god exists, and that no evidence was necessary for him to come to this conclusion, nor would any evidence against god be sufficient to convince him otherwise. So, really his book should be titled 133 Pages of Ray Comfort's Theological Hypocrisy.

Another argument which comes up from time to time, is that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer, as proclaimed by Bill O'Reilly to Richard Dawkins:

Setting aside the obvious logical fallacy presented by Bill O'Reilly (argument from ignorance), what I find most interesting about this argument is that it belittles the virtue of faith while attempting to insult atheists for utilizing it. It is a flip-flop matched only by certain, recently unsuccessful politicians. Apologists know that evidence is more convincing than faith, and so they try to borrow the credibility of science without actually implementing its principles (i.e. testing, falsification, duplication, etc.). This is especially so in the on-going intelligent design vs evolution debate.

Of course, the primary reason they try to pin atheists with a faith-based position is to level the intellectual playing field (as well as to add insult to ignorance). But by so-doing they have passively admitted the weakness of their own faith-based beliefs.

If faith really is a virtue, why would they seek evidence of any kind? Wouldn't having less empirical support make them more virtuous?

Here is theologian Frank Turek further explaining how he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist (I'm only posting the 1st of 5 videos; you can look up the rest if you are interested):

As with Mr O'Reilly, Mr Turek's argument is as self-defeating as it is ignorant.





BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience ridiculing Ray Comfort's book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think:

And one of Ray Comfort actually calling the Atheist Experience:

Here is religious apologist and "Ex-Atheist" Lee Strobel talking about his best-selling book, The Case for Christ:

Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens on the existance of god:

And finally, the Four Horsemen talking together about their books:

GOD VLOG

Time for another post of atheist comedy. In the same vein as some of the lighter videos from The Thinking Atheist, with a hint of Mr Deity and Edward Current, I give you "DarkMatter2525".

(Warning: pretty much all of the videos below have moderate to strong language--enjoy responsibly)

The Great Flood:

Double Standard:

God's Priorities:

God's Moral Framework:

The Most Wrong Anyone Ever Was:

The Credibility of Faith (not really funny, but still good):

God of Paradox:

The Thing that God Can't Do:

God Vlog:

Islam and the Big Bong Theory:

The Book of Job (one of my favorites):

THE ATHEISM TAPES

Last summer I stumbled upon the following videos on Netflix (of all places) and I have been meaning to post them for quite a while. The videos, aptly called "The Atheism Tapes", are extended conversations between seasoned British actor Jonathan Miller (host) with various scientists, philosophers and even a British theologian from a BBC program on atheism (the introduction explains this more). Enjoy.

British Philosopher Colin McGinn:

American Physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

American Philosopher Daniel Dennett:

American Playwright Arthur Miller (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible):

British Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins:

British Theologian Denys Turner

PACE FALM

"If we are going to teach "creation science" . . . as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction."
—JUDITH HAYES

The following is a rather long (ongoing?) conversation I had on Facebook about a clip from Bill Nye (the Science Guy), where he says that it is inappropriate to teach creationism to children. But before you read it, watch the clip.

 

 

Person 1: "That was irrational on various levels on his part. the vast majority of intellectual break throughs in science, medical health care and inventions that changed the world came from individuals who believed in creationism. I've been studying biology, chemistry, physics for the last 4 years. Professors (who are not Mormon as side note) have talked to me on an individual level and stated that the theory of evolution is incomplete and not fact, they only teach it because they have been commissioned to do so. Anyway, creationism is absolutely appropriate for children."

 

Me: "[Person 1], a couple of centuries ago the vast majority of intellectual break throughs in cosmology came from individuals who believed the Earth was the center of the Universe. So what? The question is not how many professors you know personally who believe "evolution is incomplete and not a fact." The question is why they think that. Also, even if evolution was disproven completely, that is still not an argument in favor of creationism, because it is not a true dichotomy (disproving "x" does not prove "y"). Bill Nye's point is that creationism has no evidence to support it, and this makes it inappropriate for children. Do you, [Person 1], have evidence for creationism? I suggest you check out "talkorgins.org" to see what scientists have to say about many creationist claims. One last thing, evolution is a fact in the same way gravity is a fact. It is based on observations which formulate a scientific theory. That evolution happens is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of the facts. Check out "notjustatheory.com" to see what I mean."

