EYES WIDE SHUT

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are skeptical."
--Friedrich Nietzsche






Today I was accused of being closed-minded for not accepting some "evidence" concerning 9/11 being an inside job. While this is not exactly a religious topic, it does deal with general skepticism which is something that I highly recommend--especially for the religious.

The funny thing is that this person once asked me what my thoughts were on why so many people believe in god. I don't recall my specific answer to his question, but usually my response to such inquiries is that people tend to be pretty bad skeptics when it comes to analyzing their own beliefs. This person seems to be confusing skepticism through empiricism with conspiratorial thinking by taking a bunch of dots and swearing that they are somehow connected.

Here is the basic problem I have with the evidence provided tonight: Let's grant that all of the coincidental claims, disappearing planes, information withheld by the government, strange comments by building owners, inexplicable puffs of smoke coming out of the buildings as though it were a syncopated detonation and any other provocative claims are all completely true and accurate. Oh, and the conspicuously placed thermite in the basement. Don't forget the thermite. How does one go from "gee, those are weird coincidences" to "the government did it"? There is a disconnect in the reasoning.

Even if one could conclusively show--through verifiable evidence--that the buildings really were demolished with planted explosives, how do you know that the government was the culprit? Let's not forget that the administration being accused of such fatuous crimes is the very same administration which took 5 days to get water to the Superdome after hurricane Katrina, and went to war with Iraq because of bad information about weapons of mass destruction. Do you really have that much confidence in their ability to pull off an attack on their own country and flawlessly pin it on some terrorist on the other side of the world? AND THEN get that terrorist to claim to be responsible all along? A quick stroke of Occam's Razor should dispel any doubts of Osama bin Laden's guilt on that day.

Now, it could be that this person is right. I mean, it is possible. But at this moment he is working off of unsubstantiated, and in some cases debunked claims, which seem all too mysterious and suggestive for him. This is no different than people who claim that god exists simply because the universe is too orderly to be explained without such a creative force to start it. This is an argument from ignorance masquerading as skepticism.









BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Penn and Teller on conspiracy theories, including 9/11 (explicit):

BLESSINGS INCOGNITO

 A few weeks ago I wrote about the sharp shooter logical fallacy (counting hits, ignoring misses), and how people will often apply this to the efficacy of prayer. Well, today I came across another example of this from my own mother as she explained how blessed she is to have a son serving a Mormon mission. I am not interested in completely destroying her argument (which, honestly seems to be pretty unrelated to my younger brother's mission), but I will explain how one of her examples of being blessed is a broader example of a sharp shooter fallacy.

According to my mother: "[Taylor] was able to go 6 weeks early because his Visa came through early. In a recent letter Taylor said that only ONE Elder arrived in the Brasil MTC, the day Taylor originally was scheduled, November 28th. That is because of the Storm (Sandy) that was on the East Coast. Taylor said the storm closed a major consulate office,making it harder to get Visa, so many Elders had to go to the Provo MTC instead of the Brazil MTC. That would very likely have included Taylor."

Now, my brother is the youngest of my mother's 5 sons, and all of us served missions. My youngest brother is the only one of us who left early, narrowly escaping the horrific fate of having to wait a little while. What if the rest of us had had to wait--would this have been a sign of God's contempt for us?

It is obvious that my mother sees this as a blessing, but what of the mothers of the other missionaries who had to wait to go to Brazil? Does this mean God does not care for them as much as my brother, or is at least arbitrarily withholding blessings from them?

What would my mother say if my brother had had to wait with the others in the Provo MTC? Perhaps it would have been a blessing in disguise, which opened doors he would have missed had he gone straight to Brazil. Maybe the blessings of going to Provo instead of Brazil would be greater, in which case my brother would be the one who missed out. Would this prove God loved the other missionaries more than my brother?

I can take this further than mere conjecture, as one of my closest friends found himself in this very position on 9/11, as he had to wait some time before going to the exact same mission as my brother. And what did he say about having to wait? Well, pretty much what I said above--it was a blessing in disguise (he also admitted it was kind of annoying).

I recall several instances, usually at church, where people have said things like, "There are miracles all around us, you just have to look for them." I understand the positive effect this way of thinking can have on a person's attitude and general outlook on life, but how is attributing things to God, which could easily be coincidence, any different than seeing what you want to see? Without explaining how God actually suspended the natural order on your behalf, how can you definitively say, "God did it?"

And aren't miracles supposed to be more than just mundane or even significant happenstance? I thought Jesus healed the sick, walked on water, and raised the dead--all of which are claimed by religious people today! Miracles are supposed to be supernatural. If an unlikely thing occurs, like, say, winning the lottery, is it a miracle? No! Unlikely things do not need divine intervention--they just need time, as the laws of probability tell us.

Going back to the example of my brother, it was rather lucky of him to leave when he did, but I see no reason to think it was divinely arranged--some times people just have things go in their favor. In fact, it would be more remarkable to me if not a single person had some stroke of luck out of the whole experience. It would also be more improbable for unlikely things to never happen; so, would a lack of anything unusual, lucky or unlikely ever occurring for a single person mean God is making it so?


