All Suffering Soon to End!

Recently the Jehovah's Witnesses gave Skeptics with a K's Mike Hall a tract that was titled All Suffering Soon to End. It basically claimed that suffering is increasing because this is an experiment by God to see if we can be better off on our own, or if we were better off under God's rule.

You can listen to episode 51 of their podcast. It basically starts at 26:50. I highly recommend it as they make a lot of excellent points.

Of course, suffering was introduced because Adam and Eve ate the apple which was because God gave us free will. According to the tract, suffering is increasing lately, but is soon to end. This is what it said regarding the past century:

• the worst suffering ever


• millions murdered during the haulocaust


• over 100 million slaughered in wars (Mike adds that most of those were religious)


• crime and violence are rampant


• drug abuse is epidemic


• STDs continue to spread


• tens of millions die each year of hunger and disease


• family life and moral values have broken down everywhere


• no human government has the answers to these problems. not one of them has overcome aging, sickness and death

Of course they have no data to back up these bold assertions.

The tract then says,  "All the evidence shows us that we are nearing the end of man's tragic experiment in independence from God. It has been clearly demonstrated that rulership from humans apart from God can never succeed. Only God's rulership can bring peace, happiness, perfect health and everlasting life."

47:56 - But there was a study published in the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005 titled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in Prosperous Democracies" by Gregory S. Paul.

Here are some highlights:

• positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable


• lifespans tend to decrease as religiosity rises


• rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain 3-600 times higher in the US than in less theistic pro-evolution secular developed democracies


• increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief, and negative correlation with increasing nontheism and acceptance of evolution. Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates are therefore contradicted by quantitative data


• in general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in prosperous democracies


• none of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high level of measurable societal dysfunction

Gregory S. Paul stated in the paper that it is "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".

He authored  a followup paper in 2009 titled "The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions" in the Evolutionary Psychology Journal. (pdf) which found "high religiosity is not universal to human populations, and it is actually inversely related to a wide range of socio-economic indicators representing the health of modern democracies."

Here is one result from the paper: "The uniquely low cumulative PRVSS score for the U.S. of 0.9 demonstrates that it is the least secular nation among those sampled, with Ireland the next most religious. At the other end of the scale some nations approach and exceed a score of 9. For the purposes of this comparative investigation the U.S. is characterized as religious, the rest of the 1st world nations as secular to varying degrees. Creationist opinion correlates strongly positively with the overall level of religiosity when the U.S. is excluded and even more so when it is included."

Recently I posted on HDC's Facebook page that Pope John Paul's blood was sent to Mexico so that people could venerate it and hopefully end the violent crime that has increased over there. This 2009 report addresses the issue of violent crime, specifically murders. It finds that the US, which as stated above is the most religious 1st world nation, has extremely high murder rates. The lowest murder rate levels are found among the most secular democracies. Mexico wasn't included in the study but is a highly religious nation, I believe one of the most Catholic in the world. And its level of crime and violence is also very high.

Phil Zuckerman wrote Society without God in 2009. Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingelhart wrote Sacred and Secular in 2004. Both had similar conclusions.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I read awhile ago that what it looks like is that with uncertainty comes superstitious thinking. So if you feel out of control you get more superstitious behavior. This is correlated with higher religiosity, which is why the US is so odd. It is highly religious but prosperous while most other prosperous 1st world countries are more secular. But the US seems to have a high level of uncertainty for people. It doesn't give people a sense of stability. If I can remember where I saw the studies that showed this I will add them here. If you know of them, please do leave a comment with links.

Where do you live in the world? How secular is your nation? How prosperous?

Reasons Given For Believing in God

I was reading The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer the other evening and came across a study that Shermer did that pretty much sums up belief in God. But it's really even more telling than that. I'll let him explain in his own words:

Page 264, kindle location ~5280)

My colleague Frank Sulloway and I discovered another form of attribution bias ¹ in a research project that we conducted several years ago. Frank and I wanted to know why people believe in God, so we polled ten thousand random Americans. In addition to exploring various demographic and sociological variables, we also directly asked subjects in an essay question why they believed in God.

