Defining My Position

I feel that I should explain my position on the existence of God, because in some of the discussions I’ve been involved in, I’ve stated that I’m not an atheist (just a skeptic).  But I’ve also labeled myself an atheist in other instances.  Before I start to sound inconsistent or unsure, I should clarify.

First, there are two main definitions of “atheist” that I use.  The first is what I’ll call a “true atheist.”  This is a person who says, “There is no God; He does not exist.”  A true atheist might even claim that they have proof that God doesn’t exist, or, at the very least, that they are certain He does not.  I tend to think that this is just as much a leap of faith as believing in God.  I don’t think any of us can be certain that God doesn’t exist.

The second definition of an atheist (I’ll call a “soft atheist”) is someone who says, “I have no belief in a god.”  This is fundamentally different from true atheism.  A soft atheist generally holds the position that although we can’t know for certain that God doesn’t exist, there doesn’t yet seem to be any evidence that He does.  A soft atheist is basically saying, “I don’t think there’s any reason to believe in God yet, but I can’t rule out that it’s possible.”

Never in my life have I said, “God doesn’t exist.”  I am a soft atheist.  If I ever refer to myself as an atheist, this is what I mean.  I also use it almost interchangeably with “skeptic.”  I’ve heard Richard Dawkins refer to this position as a “de facto atheist,” or an atheist in practice only.  That is, until I see some evidence for God, I’m going to live my life as if He doesn’t exist.  (Just like until we see some evidence that astrology is real, many of us are going to live our lives as if it isn’t.)

I don’t think this is quite the same as agnosticism.  The way I understand it, I’ve heard two definitions of agnosticism.  The first is that we (any of us) can’t know anything about God.  The second is what someone like Bill Maher says: “I just don’t know and neither do you.”

The first one doesn’t seem logically sound.  After all, if you make the statement that we can’t know anything about God, you’re actually admitting that you do know enough about Him to make such a statement!  The second definition is pretty close to soft atheism, in my view, or Dawkins’ de facto atheism.

I’ve taken this position because, as I said, I haven’t yet seen anything – certainly anything that is the least bit compelling – that would lead me to even entertain the notion that God exists.  In fact, the great majority of commonly accepted instances have turned out to be hoaxes, delusions, personal experiences, or easily explainable phenomena.  I also think that each of the three big logical arguments for the existence of God (the cosmological, the Teleological, and the ontological) is at best flawed (or outright ridiculous, in the case of the ontological).

I’ve also taken this position because I understand the limitations of human experience, bias, and perception.  I think it is incumbent upon us all to be intellectually humble, to treat knowledge as provisional, never as irrefutable (when something is irrefutable, it becomes faith).

Evolution IQ

In a continuing quest to point out that most people who reject evolution (an even some who accept it) have no idea what they’re rejecting (or accepting), I’ve compiled a few points that should sound familiar.

1. Evolution is a random process.
2. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
3. A giraffe evolved a long neck because its ancestors stretched to reach food.
4. A transitional species like Archaeopteryx was a creature in the process of evolving from one species to another.
5. Natural selection creates individual components of an eye and saves them up until the whole eye can be assembled.

Those five statements are extremely common and well-understood notions about evolution.  They are in the minds and on the tongues of many, many people, whether they reject or accept the evidence for the theory.  Each one of those statements is also utterly false.

1. Evolution is not a random process.  The tiny genetic mutations it uses are random, but the process that saves them and weeds out others (natural selection) is the exact opposite of random.  Note the word “selection.”  Advantageous genes are selected simply because the animals with them survive and pass them on.  Natural selection is mindless and lacks a goal, but that’s not the same as saying it’s random.
2. It’s safe to say that no modern species evolved from any other modern species.  Humans and chimps share a common ape-like ancestor from several million years ago that was neither human nor ape.
3. Genes cannot know or care what a creature does in its life, such as stretching its neck repeatedly.  That’s called Lamarckism, and it’s impossible.  A giraffe has a long neck because longer-necked giraffes survived and mated while shorter-necked ones did not.
4. No species is ever “in the process” of changing into another species.  That would require foresight and a plan, which natural selection – by definition – lacks.  Transitional species existed because they survived in their environments. 
5. Again, this myth would require foresight and planning.  Natural selection constructs slightly more complex versions of things like eyes.  Those versions are all useful in the creature in some way.