Person 2: "[Me] im gonna emphatically disagree with you based on this......Faith. Who appointed this man to tell me or anyone else how to raise my children? There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your children about creationism if that is your belief system. If i choose to teach evolution to my children then that is my perogative as well, dont you think. Youre allowed to teach your children satanism. Do i question you? I dont care what you teach your children as long as it coincides with the law. Personally Ill teach them evolution and creationism" 
 

Me: "Having the right to teach your children something does not make it appropriate. Bill Nye's is talking about methods of thought. According to him, it is inappropriate to teach children creationsim because it is not based on evidence. This method of thinking is in opposition to the way science works, which will influence the way future doctors and engineers go about solving problems. This is his point. You have every right to teach your children that the earth is flat (look up the "Flat Earth Society"), but you cannot deny this will affect the way your children view the world and how they think. Also, based on previous comments made by Bill Nye, he seems to be attacking Young Earth Creationism through a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, rather than the more modern reconciliation of creation through evolution, which is what it sounds like you are teaching your kids. Correct me if I'm wrong."

 

Person 2: "What i am saying is this. There is nothing wrong with teaching your children the literal interpretation of Creationism. People have been passing down faith, God, and their religion to their children for thousands of years. And this clown comes out and says this!? Can you at least admit this hasn't caused any damage whatsoever to children. I contend without faith, morals,religion that we would not be living in the greatest civil society in the history of the world. This argument is absolute garbage."

 

Person 2: "Let me further say this....Science has not been able to disprove the possibility of a higher power or God either. To say theres no proof, there is no proof to the contrary either......is there? So who is this clown Bill Nye to tell me that i am wrong teaching my children my sincere beliefs? When he cant prove that my beliefs are wrong? Idiotic argument im sorry"

 

Person 2: "[Original Poster] i swear you love to stir me up dont you? I think you like to post controversial things and just sit back and enjoy the show laughing dont you?"

 
Me: "No, I cannot admit that this "hasn't caused any damage whatsoever to children." Many people have experienced great inner turmoil when trying to reconcile the things they have been taught as truth with what they see around them, or what science has shown us. At the time of Galileo, the Catholic Church taught that the geocentrism of the Earth proved God's glory and power. When Galileo used physics to show that the sun was the center of the solar system, thus disproving geocentrism, the Church feared what this would mean docrinally, and he was exiled and lived under house arrest for the remainder of his life. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to support it (apply this to bigfoot, UFO's, Santa Clause, etc.). This is the basis of science, and this is the point Bill Nye is trying to make. Falling back on the argument that "science has not been able to disprove the possibility of a higher power or God" is a shifting of the burden of proof (can you prove Santa didn't put presents under the tree?). Is this why you believe in god? Because science hasn't disproved it? Then I say you need to rethink your faith. I don't mean this sarcastically or to be mean. I genuinely think there are better reasons to believe in god than an argument from ignorance. Let us be clear, you can believe in creationism without teaching it as divine truth. Many people do this. It is when it is established as unalterable dogma that it causes problems with scientific thinking. And, since you brought it up, faith and religion are separate from morality and are not responsible for “the greatest civil society in the history of the world.” Every significant scientific advancement (the earth goes around the sun, evolution, the big bang, germ theory, etc.) has been vehemently opposed by at least one significant and powerful religious group which has sought to suppress information and ideas. But this is not what Bill Nye is talking about! Again, he is talking about methods of thought. And some methods of thought are inappropriate for children."

Person 2: "Oh good grief! You know what, Bill Nye is flat wrong brother and so are you. Its really sad that some people are so ardent on destroying this society based on their lack of faith because they cant prove it. Your Santa clause example is ridiculous. A made up story that can be proven just that, a story. Why dont you people just leave us alone and allow us to live our lives, believe what we want and teach our children what we want. You people are corrupting this country which was founded by men of faith. How do you explain miracles genius? I have personally witnessed several undisputed miracles in my own life. How lost some have become trying to drag society into darkness with them. Perhaps one day your eyes will truly be opened to a world filled with the love of God. I suspect you cringe at that statement. It takes a whole lot of humility and maturity to see. Good luck with that." 

Person 3: "One word: Dinosaurs. Where oh where did those things come from? Also, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were deists. Which means they believed that God did not intervene in his creation (no miracles, no favorite nations/races). He made the world and moved on. And while you are preaching humility and maturity... your facebook rants aren't building your case."