The top two reasons that people gave for why they believed in God were "the good design of the universe" and "the experience of God in everyday life." Interestingly and tellingly, when subjects were asked why they thought other people believed in God, these two answers dropped to sixth and third place, respectively, and the two most common reasons given were that belief is "comforting" and "fear of death".

These answers revealed a sharp distinction between an intellectual attribution bias, in which people consider their own beliefs as being rationally motivated, and an emotional attribution bias, in which people see the beliefs of others as being emotionally driven.

... The attribution bias of perceiving intellectual reasons for belief as superior to emotional reasons appears to be a manifestation of a broader form of self-serving bias through which people slant their perceptions of the world, especially the social world, in their favor.

That is very telling, isn't it? What does it mean? Do people overestimate their own reasons, by making them out to be rational? Or do they accurately portray their reasons and view others less favorably as having beliefs for less practical reasons?

How would you even tease that out? I can't think of how you would, since you can only find out why people believe anything by asking them. So we just have to go on their word.

In my experience talking with religious people, I've heard quite a few say they just can't imagine or bear to think that we just end when we die. That's the one I've heard the most, personally. I've also heard the one along the lines of that they can't believe everything just evolved and came from nothing, etc.

But now I want to ask people why they think others believe in God.

1. attribution bias: the tendency to attribute different causes for our own beliefs and actions than that of others.

Agnostic Atheist Skeptic

Recently, I wrote about Richard Dawkin's handy Spectrum of Theistic Probability. I found it useful to help me figure out what kind of atheist I am. (I rate myself as a 6.9 De Facto Atheist). I also find it helpful to understand where someone is coming from if they call themselves a 1 or a 7, because that means they "know" the unknowable and unprovable.

But last night I was reading over my notes of the first half  of The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer, before going to the second half. I wanted to share one bit with you from page 176:

Of course, no one is agnostic behaviorally. When we act in the world, we act as if there is a God or as if there is no God, so by default we must make a choice, if not intellectually then at least behaviorally. To this extent, I assume that there is no God and I live my life accordingly, which makes me an atheist. In other words, agnosticism is an intellectual position, a statement about the existence or nonexistence of the deity and our ability to know it with certainty, whereas atheism is a behavioral position, a statement about what assumptions we make  about the world in which we behave.

... I prefer [Skeptic] as my label. A skeptic simply does not believe a knowledge claim until sufficient evidence is presented to reject the null hypothesis (that a knowledge claim is not true until proven otherwise). I do not know that there is no God, but I do not believe in God, and have good reasons to think that the concept of God is socially and psychologically constructed.

That makes perfect sense to me. The thing about calling yourself an atheist is you're just saying one very specific thing; that you don't believe in god/gods. It's a negative statement that doesn't say much at all, really. It's helpful, but only to a point. And what other concept is defined by what you don't believe? I don't believe in leprechauns, so does that make me Aleprechaunistic?

I think that I have been slowly getting away from labeling myself as atheist first,  more to calling myself a skeptic first. I prefer it for the same reasons that Shermer does. It says that I highly value critical thinking, science and reason. It says what matters to me and how I approach the world.

Of course, people abuse the term all the time, mainly through ignorance. But if simply defined as Michael does above, then it's accurately saying a lot.

I know some of you don't like labels at all. But labels are how we understand things. For example, I labeled the drink I had this morning as coffee. It conveys information that can be useful. And for beliefs it says something about where I'm coming from. I label myself a humanist, which says a lot to someone, as does labeling myself a Formula One fan, etc. It can be very positive and shouldn't be shunned completely. It's just helpful information.

So, how do you identify yourself? Is there an order (as I find I have now) of how you want to be known, or how you see yourself?

EDIT: After the first several comments, I just want to add that I am happy to call myself an atheist. And I think atheists need to own the word just like people who are homosexual now proudly own "gay". Atheist Pride! Hey, most of us became atheists through tough critical thinking, reasoning and logic. We worked hard to get where we are. Of course, you could say the same for skeptics, which I'm also proud to call myself.