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Richard Dawkins using probability to show how coincidences are meaningless:

Here is a video of a guy who left the Mormon Church, in part because he realized God failed to perform miracles as promised (the opposite of the sharp shooter fallacy):

(and this was going to be a quick post....)

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:

GUESS WHO?

Slate.com posted an amusing/terrifying quiz recently about Christian conservatives and Islamic fundamentalists. I only scored 3/9...

MODERATE HUMOR

This is a little cartoon I made in response to all the moderate Muslims claiming Muslim Extremists don't represent their religion, and to all the Christians who agree.

BIG "OH BROTHER"

"Atheists are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a crime they cannot commit.... When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirizes the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the existence of any such being."

—G. W. FOOTE





A few weeks ago my Facebook news feed exploded as my Mormon friends and family discussed the recent 42 minute news report by Brian Williams on the Church. Most comments were positive, acknowledging that there were "some mistakes" but it was a pretty fair report. Others were outraged by what they perceived as blatantly disrespectful jabs at the Mormon Church. The worst offense by most counts was the showing of Mormon temple undergarments (aka "Magic Mormon Underwear", see left). To an extent, I understand the outrage. They perceive it as disrespectful, and most Mormons are very careful to cover up their garments and never show them to non-Mormons. They are symbols of the sacred temple ceremony and should, therefore, be treated with the same level of reverence.

So, before every one of my Mormon friends and family decide to never speak to me again for revealing the temple garments on a public blog, let me make my point: to those who are not Mormon, temple garments are not sacred. This means that viewing the garments and talking openly about them is not a matter of respect (Brian Williams was hardly being disrespectful in his report), it is a matter of free speech.

All I can say to those who are offended by the picture above is that they are choosing to be offended because of a made up rule which they willingly subscribe to in order to make it into the highest kingdom in heaven. That's too wordy, so let's simplify it: you are mad because I do not follow the same moral standard as you.

I value open discourse and debate. I value free speech. I value demonstrable morality. Putting a restriction on talking about or showing a picture of some cloths slams the door on discourse, free speech and demonstrating your moral standard.

This may be a slippery slope, but such restrictions are not that far removed from banning--or even burning--books. I would understand your outrage if an active Mormon revealed the garments, but expecting non-Mormons to abide by your rules imposes your morality onto others. This is the same principle used to justify anti-blasphemy laws to restrict non-Muslims from criticizing Islam.

This brings me to my next point: The Middle East is still pissed about the "Innocence of Muslims" video which incited riots at US embassies, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. In fact, in the last few days, more people have been killed in riots. According to this BBC report, 20 people were killed in a riot in Pakistan as protestors of the film clashed with police. And now certain members of the United Nations are trying to pass INTERNATIONAL anti-blasphemy laws.

Let that sink in for a bit.

To the credit of the Mormons outraged by the Brian Williams report, they have not started riots, nor have they pushed for "anti-disrespectful showings of temple garments" legislation. They are only upset. And to be fair, that is their right to be upset, even if I don't see the big deal.

Here is the full Brian Williams report

BONUS MATERIAL:

For those who still think the Brian Williams report was in poor taste or went a little too far, or for those interested in seeing real disrespect for Mormon temple garments, click here.

STRANGER THAN FICTION

 "Without a measureless and perpetual uncertainty, the drama of human life would be destroyed."
--Winston Churchill  




There is no doubt that some people find meaning and purpose in their lives through religion. I have even met people who don't believe in their religion, but chose to follow it anyway for this very reason. Beyond the obvious social benefits and support that religion gives, the "big questions" which religion attempts to answer (i.e. "Why are we here?" "Where are we going?" etc.) can also give people purpose. For example, believing that your actions in this life will affect the type of life you get in the next can be a motivational factor for doing good. Although, I would argue there are better reasons.

This is one of the main principles for many of the Eastern religions which employ reincarnation and Nirvana. Many of these religions claim some kind of hierarchy within the animal kingdom, yet I never see them proselytizing to goats, field mice, wombats, fish or spider monkeys. It makes you wonder why humans are so special that we are the only animals with knowledge of the effect our actions might have on reincarnation. As PETA says, "Rats are people, too."

Besides, how exactly does an animal like a badger do something bad? They are instinctually ill tempered. Is that their lot? Does being a good badger simply mean being a prick? If so, can the same be applied to people who are justifiably upset and assault some one? Would this make aggravated assault permissible under some circumstances? Who decides? Fate? God? A jury of peers so stupid they couldn't come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty? I digress.

The point is, many people have a hard time seeing the point of living if their religion isn't true. For some, discovering their religion is false means suicide, but for most they just see life as being pointless, and anything becomes permissible (i.e. Nihilism). Of course, religion is not the only reason to do good things, let alone the only reason to live. But still, the prospect of life without god can be bleak for some, and people often ask atheists why they continue living if life is meaningless.

Well, for starters, even if life is essentially without purpose or meaning, that is not the same thing as saying life is not worth living. Family, friends, movies, fly-fishing and reveling in the misery of others can all be reasons to stick around. Naturally, those would apply to me as well (except for the fly-fishing, of course). But ultimately the reason I "stick around" is simply curiosity.