These aren’t my opinions, and they’re not my interpretation of how evolution works.  They’re certainly not original ideas that I came up with; they’re simply facts rehashed from my study of the subject.  All of them are quite clear and quite well-established in the scientific community, and they can be read in a thousand places from dozens of different experts in the field.  There should be absolutely no reason why these misconceptions should ever be voiced by any educated person.  I’m definitely not holding my breath, though.

Why Convicts Should Lose Jesus, Part II

I always wondered why there is any market whatsoever for personal trainers.  I don’t mean to insult their profession, but there’s really no need for them.  Every literate human being can learn everything they need to construct and carry out an exercise and diet plan simply by checking out a few books at the library.  It will only cost you a little time.  There’s certainly nothing esoteric about working out; the concepts are simple to grasp.  You can easily formulate a routine that doesn’t require a spotter.  Diet is simple, also – the laws of physics apply (calories consumed versus calories expended).  Why waste money on a personal trainer?

Of course, many people say they need a personal trainer to keep them motivate, to keep them returning to the gym over and over.  Fair enough.  But part of the benefits of working out is the discipline and self-control it builds.  In other words, if you need a personal trainer, you’re selling yourself short.  You’re never going to learn how to harness your potential, motivate yourself, and bring about change if you continue to require someone else to do it.

Is it obvious where I’m going with this yet?  I’ve said before that I don’t have any problem with prisoners who make themselves better people through religious faith.  I think in this regard, the destination is more important than the path.  But why should any prisoner need Jesus?  Isn’t he like a personal trainer?  Aren’t you simply using a crutch?  I think it’s vital that prisoners learn the tools to better themselves.  Why put a limit on your own mind and ignore the powerful ability to reason that we all can harness?

What if your faith wanes one day?  Most people’s does at some point in their life.  What will you do then?  You’ll be left without the ability to stand on your own two feet.  As with exercising, part of the benefit of making yourself a better person is that along the way, you acquire the tools that will help you in all aspects of your life.  To me, needing Christianity (or any faith) to better yourself is the equivalent of using a personal trainer or even getting cosmetic surgery.  It’s almost cheating.  It’s definitely a shortcut.  Why rob yourself?  Don’t you think you’re capable of doing it on your own?  And if not, why?

The Bankruptcy of the Traditional Marriage Argument

I was just thinking about how much time I spend chastising Barack Obama, and how I think John McCain is vastly preferable as our next president.  Yet I’m a social liberal – more liberal than Obama in at least one area.  After all, Obama is against gay marriage (he’s stated that he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman).  Me, I say anyone who’s against gay marriage should mind their own business.

But I’m open to hearing an argument against it.  I would enjoy being convinced that I’m wrong.  So far, other than the absurdity of the religious argument (i.e., gay marriage is wrong because my arbitrary fairy tale says so), I’ve heard three main objections.  The first is that the opponent of gay marriage simply makes some variation of this statement: “For thousands of year, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.”

My answer to that is usually: “And?”  Eating three meals a day is also a well-rooted tradition that has been around for thousands of years.  Yet there’s nothing scientific or even healthy about it.  In fact, for optimal health and a more efficient metabolism, science has shown that the body is designed to graze (consume six or seven small meals a day).  Eating three meals a day has no practical value, and if you’re aware that there are healthier options, there’s no practical reason to continue doing it other than social convenience.  On the topic at hand, simply because it’s tradition for marriage to be between a man and woman is not a practical reason for disallowing gay marriage.

The second objection is that traditional marriage is better for a cohesive society (stable homes, nuclear families, etc.).  I would love to hear how the people who voice this argument arrived at their conclusion.  Where’s the evidence?  Where’s the case study?  What about Massachusetts?  Is social cohesiveness dissolving there?  How about in other counties (like the Netherlands)?  Are there studies that show gay people are more likely to get divorced than straight people?

And even if there were, so what?  It’s not the government’s business to tell us what’s best for us.  Don’t you think alcohol, tobacco, and gluttony are much more destructive to a society than gay marriage?  Why don’t we ban those things?  The answer is because adults are free to do what they want in this country, as long as they don’t harm the person or property of another.

The third objection is rather abstract “to protect the kids.”  So far no one has ever elaborated on how gay people getting married is going to hurt children.  I just don’t understand the concern of these “concerned” parents.  Do they honestly think allowing gay people to get married will somehow convert their kids into homosexuality?  In California, there’s whining because a teacher’s association has donated money to keeping gay marriage legal.

The other day I saw a woman on the news voicing her “concern” for the kids.  She never even came close to saying exactly why kids needed protection from gays or gay marriage, but her other admissions were ironic.  Apparently she walks to school with gay couples and their adopted kids.  She has gay friends.  She thinks they should have the exact same legal rights (civil unions) as straight couples.

And yet, allowing them to get married is bad for kids.  How?  What kind of hypocrisy is this?  If she’s fine with them adopting kids, having inheritance rights, grieving rights, the tax break, and so on, what’s the problem with walking down the aisle?  They’ve been legitimized, they’re already a married couple in everything but name, so what line does the ceremony cross?

America’s Standing in the World

Recently I read a post that chastised those who call America the greatest country in the world.  The point – I think – was that Americans have become lazy and complacent, obsessed with little more than leisure and consumption.  The post even said that those who call America the greatest country should get a visa and travel to other countries first.

Well, I’ve never been to any other country (except for Canada), and it’s likely that I’ll never leave America again (or even my state for at least another decade).  Still, I’m going to go ahead and make that statement of “blind” patriotism that America is the greatest country on earth.  Maybe that makes me ignorant, but then again, I’ve never been to Disneyland, and yet I fell that I know enough about it to understand that cartoon animals and theme rides suck.

Similarly, I don’t have to travel to Syria or North Korea to know that living in America is vastly preferable to living in those places.  We’re not a fascist, we have a great standard of living for even the poorest Americans, and we don’t throw people in prison for saying atrocious things about our president.

But okay, Syria and North Korea are easy targets.  The point here is that no other country in the history of the world has been such a powerful force for freedom and opportunity as America.  America defeated the Nazis, freed tens of millions of people from tyranny, won the Cold War, and prevented the march of totalitarianism.  We’ve spread democracy and free market capitalism across the globe, lifting millions out of poverty.  American ingenuity is responsible for the most radical and beneficial technical advancements in the world, advancements that have made life better for humanity as a whole.  America gives more – much more – in foreign aid than any other country.  America has put more money and effort into defeating AIDS than every other country combined.

Maybe that’s all in the past.  Maybe for whatever reason, people don’t seem to think any of that counts anymore.  Whatever you think of America today, it’s still the best place in the world to live.  Look around, and don’t just take in the do-nothing politicians or the slow economy.  Take in the long lines of people still trying to come here.  Take in the fact that no where else on this planet does a human being have the opportunity he or she does in America.  No where else can you begin with nothing and end with a lot solely by hard work.

Americans are lazy and complacent?  That’s simple racism.  It’s the equivalent of saying all the Irish are drunks.  Some Americans are lazy and complacent, just as some people of all nationalities are lazy and complacent.  But America’s unparalleled and unprecedented economic, military and political power didn’t come about because we’re lazy and complacent.  And if we’re “obsessed” with leisure and consumption, it’s because the greatness of this country makes it possible and affordable for us to enjoy ourselves.