So don't think I'm encouraging you to walk on eggshells and use skeptic over atheist. Use them both! I like how MJ in the comments below said they use atheist out in the world and skeptic in the atheist movement. I have been doing something similar. I use the term that is most appropriate to the situation. Sometimes I feel they are all necessary and I call myself (deep breath) an atheist/skeptic/freethinker/humanist.

Also, I wanted this post to be short and sweet and focus mainly on the terms. But in the comments you've been right to point out that it really matters on the definition of God(s) being referred to. Are we talking about Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah? If you look just to the bible, he's been refuted. Are you talking about a deist sort of god? No, he can't be refuted because evidence of that god would be indistinguishable from natural events. Of course, when you talk to religious people, most are so wishy-washy, and move the goalposts as if they were seaweed at the edge of the sea at high tide, that I'm exhausted just thinking about it. But awesome atheists like Christopher Hitchens have thoughtfully torn down such fallacious arguments time and again.

So own the word atheist and skeptic, too!

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I found myself muttering this question to myself today. But I think the answer to it is "No." Sometimes we just can't get along. Sometimes fundamental beliefs and worldviews are so diametrically opposed that people just can't come together. At least not on that topic or in that area.

Religion and atheism are like oil and water, or liberals and conservatives. They just don't mix. Of course when the subject comes up, I've found that to change the subject to less volatile topics can lead to friendships budding between unlikely opposites. As long as you leave the hot-button topics off the table.

After all, just like my religious friends, I love, laugh, sleep, eat, have relationships, have pets, etc, just like they do. We can get along on these topics, even the ones where we don't match up all the way. For instance, I can understand my friends when they talk about their kids even though I'm (happily) childless. This is mainly due to my empathy (yes, atheists have empathy too. We're not sociopaths. [We do eat babies on special occasions, though. Of course.]).

But when it comes to talking about religion and atheism, things inevitably get tense, misunderstandings occur, and it generally ends up ugly at some point. Even when I have worked very very hard to be fair, gentle, kind, thoughtful and honest, it still ends up going sour eventually. After awhile, you hit nerves. Big ones. And it's not pretty.

And hitting a nerve can happen when you least expect it. On my other blog I simply said, "Reason trumps faith completely. Reason and faith are the antithesis of each other."

I think that's pretty straightforward, isn't it? In that forum I have defined faith at least once. Faith is strong or unshakeable belief without evidence or proof. So how is my statement condescending and offensive? It's just a fact. And yet that is how it is perceived.

I'm not saying that some people can't get along. But in my personal experience, and in listening to how others have done it, the only way seems to be to avoid the hot button issues and focus on what you have in common. When worldviews are diametrically opposed, people get passionate.

Remember we talked about Terror Management Theory? I'm going one step further and have just downloaded a copy of Michael Shermer's new book, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. I think maybe that will help me to understand people, because right now I try, but religious thinking and faith are a complete mystery to me.

Do you interact with people who have diametrically opposed worldviews to your own? How do you get along with them? What works for you?

How Do People "Reason" Their Way Into Religion?

Recently I've talked to a number of Christians who say they are "thinking Christians" and that they have reasoned and researched their way into their religion. This is how I think it might happen. Let me be clear first, though. This isn't something that only people who buy into religion do. We all do something similar to this in our lives, unless we've really trained and become good at critical thinking.

1. Start with a need that isn’t being fulfilled. Often this is some variation of, “I can’t believe we just die and that’s it. I want to live forever.” It could also be seen as a general fear of the unknown, major life questions, a belief that religion is needed to be moral, or perhaps someone is leading a shallow life where they look for something deeper.

~I actually fell for the first one. After I realized gods were man-made, I still believed in reincarnation and a hodge-podge of other spiritual New Age claims. For me, it was harder to get rid of those beliefs than God himself. The realization that dead is dead just seems to really freak people out. Since the dawn of  humankind, people have buried their dead in hopes of eternal life, and they have created myths and religions that openly address the afterlife, often as a destination and a threat or reward.

~A lot of people incorrectly believe that morals come from religion. Humanists and nonbelievers everywhere are living proof that it isn’t true.

2. Look for easy answers down specific paths. Pick up a popular book that is written to sell you on a particular religion and read it, or start listening to someone who has strong views and arguments for what they are peddling. Usually you’ll pick something you already have an affinity for in some way.

I have to say that there are people out there who talk a good talk. Their arguments are slick and easy to digest. The logical fallacies are well crafted and very hard to point out if you have the unfulfilled need from step 1, and no training in how to think critically. If you don't know the material from other sides you will be easily duped. The twisted logic is extremely hard to notice. And the information is designed to answer tough questions and to be comforting in some way.

3. Once you’ve found the leader that you resonate with, start absorbing as much as possible from that source and anything they might recommend. This is your guru, your leader. He or she will probably also tell you who to avoid. This is important. He’s setting you up on a narrow path that isolates you from different views. Of course, he’s also given you very comforting answers in step 2 so this is easy. It seems reasonable.

Once you read or listen to something that you agree with, you'll seek out more of the same and keep confirming the bias you have already unconsciously formed. Your guru’s answers ring true to you, they feel good, they satisfy you in a way that you haven't felt before. This is emotional, not logical. Plus, almost all of us have never been trained to think logically and critically.

So when the person you like says that so and so is wrong, you believe him or her without even questioning it. Even if you go and read some of “the enemy”, you've already been carefully primed by your respected guru to discredit the new information.

Before you know it, you're a believer and you think you got there rationally. But instead you got there by rationalizing. There's a big difference.

Rational: consistent with or based on reason; logical.

Rationalizing: To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior. To justify (one's actions, especially discreditable actions, or beliefs) with plausible reasons, especially after the event.

Do We Choose To Not Believe?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote Spot On!, which was about Alise Wright's list of assumptions for Christians not to make about Atheists. I thought they were excellent.

There was one little thing that she said though, that has spurred a follow up post on her own blog, about Free Will and Faith. She said,

Most atheists who have “deconverted” from a religious background have studied it and other religions thoroughly before choosing not to believe.

Mikespeir, in the comments, called attention to this:

If I have any reservations at all about this, it’s that “choosing not to believe” hung off the end there. I never chose not to believe. Once I realized I didn’t believe anymore I chose not to keep practicing the Christian religion. That was the choice involved.

I agree with Mike. I never chose not to believe.

Of course, I agree with Alise that we seem to have some say in our actions. We choose to read certain books/information (the bible¹ and/or Dawkins), attend different events (either church or TAM²), and we choose the people we associate with.

I have to throw in here, that this assumes that we have free will. I have learned in the past year that we most likely don't. We are determined by a myriad of previous factors. But I won't get into that here. 

Why Do Some People Resist Science?

My friend Gerald shared this article with my group yesterday and I thought you'd find it interesting. For those of us who love science and see it as an invaluable tool to help us understand the universe, people who reject science (usually selectively since they still drive cars, take medication and talk on their cell phones, of course) are baffling. It's easy to dismiss them as stupid, but Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg at Yale University have a different hypothesis.

The paper was originally published in Science in 2007, but there is a great version on the Edge.

Here are several excerpts of the Edge article:

It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination. ...

... While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.

... The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as "blank slates." Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology"). ...

... These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. But these intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach."

... In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist into adulthood. ...

A Delicate Situation

As you may know, I used to unquestioningly believe in the power of "energy". I became an atheist long before I became a skeptic. I still "knew" that there was an energy force in the universe, that we reincarnated after death, that there was justice in the form of karma, and that people could be healed by energy.

I never had any reason to doubt my beliefs. In fact, I had a lot of selective bias that showed I was pretty good at giving readings (I didn't know it but I was good at warm and cold readings), and I was very good at doing energy healings. People told me they felt better just talking to me. Now I know that just paying attention to people can be help someone feel better. I did reiki healing which is very comforting. I would pay a lot of attention to a person and really listen to them compassionately. The placebo effect did the rest.

Long before I discovered skepticism I heard something about the power of suggestion, so without knowing I was doing science (roughly) I tested out the claim that energy healing is all about just making people feel cared for and is no better than placebo. I "turned off" my healing hands (reiki) several times and people still thanked me and told me I gave them a wonderful healing.

That's when I started getting out of it all. I realized I was just doing therapy for people, and that it was psychological and not "magical" so I gracefully extricated myself from the spiritual community.

I had many friends in the spiritual community back then. Most of them stopped talking to me when I stopped giving readings and healings. One woman, we'll call her Barbara, kept asking me for readings. She would call me all the time, every few days, asking for advice. I am horrible at confrontation, so after trying to tell her I didn't do readings anymore, I broke out the cards and went ahead and tried to help her. I did my best, but I started to feel more and more uncomfortable as time went on.

The Afterlife and Sentient Rocks

Last night our local group of heathens and extended friends had our Winter Solstice/Festivus/FSM Holiday/Christmas/Hanukkah party. It was fun. The conversation was very interesting and incredibly diverse. Here are two topics I discussed.

I was talking to a Buddhist physicist who works for NASA part time. He started talking about how the earth and rocks have sentience. I disagreed, of course. He had this weird logic that was completely flawed. He said something about how humans are sentient, and we need the sun and the earth so they are sentient too. Um, what? And he works for NASA?

My friend Eric works for NASA. He went to his office christmas party where they prayed at the beginning "in jesus name".

This is fascinating and disturbing. I had this idea that people in places like NASA are rational and critical thinkers. But I guess you can be smart in one area and compartmentalize your beliefs and faith in the supernatural in another, and blithely eschew critical thinking. I think early and lifelong indoctrination is definitely a factor. It is disheartening, though.

~

One of my friends, Jim, is a grief counselor so he and I ended up talking about death and the afterlife. Cheery, huh?

We both agreed that as atheists, there is no fear of death. Being dead is natural. It's the end. For about 14 billion years before you were born you didn't exist. Now you do. Eventually (hopefully later rather than sooner, after a rewarding and wonderful life) you will die. We all die.

Where I have problems with death is the actual act of dying. I really don't want to suffer. I don't like pain. I don't want to lose all of my dignity. As Jim said, though, we are really working on that.

Anyway, if you're religious, you are led to believe that there is an afterlife. Well, some religions anyway. Apparently the jews don't hold to that notion. So if you're a muslim and you do good deeds like kill a bunch of innocent infidels you and 72 members of your family go to heaven where you get 72 virgins (see inside label for details).

If you're a christian, you get two choices (well, catholics get purgatory, too). You're going to hell unless you get saved and accept jesus as your savior (rules and restrictions may differ for your denomination. See insert). Then you get to go to heaven to worship god for all eternity.

Tips For A Skeptical Outlook

Here are a few points on how to have a skeptical outlook. These come from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. They're just snippets from some of their older episodes that I thought were worth sharing.

To avoid the ego blow of admitting you were wrong, adopt this point of view:

"My opinions are dependent upon the existing evidence. I could be wrong. If new evidence comes out I'll happily change my opinion to correspond to it."
~
Later, they sum it up a bit differently:

Practice science and skepticism: Attach yourself to the process, not the conclusion. The process has to be valid, has to be scientific, has to be legitimate. Don't be emotionally invested in the conclusion. As long as the process is valid, it leads wherever it leads.

That means if new information comes up, or if someone shows that a different logic is more appropriate, then you can happily change your conclusion because you have no attachment to it.

It's just that you have to get the process right.

That's science in a nutshell. Science is a process. It's about the process, not about the conclusion.

Pseudoscience begins with the conclusion, then they pervert the process. They warp the process to continue to match their forgone conclusion. It can seem very logical and reasonable. It's still not science.
~

This applies to all areas of thought, from science and pseudoscience to religion, politics and just the world in general. If you're attached to your beliefs and ideas, that's dogma. The secret is to be attached to the truth and let it take you where it leads, and always be open to change your mind if new and compelling evidence comes to light.

In this way, learning new things is a wonderful adventure, it's fun and exciting. When you're close-minded and set on your narrow world view, you then have to lie to yourself and others to make your limiting belief make sense to you. You have to close out the real world to keep the little bubble of dogma around you intact. It's not very much fun. You're constantly threatened by new facts and information that threaten you.

Then again, a lot of us have Sacred Cows. A sacred cow is some area in your life that can't be criticized. It could be a person, an institution, a belief, an area of belief, or a custom.

What are your Sacred Cows? Why have you made them immune to criticism? What would help you to hold them up to the light of reason?

People Trust Peers, Not Science

This is depressing, but not surprising, I guess. Three psychological studies have come out recently all saying about the same thing. People trust their peers and tend to distrust authority (the government) and scientific information.

I heard about this on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, episode 254, from May 26th. If you want to listen to Dr. Steven Novella talk about the three studies, start around the 23:30 minute mark. This segment goes to about 35:20, but the whole episode is good, of course.

The attitudes of parents toward the MMR vaccine and autism: The study concluded that parents had a significant bias toward believing information that they heard from other parents. The parents were mostly affected by their peers, and did not seem to be affected at all by what the scientific evidence said, and they seemed to inherently distrust information that came from the government. Not a surprising result.

Raising a general level of scientific literacy would be the best thing we could do to help this mess we're in. My fear is that people are so anti-science and anti-intelligence these days that I don't know how we could go about it, that people aren't interested in learning anything that goes against their narrow world views. Another thing we could do (as recommended by Steven) is to change regulation so that it's rational and evidence-based, not based on public opinion.

What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable?

Here is a question for you. What level of woo would make someone undateable? What about unfriendable? Do you have a limit that you've drawn in your life or do you have a lot of woo woo people around you that you interact with? How do you get on with them? Do you find it difficult? Do you argue with them or are you silent about your woo disbelief?

Woo can be defined as anything supernatural, irrational or lacking in evidence. So it would include religion and any kind of pseudoscience.

On a side note, is there anything that could be defined as woo that you still believe in? If so, why?

For me, I've somehow whittled down my friend list from all woo-lovers to all skeptical atheists. I didn't do this deliberately, but I guess with my skeptical talk and constant questioning (not aggressively, but I really did question all the woo I previously embraced), my woo-loving friends all went their separate ways and avoided me within months of when my quest for knowledge began.

I didn't have many friends for awhile but then found the Morgantown Atheists where I found several people that have become good friends. Also, having HDC has let me meet new people who were rather like-minded as well.

With extended family, I still have to deal with woo, both religious and supernatural. They know Butch (my awesome husband) and I are die-hard atheists so we have come to an unspoken agreement that we don't talk about religion. Or politics just to be safe and have nice dinners together. :P

I think I'm lucky in most respects. My skeptical atheist friends keep things lively by being smart and reason-based (most of the time, we're not perfect, of course). And my extended family gives me an occasional glimpse into woo-land so I get to see what the majority of people are dealing with and believing. It's enough.

Jerusalem is Populating a Biblical Zoo

And I said, WTF? Then I remembered, people in Jerusalem are there because they believe its the promised land, given by God to the Jews. They are just as nutty as the christians, the muslims and all the other religions.

So these zookeepers over in Jerusalem are trying to sort of reconstruct the animals from the bible (old testament, of course) in Israel. They aren't trying to repopulate the area with the biblical predators like bears, but they are trying to bring back vultures, even though Levitucus 11:13 called them detestable. Which makes me wonder why they'd want to nurture and breed them. And why cherry-pick certain animals but not the rest from the bible? But why try to get logical now?

Almost 100 animals were mentioned in the bible, according to the fluffy, credulous HuffPo article where I found this ridiculous story, so of course, I am quite skeptical. I guess that's how Noah was able to get them all on the ark, then. He only had 100 or so to deal with, not the millions found in the world today.

There are nearly 100 different types of animals mentioned in the Bible, many of them key players in well-known stories: the lions in Daniel's den; the dove that scouted for dry land from Noah's ark; the ram that was sacrificed by Abraham to save the life of his son, Isaac.

Today, many of them are gone, hunted to the point of extinction or driven away by ongoing conflict. Of the 10 animals that are listed as acceptable dinner fare in Deuteronomy 14 -- ox, sheep, goat, deer, gazelle, roe deer, wild goat, ibex, antelope and mountain sheep -- only two (the gazelle and the ibex) could still be found in the historical boundaries of Israel in 1960. ...

"... I want to keep the vultures because they were mentioned in the Bible that it was a common animal and that's good enough for me."

What Would It Take To Make Me Believe In God?

So what would it take for me, a 7th degree black belt atheist, to believe in God? I've been thinking about this lately. Here's what I've come up with so far.

1. God would have to personally reveal himself to me and correctly answer every question I throw at him.

2. God would have to reveal himself to every person on Earth at the same time, in a way that doesn't make us all think we are suffering from some type of mass psychosis or delusion. Otherwise I might think I was just hallucinating.

3. God would have to demonstrate his power. He'd have to cure me and bring me to total health and fitness, end all suffering in the world instantly (after proclaiming to everyone that he would do so), end all wars, etc.

4. He would have to demonstrate his superior intelligence, and have an answer to every question that we have. He would have to have good answers for all of his stupid past behavior.

5. He would have to predict the future, in rigorous scientific experiments, with 100% accuracy.

6. He would have to bend the laws of physics and the natural world, but only in rigorous scientific experiments.

As you can see, I still won't have blind faith. I would require testable, repeatable evidence in massive quantities to believe. In this sense, I wouldn't "believe" so much as accept the evidence that would be available.

Now, if I believed in him, would I worship him? That's a separate issue. I don't think so, not the god of the bible. He's a hateful, childish, vengeful, jealous, petty god with anger issues. I think I'd say thanks but no thanks. I require more godliness and love to actually worship anything. I also require a god that actually does good and not harm.

So what are your thoughts? I know my list isn't complete. What else would you require to believe in God? And if you believed in him, what would it take for you to worship him?

The Secret Is Still Bullshit

The Secret, which is all about the Law of Attraction (not a real law, or even real), is still bullshit. But Elizabeth found a great video from Australia that will make you laugh. It explains how The Secret works. It's about 7 minutes long:



Notice how in the demo clips it's always about some materialistic thing like a bike or a necklace? How shallow and self-serving! Why don't all believers in this stupid lie wish for world peace or clean drinking water for everyone? Or everyone to be disease free? Instead they have to have a new Shiny. Pathetic!

Oh, and see the waves of rays coming out of the peoples' heads? That doesn't happen. That's a special effect. So when you wish for something your thoughts don't actually leave your head. Just in case you were wondering. Don't believe me? Ask a neuroscientist. They have proof your thoughts don't leave your head by magic (they only leave your head when you speak, write something down or perform an action based on those thoughts)

Oh OH! And when you ask for something, then believe it's already yours, there's no invisible man in the sky that says to you, "Your wish is my command." You know that, right? The Universe doesn't have a log of every time you wish for that new Ferrari. It doesn't wait for the wish requests to reach 1,000 before it has it shipped to you. (Don't move your house because it will get delivered to your old address! LOL!)

Other posts about The Secret:

• The Law Of Attraction - And The Secret - Are Bullshit


• The Secret Divides


• The Secret Divides Part 2

Logical Fallacy 11: God of the Gaps in Science and Faith

"I can't understand this so God did it."

I like what Iron Chariots says about this argument: It is a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations. In a nutshell, this is an argument from ignorance. But ignorance is never an argument for something. It just means we don't yet know the cause of something.

This is Part 11 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

I want to share this video of a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson from 2006 is about 38 minutes long. He talks about the god of the gaps throughout scientific history, intelligent design and then about Stupid Design. Highly recommended watching:

God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up

I have 2 studies to share with you then a video to cheer you up afterwards.

The first paper is titled 'Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs'. It found through a series of 7 studies and surveys that people believe that god has the same beliefs that they have. Here is what they concluded:

The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God's standards.  "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing," they conclude. "This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

Isn't that convenient? It certainly explains how god can hate all the same people they hate, and basically agree with them about everything. It's like knowing your dad will let you do whatever you want because he thinks just like you. It's a license to act any way you like, with your god's blessing.

Also, are you sure people set their compass according to god's standards? Maybe instead they set god's compass to theirs. That would be interesting to find out, although I don't know how you'd do it.

The second paper is titled 'Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life.' It used data from two recent national surveys of Americans to examine people's beliefs about god's involvement and influence in their lives. Here are some of the findings:

Overall, most people believe that God is highly influential in the events and outcomes in their lives. Specifically:

• 82 per cent say they depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions;


• 71 per cent believe that when good or bad things happen, these occurrences are simply part of God's plan for them;

A New Pew Religion Survey

There is a new Pew Survey about religion of people coming of age around the year 2000 (called the Millenials) out. It's quite interesting. I've included some of the charts and tables for you.

What is interesting is how the Millenials are less affiliated, but they still believe in the afterlife, miracles, angels and demons to a high degree. I think that's where atheism is lacking for a lot of people; that comfort that there's more to life than just the natural, that life doesn't just end when we take our last breath. Personally I find that it makes life much more precious.

Let's see some charts and tables!

Note that in the Unaffiliated group are the Religious Unaffiliated, people who describe their faith as "nothing in particular" but say that religion is somewhat or very important in their lives. Whatever that means.

If you take out the religious unaffiliated, you still get a much higher group of unaffiliated than the general population. :) Note how few people are still willing to label themselves as atheists. :(

Another chart showing age composition of religions.

Many Americans Are Religiously Mixed Up

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just released a new survey today. I've given it a quick persusal and I have to say, while some of it is interesting, most of it doesn't surprise me. Apparently large numbers of Americans engage in multiple religious practices. Stuff you'd think would cancel each other out, but they handle the cognitive dissonance without hesitation.

For example, many blend christianity with Eastern or new age philosophies such as reincarnation, astrology and the belief in spiritual energy in physical objects. Sizeable minorities in all major U.S. religious groups say they have experienced supernatural phenomena, such as being in touch with the dead or with ghosts.

A third of Americans attend different religious services. Personally I find this amazing. When I studied different religions, I lost my faith in all of them pretty quickly because they sort of canceled each other out. Instead 35% of Americans seem to handle the conflicting faiths and stories just fine.

24% of Americans and 22% of christians, specifically, believe in astrology and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic. Damn, I'm in the wrong business.

Nearly half (49%) of the public says they've had a religious or mystical experience, defined as a "moment of sudden religious insight or awakening."

This is interesting but not surprising. About 1/4 of adults express belief in tenets of certain Eastern religions: 24% believe in reincarnation, 23% believe in yoga as a spiritual practice. 26% believe in spiritual energy located in physical things such as mountains, trees or crystals and 25% believe in astrology. About 16% believe in the 'evil eye' or that certain people can curse or cast spells that cause bad things to happen to someone.

Debating Evolution is a Waste of Time (yeah, I know it's been covered before)

Debating Evolution with religious folk is a waste of time.
With the unknown, one is confronted with danger and discomfort--the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. We all do it, we hear a strange noise and we quickly come up with a guess to explain the noise, i.e., wind, a ghost, a…? All tribes/social groups through time have come up with myths to explain unknowns, answers arrived at not through reason or logic, but to tranquilize the fear of the unknown, providing comfort.

Religious folk form their identities through their religious teachings and any information that doesn’t fit their belief system, triggers feelings of insecurity and fear; emotionally, they feel they are being personally attacked--they must abolish the danger and discomfort they feel. They can’t use reason or logic to evaluate any of the millions of facts supporting evolution--because they are indoctrinated and imprinted as children to feel shame and fear if they question their church's authority.

Don’t waste your time debating Evolution with a creationist; respect the right of others to believe as they wish, but never miss an opportunity to demonstrate the irrational paradox and dangerous delusion that is religious faith.

Anywhere in the world, where education increases, belief in religion declines and inversely, women’s rights increase. The greatest intolerance for religion comes from religious folk’s intolerance of other religions or sub-groups within their own religion.

It's time to tax all religious businesses and for the greater enforcement of the laws separating church and state; including, but not limited to, the armed forces, religious schools and donations to political parties.