Person 2: "My facebook rants are coming from a man watching his country go down in flames at the hands of a dictator buddy. I believe the Capitalist free market society this country was built on has done more to lift up individuals then any other system in the history of the world pal. Your fraudulent President is turning it into a Communist type iron fisted top down imperial regime with himsekf at"

(I assume he wasn't finished writing) 

Me: "I don’t know where I said I was trying to destroy society (ardently, no less), but I think you have me mistaken for someone else. But none of this has anything to do with what Bill Nye is talking about. Bill is saying that teaching children to believe things without evidence is not as good as teaching them to use the scientific method (which, by the way, is why this society is so great). I have no doubt you have experienced things which you can only explain by supernatural means. Does this make it so? How do you know if you are correct in your interpretation? How does explaining things through supernatural means explain anything at all? How do you know if your supernatural explanation is better than other supernatural explanations? If I can only explain visions and voices in my head as god talking to me, what happens when I discover epilepsy? If the Bible explains diseases as being the result of sin or demonic possession, as many used to believe, why investigate germs? Again, (sigh) this is what Bill Nye is talking about. Being satisfied with a non-answer stops investigation. This is the harm. I don't cringe at the prospect of anything if it can be demonstrated as being true, and despite the sarcasm in your tone, I do appreciate the sentiment."

Person 3: "Again, that maturity and humility is shining through."

 

Person 2: "[Me] youre an exeptionally intelligent guy. I yield to your knowledge of science. I believe in science absolutely and have no doubts have benefited the world immensely. I just happen to disagree with Bill Nye. I think he's just dead wrong. Sure given your example some children struggle with creationism. Im not sure how you were raised but im sure there are those like you that have been raised this way that do struggle with it of course. Is it damaging? I would argue not to a child who was raised properly and not abused with it. We all question this at some point in our lives. I appreciate your arguments and your reason. I do apologize for my sarcasm. Im very engaged in our politics and tend to be able to pair just about anything into it. Wasn't my intention to bring politics into this discussion. Anyway God bless ;-)" 

Person 2: "So is the oatmeal dripping off your chin buddy. How bout you go away now."
(I assume this comment was directed at Person 3)

 
Me: "I'm glad that you at least partially see my point in the harm teaching creationism can cause. Now I ask, how many children struggling with this reconciliation makes it no longer OK to teach creationism? Going back to the Santa Clause example (respectfully, of course), if even one child was emotionally disraught by the teaching of Santa Clause, wouldn't that be enough to say we shouldn't teach this to children without a good reason and at least some evidence? How much emotional trauma is acceptable? Wouldn't it be better to teach children how to think and find answers for themselves rather than telling them what to believe implicitly?

Original Poster:

Person 2: "As far as my children go they are taught creationism in the literal sense and that it is what i personally believe to be true and have faith that the things i teach are true. It really depends how it is taught. There are proper ways this can be done. In a healthy environment with discussion and prayer i dont believe this is harmful in the least. There are wrong ways to do this of course. As far as the Santa Clause example i dont think ever in my life have heard a case of a child being emotionally damaged by this. There are going to be disappointments in life, winners and losers. Too often people do not let their children experience these things. Life experience builds character. Being allowed to experience loss is not a bad thing. Children do not need to be shielded from everything bad that may happen. This is going to be the downfall of our society because our children are being taught that everybody wins, heres a trophy for all. If we do not allow failure when they hit the real world they will be in for a huge emotional loss. Im not sure if this ties into what you are saying but it seems relevent."

Person 2: "[Original Poster] you crack me up man! lol"

Me: "Let me see if I understand you. You are saying it is OK to teach children something false because when they find out it is false it will build character, regardless of any potential emotional damage? That sounds very cynical to me. By this logic, is there anything that would be inappropriate to teach children? I hope that you teach your children creationism, and evolution and as many different ideas as you can. I also hope you teach them how do make their own decision as to which one they accept as truth (even if it means they might not believe in creationism). As an aside, have you ever considered the possiblility that god may have used evolution as the mechanism for creation? I only bring this up because many religious people hold this view, including the previous Pope."

Person 2: "I believe creationism to be true. As far as Santa Clause it is the spirit of the season. A symbol. All children taught this eventually realize he is not actually a real person and are ok. I believe in some forms of evolution and dont think it is wrong to expose them to different theories in this case."

Person 2: "So yes im not the type of person to shelter my child from getting upset. This is part of life and necessary."

Person 2: "At the same time i dont intentionally expose them to things i know to be false."

Person 4: "Wow. You should write something long and boring. And ya did."

Me: "I'm not talking about sheltering children. I'm talking about teaching them to accept things which are false and the damage that can cause. Suppose a child never learned Santa isn't real? Would that negatively affect the way they view the world? Many children are not Ok when they find out Santa isn't real. They usually come to accept it eventually, but initially it can be traumatic. But the point is, why would you teach your children something as truth if you cannot demontrate it as such? What does this teach your children about truth? Or accepting things as truth despite evidence to the contrary, as is common for Young Earth Creationists like those at Answers in Genesis, who actually built a multi-million dollar museum displaying vegetarian velociraptors living harmoniously with humans before the great flood. At what point do you go too far?" 

Person 2: "You're really getting in the weeds here with alot of "what ifs". Creationism is taught with faith and prayer. It cant be taught on absolute fact, only belief. Religion itself is faith based confirmed by much prayer. Why is it so difficult to accept those who choose to believe in something based on faith? I teach my children this because i believe it. Thats it. Your arguments on damaging children with this is minute at best. The benefits are life long when taught properly."

 

Me: ""Creationism is taught with faith and prayer. It cant be taught on absolute fact, only belief." This is exactly my point. If you teach creation with this mindset, then I think we are in agreement. OK, everyone. The show is over. Cheers."

Person 2: ";-)"

BORN AGAIN, AGAIN

"Everyone is born an Atheist."
--common sense

While attending BYU, I was in a conversation with a group of about 10-12 fellow students. We were discussing which religion we would join if we weren't Mormon. An interesting exercise, to be sure. Most said something about various Protestant denominations like Methodists or Seventh-Day Adventists. A few mentioned Baptists or Evangelists. I think someone on the fringe even said Buddist. No Catholics, though. Every response was met with comments like, "Oh ya, I like them," or "They really try to follow the Bible." That is, until they got to me. My response was: "If I wasn't Mormon I would probably be an Atheist, because I can't take any other religion seriously." This is one of the few times that an entire group of people has actually boo'd an idea of mine. Some one even said, "Atheists are dumb."

The reason I bring this up is not to refute the statement that atheists are dumb, or to rub my atheism in their faces--that would be dumb. I mention this is because, to me, in order for any religion to be viable, it has to be consistent with reason and science (at the time, I believed Mormonism did exactly this). Any religion which defies science rather than seeking reconciliation is unjustified, and, therefore, "dumb." I didn't know of any other religion which sought such reconciliation. Every protestant I grew up with vehemently opposed evolution and the big bang, so I couldn't take them seriously. Besides, speaking in tongues is just too silly. So, when asked which religion I would join, if not Mormonism, I was at a loss. They all seemed equally ridiculous to me. And since dis-belief is the default position, that is where I fell.

Because I hadn't really considered Atheism in depth, yet, I didn't think to ask my fellow students why they thought it was "dumb." I wouldn't miss such an opportunity now.

Evangelists are among the fastest growing Christian denominations in America, with estimates as high as 7% growth per year. Mega-churches (2000+ weekly attendence) have become more common, especially in Southern states. I find it fascinating that people will flock to watch charismatic preachers run around a stage, perform "miracles," utter some passages of scripture, and ask for donations every 15 minutes. How do they not see the obvious scam? Perhaps this is similar to how Joseph Smith gained members in the mid-1800's. People long for leadership. Charismatic people are often thrown into these positions at the request of those looking to be lead. Others just take advantage. I suppose this is normal.

One of the most notorious (i.e. "popular") Evangelists is Ted Haggard. I don't want to dwell too much on him, but he has been on quite a rollercoaster the last few years by being on President Bush's speed-dial, condemning gays, being caught with a male prostitute, going to "therapy" and claiming to be "cured," admiting to be a "heterosexual with issues," admiting to be bi-sexual (baby steps), starting a new ministry, and somehow keeping his wife (a book deal may have helped). So, here are some of my favorite and most revealing Ted Haggard clips:

Richard Dawkins interview:

 Haggard's response to the Richard Dawkins interview:

Gay-Bashing:

On sex:

After the sex-scandel:

And finally, I showed you all of that, so I could show you this:

BIG NOTHING

One of my favorite physicists is Lawrence Krause. Honestly, I don't know much about his personal life (aside from him being the nerdiest cool person in any given room, which is not the same as Neil Degrasse Tyson who is the coolest nerd in any given room), but whenever he speaks about science I stand in awe. He is like a more accessible Stephen Hawking. Not to mention Krause can communicate more easily and more readily than Hawking, allowing him to make public appearances. One of the first and coolest things I have seen of him, is a lecture he gave about how a universe can spontaneously appear, which would make a god or prime mover (the deist argument) unnecessary for the Big Bang.

Another one of my favorites is a speech he gave at a protest outside of a creation museum in Kentucky, where they desecrate science with exhibits displaying humans and friendly vegetarian velociraptors and a saddle-wearing triceratops cohabiting the earth prior to the Flood. And why not after the Flood? The boat was full... duh!

THAT'S MR. DEITY TO YOU

I suppose my last few posts have been a bit heavy handed. So to lighten the mood a bit I introduce to you Mr. Deity: a tongue in cheek, light and fluffy satire of the traditional creation myth. I think even a devout theist can appreciate the humor in this series.

Let's start with Episode 1: Mr. Deity and the Evil:

Episode 2: Mr. Deity and the Really Big Favor:

Mr. Deity and Da Man:

Mr. Deity and the Woman:

Next, Mr. Deity and the Barbeque:

Lastly, one of my new favorites, Mr. Deity and the Latter-Days:

SACRELICIOUS

Today I’m going to address two common religious arguments for the existence of a supernatural deity: the “God of the Gaps” argument, and the argument of “Objective Morality.”

First, Objective Morality. The argument usually goes something like this: In order for morals to be derived objectively, there has to be some kind of authority stating that something is either moral or immoral. One action cannot be more moral than another based solely on one’s opinion that something is good or bad. Therefore, based on the subjective nature of atheistic morality, the “Golden Rule” is no more moral than Hitler’s genocide because it is simply a matter of opinion.

Typically, atheists feel cornered by this argument, at least initially. They often try to argue that no one follows the command “Thou shalt not kill”** simply because the bible says so. Or they may ask the theist if they would start raping and killing if they found out that there was no god (some theists actually say they would). Or they might say that it is better to do good for goodness’ sake, rather than for threats of hell. Or they say that everyone who claims to get morals from god objectively has a different opinion on various moral questions, thus implying that if it is an objective process, it should, at the very least, be consistent. Some even try to show how morals have changed over the years and that many people find things, like, say slavery, to be abhorrent, even though people used to be fine with it (not to mention, it is sanctioned in the bible, as many Christians pointed out prior to the abolition of slavery). I think that, although these arguments do a fair job of showing the subjective nature of morality, they are not very convincing to the theist who thinks they get their morals from god.

So, I propose a new argument. Logically, one cannot base an objective statement on a subjective experience. Experiencing god through a spiritual experience (i.e., a burning in the bosom, seeing a vision, or hearing a voice) is a subjective experience. Therefore, you cannot say that the morals you get from a god are objective without first demonstrating objectively how you know god exists and is the source of your morality. Once you can demonstrate the objective existance of god, then you can claim an objective source for morals, but not before. Because of this, I find the argument for objective morality to be null.

The “God of the Gaps” argument goes like this: if science does not have a good explanation of an event or process, then god must be responsible for it. In other words, you can freely stick god in to any gaps in our scientific understanding. This is very common among young earth creationists (who actually take it one step further and deny evidence or explanations so they can cling to their god explanations), and most level-headed people see this as a bad argument right away. But many people, including myself a few years ago, fall in to this line of thinking without realizing the fallacy (see what I did there?).

The logical fallacy here is called an “argument from ignorance.” This basically means that just because you don’t know how something works or how something came to be, you can’t just insert a belief as an explanation (“if not X: then Y” is not a supported argument, it is merely an assertion). Going back to the creationists, even if we found out that evolution was completely wrong, creationists would still need to provide support and evidence to say that creationism is true.

So what happens when we do find scientific reasons for things where people have inserted god? This is the problem with the “god of the gaps” argument. In this scenario, God is “ever receding” in to gaps of scientific ignorance, until one day, he can’t hide any longer and must be discarded. This is why Galileo was exiled by the catholic church for using physics to show that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around (as indicated by the bible, and thus the pope's objection). If this is your basis for belief in god, prepare for this eventuality.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that someone did show that morals have to be objective, and that we really don’t and never will understand the natural explanation of some scientific thing, and thus created a supposed “need” for a god to exist. This would still not prove the existence of god anymore than I can prove that teleportation exists because I need it for my morning commute. Similarly, the fact that frogs need something to eat does not prove the existence of flies. Creating a hypothetical or philosophical need for something does not prove that that thing exists.

**With regards to the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment (which, by the way, is a mistranslation and should be read “Thou shalt not murder your fellow Jews”), there is actually a rather convincing secular or evolutionary reason, as well as a psychological reason, to not kill one another. The evolutionary reason is pretty straightforward. Populations which are predisposed to not killing each other, will propagate better and be more successful. The psychological reason ties in to this predisposition. With the obvious exception of sociopaths (those who feel no empathy towards other people), most people feel positively terrible when they kill someone—even for legitimate reasons, like self-defense or in a battle field (or stoning an unruly child). It is so impactful, in fact, that there are reports of physical manifestations of these feelings of guilt, such as panic attacks, vomiting, crying, and even PTSD (which, I suppose doesn’t really count as “physical”, but you get the point).