Our Illusion of Innocence

I just finished a book called Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence, by Peter Unger.  The idea put forthwas that everyday, there are children all over the world dying from malnutrition, malaria, or other easily-defeated illnesses.  Millions die every year, and something as simple as a few dollars will easily prevent this.  Everyone one of us could spare, for example, a few bucks a month so save a child’s life.

Most of us, however, do not.  And further, most of us see no problem with this.  If you receive a letter in the mail from UNICEF, informing you that if you send $100 now, you’ll save the life of a dying kid in Asia, and you toss the letter in the garbage (as a great many people would do), no one calls you immoral.  That behavior is perfectly acceptable.

Bus suppose you walk by a pool and see a kid drowning.  If you jump in to save him, you’ll be late and miss an important business meeting, costing you $100.  If you decide to leave the child to drown and spare yourself the hundred bucks, you’re a monster.

The book asked, “What’s the moral difference between letting the faraway kid die (which most of us do everyday) and letting the drowning kid die?  It then argues philosophically why there is no such difference at all, that we’re fooling ourselves if we think that it’s morally okay to ignore the UNICEF letter (and that the reasons most people give for doing so are inadequate).

The idea was one of the most compelling ones I’ve ever read, and it made me think a great deal about the nature of morality.  (Be warned, though: the book is a philosophical study, which for me at least means that it’s headache-inducing.)

One thing that wasn’t mentioned, however, was the notion of why so many kids are dying every day in the first place.  IF you donate money to kids in an impoverished country, you’ll save lives, but you’re really only alleviating a leak.  You’re not fixing the hole.  People can keep donating money for years, for generations, but if nothing is done to change the conditions in which the children are raised, the problem itself won’t be corrected.

If the definition of moral behavior is to save the most amount of people as possible, wouldn’t it be more moral to invest in the country’s economic, social, and political future?  That is, use your money to coax change that will bring about democracy, free market capitalism, private ownership, women’s rights, birth control, and technological advance?  Are there non-governmental organizations that do that, rather than simply give money for relief?

Don’t get me wrong: Relief is important, especially considering the fact that kids are dying right now.  But the issue is about investing in the long-term to save many more down the road.  What if the question becomes something like, “Save a hundred kids today, or let them die and save ten thousand tomorrow?”  Could we swallow a pill like allowing a hundred kids die for a noble purpose or saving more in the future?

Prison Story, Part VII

Last night a guy I know came up to me and asked me to sign a Get Well card.  I’m friendly with this guy, but I don’t know him very well.  He’s about twenty years old.  I asked him who it was for.  The answer was that a member of his family has cancer, so he’s sending this card after getting pretty much everyone he knows to sign it.

I looked at the card for a moment, and it was absolutely full of messages from convicts.  Convicts who didn’t know the guy’s relative one bit, who had never met the person with cancer and never will.  Yet, the card was choked with a few sentences from all of these guys, messages of well-wishing and good humor.  There were so many that I had to sign on the back of the card!

I had never seen anything like this before.  I’d signed a birthday card for guys in here, but nothing like this.  One thing that struck me: From the messages I imagined that the person receiving the card will probably think that their incarcerated relative is a part of one big prison community.  Almost like being away for camp or being in the Army, a situation where all your buddies look out for you and care about what you care about (your family, for instance).  It was strange to think of prison in that way, but that’s the impression I got.

Usually, when people think of prison communities or “brotherhoods,” it elicits negative images of gangs and race-driven groups.  And that would be accurate most of the time.  I’m wary of that type of situation.  I don’t even like the us-against-them mentality, where prisoners consider every day to be a struggle between some cohesive inmate group and the prison employees and administrators.  I don’t see why anyone would ever do something as foolish as trust their peers in this place enough to entertain such an idea.

But last night there was good example of that notion of a prison “community.”  Being asked to sign that card and seeing all those messages really threw me for a loop.  I wanted to write about this because if it surprised me, maybe it would be surprising to some others out there.  I can imagine many who might never even consider that such a thing might happen in prison.

Why Convicts Should Lose Jesus

One of the stock answers Christians give when someone asks for evidence of their God goes something like this: “You can’t find evidence of God; you just have to experience it yourself.  You have to look for it and discover what His love feels like personally.”

Carl Sagan gave my favorite response to this.  To paraphrase, he said, “I’m not going to go out and try to prove your belief for you – that’s your responsibility.”

Likewise, I have been accused of “never doing the experiment” myself.  I think this accusation means that I’ve never given faith in Jesus a chance, and that I’ve closed myself off from anything that might “prove” His existence.  It’s kind of funny just how wrong it is.

I was raised in an utterly secular environment; I don’t remember either of my parents ever saying a word about God to me.  About the only childhood experience in this vein was a grandmother who took me and my sister to church a few times.  But most of my family, while certainly not atheist crusaders, had little use for religion.

However, I eventually did.  I was part of a church youth group with a couple kids from my neighborhood.  I walked around knocking on doors handing out pamphlets.  I chose to be baptized.  I believed that Jesus Christ had died for my sins, that He loved me, that the Bible was at least mostly true, and that I’d go to heaven one day if I did right by it and Him.  This active participation in organized religion didn’t last very long, but I held these beliefs for several years.

When I was eighteen and lying on my first bunk in my first prison cell, I was still a believer.  I remember the day distinctly when I felt – I “knew” it with the utmost certainty – that God had put me in prison for a reason.  My faith was completely renewed, I had my old Bible sent in to me, and I decided that was to be my path.

It didn’t last long.  My first question was about the “reason” I was in prison.  I know why I’m here, and God certainly had nothing to do with it.  I’m here because I decided to rob a man and he died.  This was completely my choice and my responsibility.  And if God had truly put me here for a reason, that doesn’t say much about God.  After all, a man was killed in the process.  How could I be so arrogant to think that my life and purpose meant more than his?  What kind of God would allow an innocent person to die, simply so He could put me where I was “meant” to be?

I started to think that I couldn’t possibly “know” that God had put me in prison for a reason, anyway.  I started to think that it was almost certainly my mind’s way of dealing with the situation, of finding purpose and reason – and perhaps even a shameful denial of responsibility – for a stupid kid who had no idea who he was.  I had just destroyed someone else’s life and my own: it makes a great deal of sense that I would want to believe that it didn’t happen in vain, that I had some greater purpose.

That was the beginning of my questions, my rejection of revealed knowledge, and my path to accepting reason.  It also led to my moral evolution.  Yes, I am going so far as to say that rejecting Christianity made me a better man.  If nothing else, it made me understand that being a moral person means a great deal more than obedience.

President Obama

The other night I heard Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a “socialist who wants to surrender.”  What’s funny about a statement like that is a great many of Obama’s supporters and political allies probably wouldn’t disagree!  (Imagine that, Obama supporters agreeing with Ann Coulter.)  I mean, he surrounds himself with America-hating, Marxist-leaning scumbags like “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and some of the people in groups like Acorn.  He’s comfortable with George Soros, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos.  Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah have voiced their support for him.

Let’s look at the two charges in Ms. Coulter’s statement.  First, Obama wants to surrender (in Iraq).  What would have happened, had we listened to Obama’s plan a couple years ago and pulled out Iraq in defeat and humiliation?  What would have happened to Iraq if we’d listened to Obama and decided that the Surge wasn’t going to work?  Maybe Obama doesn’t consider this “surrender,” but I guarantee that al Qaeda would have.  How would Obama like to see thousands of Muslim extremists cheering in the streets that they “defeated America?”  Christ, he still can’t even admit that the Surge was the right plan!  And where was his vote to condemn the “General Betray Us” ad created by his political pals?

I’m inclined to agree with Obama that going into Iraq was probably the wrong move overall.  If we could do it all over again, we wouldn’t take that route.  But that doesn’t make Ms. Coulter’s statement any less true.  Surrender is still surrender.  The point here is not whether we were wrong about Iraq in the first place; the point is whether pulling out (surrendering) would be yet another mistake.

Then we have the term “socialist.”  Okay, we all know that Obama isn’t a socialist in the strictest sense.  But certainly it’s fair to say that he subscribes to some socialist tenets.  We’re talking about a guy who wants nearly a trillion dollars in spending entitlement programs.  A guy who continuously spouts a populist message of class warfare and wealth redistribution.  I read The Audacity of Hope:  Obama supports salary caps for CEOs!  He had the audacity to claim that wealthy Americans have too much by giving a list of what he sees as extraneous luxuries!

Then we have his vice president on TV saying that it’s “patriotic” for the wealthy to pay more taxes.  Biden even shamelessly used the word “take” when talking about taxing the rich.  So now you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with non-producing politicians deciding how much of your money they should take and where it should go.  I find that absolutely amazing.

If left-wing guys like Alan Colmes want people to stop referring to Obama as a socialist, maybe he should tell him to stop preaching a message of taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Obama shrouds it thusly: “There are things we must do, and the only way to pay for these things is by taxing those who are doing well.”  He makes it sound like he’s only doing what’s necessary, like making the best of a wave that’s crashing over us by surfing it.

Of course, the operative word here is “must.”  Things we “must” do.  What a crock.  What Obama really means is, “There are things I think we should do to remake America in my very left-wing vision.”

Mr. Incredible and God, Part VI

In one of my attempts to convince Mr. Incredible that I’m perfectly willing to hear any evidence he might present that points to the existence of God, I told hm that I wasn’t an atheist, just a skeptic.

His response was, “And you think you’re going to win.  You make God laugh.”

(And this is the type of discourse I find myself responding to.  Yes, I’m ashamed.  I admit to some amount of boredom as an excuse.)

First of all, Mr. Incredible, I’m not trying to “win” anything.  I want the truth, and I have no problem admitting that I don’t know everything and that our knowledge gained through science is provisional.

Secondly, about me making God laugh.  To quote John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, “That’s a bold statement.”  First you read my mind, now you’re claiming to know God’s mind?  Okay, maybe you just meant that as a colloquial statement, but Mr. Incredible, be careful.  That sounds extremely arrogant, to make a statement like that.  Can you really know so much about God to say that He would laugh at me (for whatever reason)?  Don’t you think God would be upset that you’re making such an assumption?  What if you’re wrong?

And honestly, why would God laugh at me?  All I’m doing is asking tough questions.  I doubt His existence, sure, but He’s never given me any reason not to.  He proved His existence repeatedly in the Old Testament – why not to any of us in the modern era?  If your God is real, did He not grant me the gift of my mind and the ability to use reason?  Wouldn’t He want me to be critical?  Wouldn’t it be insulting to Him if people just believed for no reason other than because they were raised that way?  Wouldn’t He rather have discerning followers than blind sycophants?

Suppose – as has been the case with many people, including many scientists – that my search for truth and goal to educate myself leads me to eventually accept God’s presence?  Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Besides, God is supposed to be our loving father.  Why would He laugh at me?  Admittedly, I am certainly weak and pathetic compared to a supposed omnipotent being, but why laughter, why mockery?  Isn’t that rather petty and silly?  Shouldn’t He want me to one day see the light?  Shouldn’t the benevolent God that so many Christians have described to me love me and sincerely want me to change?

And what about this: What if I never see the light?  According to you, if I’m unrepentant, I’ll eventually be sent DOWN THERE, right?  Would God still be laughing then?  Maybe He’d be right and maybe I’d even get what I deserved, but would it make Him a great benevolent being, if He laughed about it?