Growing up I believed in Mormonism implicitly. It had to be true--all of it. I couldn't see a way for it not to be. I knew what my life had in store for me; I knew Christ would come again; I knew the apocalypse was inevitable. Now that I don't "know" those things, I see the world as much more interesting and mysterious. At one point I even used the argument that god will not allow global warming to destroy us because of his promise after the Great Flood, and that the Second Coming of Christ would happen before such an event, anyway. Similar to this gentleman here:

While I am still skeptical of mankind's effect on global warming (which is not to say we shouldn't do anything about it), I am certainly open to the possibility of mankind destroying itself by accident or neglect. Without the certitude that god will stop Iranian terrorists from starting a nuclear war and killing everyone on earth before Christ returns, humanity has become better than television. We really don't know if North Korea will finally create a missile capable of reaching US soil. We don't know if Muslims will take over Europe, as they have tried several times, and as some are trying now. We don't know if American Democracy will fail, and if Obama really is trying to convert us to a Socialist Regime (OK, that's a bit of a stretch). But still, in a hundred years, who knows? A thousand years?

In 50 years, will Christ return? Will the Jewish Messiah finally come? Will everyone on earth convert to Islam or die by the hands of terrorists? Or, is religion merely our first attempt at science and philosophy? Will atheists outnumber Christians in America?

What about scientific advances? Will we ever cure cancer? Is stem cell research the key to fighting HIV/AIDS? Is there life outside of our solar system? What about space travel? Will Utahns ever be able to buy alcohol on Sunday? Will the government stop funding "abstinence only" education? Will the Boy Scouts break free from the Mormon Church and finally allow gays and atheists in their ranks, like the Girl Scouts? Will my gay friends ever get married? Will the Seahawks ever win the Super Bowl?

The human drama is infinitely more interesting and compelling when we acknowledge our solitude, and, hopefully, our solidarity. Uncertainty coupled with a finite existence makes life infinitely more worthwhile. How much worse would the first Act of Hamlet be if you already knew the end of Act III. What if some one told you that Bruce Willis was a ghost before you saw the Sixth Sense? Or that Darth Vader was Luke's Father? The uncertainty of life adds suspense unmatched by any TV drama or cliffhanger commercial break. This includes Heroes and 24.


I don't know what will happen in the next 50 years, but I'm dying to find out.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience discussing life's meaning:

And one on Nihilism:

One more on "living your life:"

ISLAMABAD

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Let me start by defining a phobia as an irrational or unjustified fear. Let me follow by declaring there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

In the late 80's, Sir Salman Rushdie wrote a book of fiction called "The Satanic Verses." In the Muslim faith the satanic verses refer to passages in scripture which are deemed to be incorrect. Therefore, the prophet Muhammad is presumed to have been under a misapprehension cause by Satan when writing these passages. Rushdie's book was declared blasphemous and a violation of free speech by an Ayatollah (Muslim leader) in Iran and a Fatwa (death sentence by any Muslim so inclined) was ordered. Although Rushdie never was harmed, thanks to police protection, several people associated with the book's publishing (mostly translators) were attacked and some were killed.

To illustrate the impact this Fatwa has had, consider this endorsement made by Cat Stevens (now Yusef Islam), writer of the classic rock song "Peace Train:"

In August of 2004, Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh directed a short film written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a woman raised in Islamic Somalia) about abuse of women in Islam, called "Submission." In November of 2004, Van Gogh was stabbed to death mid-day in the middle of a street in Amsterdam. Ayaan, whose life was threatened in a letter stuck with a knife on Van Gogh's body, has been in hiding ever since.





Tell me if you think this admittedly provocative exposé calls for vigilante murder?

In 2005, a Danish newspaper published a dozen cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad. This "blasphemy" was so egregious for the devout that after the initial protests and political bullying by Muslim leaders in Denmark were ignored, months of civil unrest escalated to fire-bombings at Danish embassies in various countries and hundreds of deaths.

All the while, in America--the birth place of free speech--publications showing these cartoons were pulled from the shelves of bookstores and the satirical American cartoon "South Park" had their first ever banned episode (episodes 200, 201; I am told these are available on DVD with Mohammad replaced by a teddy bear; also, the Scientology episode was reinstated after being briefly pulled for legal reasons, so it doesn't really count as "banned").

As I have shown, Muslims have done everything they can to make us fear them. In fact, I'm fairly certain a quick google search will show that many Muslim leaders have said this outright. They don't hate western culture because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor do they hate us for supporting Israel. They hate us because they view free speech and free expression as threats to their religion and world view. It is just a matter of time until one of these hate-filled Muslim leaders succeeds in acquiring an atomic weapon, as promised.

There is nothing paranoid or irrational about fearing someone who has attacked and has promised to attack again with exponential force. "Islamophobia" is a meaningless word made-up by moderates who are too fearful to expose the real problem. Islamofascism is, however, a real word suggesting a real, demonstrable threat. Again, Christopher Hitchens puts it best:

Continuing: