Christian Delusions

I’m reading a book called Atheist Delusions, by theology professor David Bentley Hart.  Ostensibly his main point is that Christianity has had a much more profound effect on Western culture, science, and morality than its uber-critics (such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris) like to admit.

The main problem arises when Mr. Hart asserts that faith and reason are not inherently opposed: “All reasoning presumes premises or intuitions or ultimate convictions that cannot be proved by any foundations or facts more basic than themselves, and hence they are irreducible convictions present whenever one attempts to apply logic to experience.”

So far, so good.  All reasoning does indeed presume irreducible convictions (though certainly not “intuitions”).  But Mr. Hart seems to be making the point that materialism (i.e., the conviction of an objective reality untouched by supernatural whim) is equal to his own conviction of supernaturalism.  Apparently those who assume a materialistic foundation simply have a different set of beliefs “that may, for all we know, blind us to entire dimensions of reality.”

Indeed, we could be completely blinding ourselves to the dimension of fairies and elf magic.  We “materalists” are just so narrow-minded.

He goes on: “Certainly we moderns should not be too quick to congratulate ourselves, or to imagine ourselves as having embraced a more rational approach to the world … We have no real rational warrant for deploring the ‘credulity’ of the peoples in previous centuries toward the common basic assumptions of their times while implicitly celebrating ourselves for our own largely uncritical obedience to the common basic assumptions of our own.” [Emphasis mine]

Our own largely uncritical obedience?  Does Mr. Hart understand the most basic tenets of reason or science?  Science is inherently critical of itself.  The very concept of a rational idea that also consists of “largely uncritical obedience to an assumption” is an oxymoron.  Furthermore, the foundation of science is its provisional nature; it strictly rejects dogmatism to any ultimate conviction – yes, even materialism.  One can witness this by the many and varied scientific tests to search for the evidence of ESP, the efficacy of prayer, prophecy, spirits, and so forth.

Mr. Hart seems very close to saying that no philosophy is right or wrong because they’re all based on different “common basic assumptions” of our culture and experiences.  By this line of reasoning, a man whose irreducible conviction is that a giant reptilian monster that regulates the laws of nature with magic eye rays is as equally viable as anything else.

Hart goes on to tell the reader of three African priests with modern educations who also believe that miracles, magic and spiritual warfare are real aspects of their everyday lives.  That’s very heartwarming, and I’m sure it will endear Mr. hart to the multi-culti crowd, but I’m curious as to whether these priests wrote a thesis and passed the exams for that modern education by using miracles, magic, and spiritual warfare.  Try fixing a computer, building a house, or planning birth control with magic.  Try feeding a nation or curing a disease with miracles.  Try it, and let me know how it turns out.

Some metaphysical convictions are clearly more useful than others.  Some are useless.  Assuming supernatural fiat in the natural world destroys science and makes all experimental data useless.  We “moderns” don’t cling to materialism out of blind devotion; we simply use methodological materialism because it’s not only unfailingly useful, but also necessary to a functional human mind.  One can’t even argue against it without first assuming it.

Let’s All Stop Respecting the Beliefs of Others

I used to think that this was a pretty obvious notion, but now I’m not so sure anymore.  Now, we seem to be moving closer and closer to a world in which every idea and belief deserves respect simply because it is put forth.  The idea that women should keep their faces covered so as not to “tempt” men, for example, is now defended by some as a belief that should be respected simply because it is held by some (even many) people.

Nonsense.  I’ll allow my inner nerd to shine forth and quote Gandalf the Gray:  “When did [we] abandon reason for madness?”

We should NOT respect the beliefs of others.  No freethinking person should ever follow such a craven, fatuous, and morally wrong principle.  Instead, we should use reason.  We should try to objectively look at each individual belief and determine whether it is a.) a good belief; b.) a bad belief; or c.) a faulty belief.  Regardless of what moral relativists and multi-culti pseudo-intellectuals might say, this is possible.  If it is a good belief, we should respect it.  If it is a bad belief, we should disrespect it.  If it is a faulty belief, we should amend it.  (When I say terms like “good” and “bad,” I mean measurably beneficial or detrimental to every human being on the planet.)

The belief that an individual has the right to determine his own destiny, for example, is a good belief.  We should admire and even spread this belief.

The belief that women should not have access to education and voting, on the other hand, is a bad belief.  It is a bad belief no matter what justification is given for it (there are especially to be no exceptions for religious justifications).  A belief such as this should be scorned.

The belief that evolution is bad because it represents an atheistic philosophy is an example of a faulty belief that’s very pervasive in this country today.  It’s faulty because it ignores reality.

It’s the height of irrationality and moral weakness to respect someone’s belief simply because.  Treating a person with a bad belief politely is one thing; assigning a bad belief the same worth as a good one is outrageous.  And refusing to scorn a bad belief because of some need to “be respectful of the beliefs of others” is contemptible.

Typical Creationist Pseudo-Science, Part III

In Mr. Incredible’s ongoing quest to show that he knows more about my positions that I do myself, he has accused me of denying that God exists.  Here is a quote: “So this has nothing to do with what you want us to believe is intelligence, empiricism, logic, nor reason.  It has to do with the fact that you want to be able to persuade yourself that, through your own arrogant power, you can avoid and ignore a Power and Judgement greater than yourself.”

I don’t know how many different ways I can say this Mr. Incredible: I am perfectly open to the possibility that a higher power exists.  I await only evidence, and so far the only “evidence” you’ve pointed out is the personal experience of millions of Christians.  If that is to be our standard of evidence, how about the personal experience of millions of Muslims, or Jews, or Buddhists, or atheists?  My only “arrogance” is that I hold every claim – whether it is a claim of ghosts, God, evolution, or the Big Bang - to the same standard of evidence.

But since you don’t believe me, I must be lying or deluding myself.  I can’t argue with an intellect as powerful as yours, so I’ll try to concentrate on more impersonal subjects.

You asked, “What kind of science leaves input out?”  Well, no science that I know of.  All the fields of science are constantly awash with new ideas, new theories, young graduate students challenging the status quo, and old curmudgeonly academics being forced to defend their positions to upstarts.  This is why science works; this is why it produces results.  This is why we have vaccines, cell phones, space probes, and longer life spans (to give a few examples).

What your problem seems to be is that science leaves out the input of millions of Christians who swear that they’ve felt God, witnessed His actions, etc.  Actually, science doesn’t leave it out.  You can find a great many books and articles written by scientists about personal experience, faith, the power of belief, and the science of belief.  (As an example, I would recommend one such book, How We Believe, by Michael Shermer – he was once a Christian and is now the editor of Skeptic magazine.)  The issue of these personal testimonies have been repeatedly addressed by science.

But there is a good reason why personal testimony is not treated as empirical evidence: It’s unreliable.  Surely you can’t deny that in the vast majority of cases, claims of angel sightings, miracles, faith healing, and so on, have turned out to be simple fraud, delusion, or misinterpretation.  People are heavily biased and influenced by what they want to believe, what comforts them, what frightens them, and what they are led to believe by authority and social pressure.  The recent hyped-up scare about “recovered” memories of sexual abuse that landed innocent people in prison is one poignant example of just how unreliable people’s perceptions are.

Science also practices what it preaches, so to speak.  No one in the scientific community – and I mean no one – takes personal experience as evidence of a theory.  No one accepts evolution, the Big Bang, or quantum theory because “millions of people testify to it.”  Such a person would be laughed out of academia.  The cases for these theories are built on observable, testable, and measurable empirical data, not on personal testimonies or revealed knowledge.

Furthermore, a scientific theory can be proven wrong.  Evolution, for example, would be proven wrong if just one single anachronistic fossil were found.  Just one horse in the strata of the trilobites, or a hominid fossil in with the dinosaurs.  The entire theory would come crashing down, and scientists freely admit it.  Falsifiability is the hallmark of science.

If your positions is scientific and not merely based on faith, Mr. Incredible, answer me this:  How could it be proven wrong?  Even hypothetically – how could it possibly be shown that all those personal testimonies are erroneous?

Typical Creationist Pseudo-Science, Part II

In asking for any evidence that points to the Christian God’s existence, Mr. Incredible has returned with what I think is personal testimony of millions of people throughout history, only he presents these testimonies as “experiments.”  Here are several quotes:

“They did what God told them to do, plugged in His principles, turned on the switch and they found that it works.”

“…those who have done the experiment and found that what God says is true have observed the results, not merely opined.”

“You don’t accept the witness testimony of those who have done the experiment, inputted the things God told them to input, switched the Power on and found that it lights up.  I can’t help you if you want to be uncooperative.”

“Witnesses have found that, through experiment – observation of the results from the cooperative action of inputs – what God says is true.  They have observed His promises performed, manifested, distilled from the spiritual merely cuz [sic] they asked, in faith that He is able and willing to perform what He promised.  I have observed this time and time again, and I testify of [sic] it.”

The first question that comes to my mind is this, Mr. Incredible: What about the millions of people who have “done the experiment” and found something else?  That is, the people (like me) who were once Christians and eventually came to see it differently?  There are more non-Christians in the world than Christians – what about all of them?  What about discerning adults who have looked at the major religions and chosen a different one?  Doesn’t the witness testimony of all these people count for anything, or do you only listen to testimony from those who affirm your position?

What about all of the testimony of your fellow Christians?  Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses – millions of Christians who can testify to different “truths.”  Are all of them simply wrong?  They claim the same testimonial evidence and monopoly on the truth that you do.  How are us skeptics to know how to separate the two?  Explain to me why your claim – which so far seems identical to all of theirs – should be taken more seriously.

Secondly, you repeatedly mention that many people – including yourself – have observed this time and time again.  Fair enough.  But you have not yet given one example.  Give me one.  Just a single incident where you observed one of “His promises performed.”  Otherwise, how can I – as someone who has not yet observed what you have – be certain of what you really experienced?

Thirdly, I will quote David Hume: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”  In other words, are you so certain that what you observed was an act of God, or does it have a much more parsimonious explanation?

Fourthly, if we are to take seriously the testimony of Christians who have felt God’s effects, then why should we not take seriously the testimony of those who have felt the effects of astrology?  After all, plenty of people have done what astrology told them to do, plugged in its principles, and found that it works.  This is undeniable: You can find the sworn testimony of literally millions of people who can tell you that astrological predictions are real and that they have observed them coming true in their lives.

Honestly, I fail to understand how the two cases are different.  Please explain.

Typical Creationist Pseudo-Science

Here is Mr. Incredible’s position: Evolution can’t bridge the gap between 1) nothing and something, 2) something and life, and 3) life and humanity (self-conscious and free will).  I haven’t yet heard him expound any further; he simply asserts these things as facts and claims there is no evidence of any such connections.

Number 1: This is a matter for physics and cosmology, not evolutionary biology.  Further, it is based on the false premise that there is any “gap” to begin with.  Perhaps there has always been “something,” in which case there was never “nothing.”  Perhaps, as modern physics has argued, the net energy in the universe is actually zero, in which case “nothing” came from “nothing.”

Number 2:  This is certainly an incomplete and ongoing area of evolutionary theory, but there isevidence of a “bridge” between something and life.  Organic compounds such as amino acids form with ease out of inorganic matter.  Simple protein molecules have been observed making trail-and-error “decisions” on enzymes.  Even nonliving crystals have a rudimentary form of “hereditary.”  We’ve come a ling way since Urey-Miller.

Number 3: Chimpanzees are self-conscious and have free will.  They recognize themselves in a mirror, make individual decisions, have individual personalities, form individual bonds, have an innate sense of fairness, make plans, get jealous and envious, create tools, plot deceptions, and mourn their dead.

Mr. Incredible also said: “We still don’t know how matter is produced.”

Who ever said that matter is being produced?  From the laws of thermodynamics, we know quite the opposite: that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.  If you’re speaking of ultimate beginnings, as in how something came from nothing, I refer you to the point I made above:  How do you know there was ever nothing?  How do you know that the matter and energy present in the universe haven’t always been there?  If you want to delve deeper into the cosmological argument, how do you know there must be a First Cause?

One more point: Mr. Incredible keeps accusing me of hypocrisy, saying that I have “faith” in something like quantum mechanics (which is incomplete and begs many questions), and yet I reject Christianity.  He even stated that I accept quantum mechanics because a lot of people say it’s real.

Mr. Incredible, quantum theory has given us lasers, TVs, and supermarket scanners.  It has produced empirical results; that’s why I say it has scientific value.  No faith is required.  I don’t understand why you continue to make this fallacious argument.  Do you believe that quantum theory has not produced these things?  Or are you saying that because it’s incomplete, we should throw the whole thing out as merely faith?

There are plenty of theories in science that are incomplete.  In fact, a fundamental tenet of science is that it’s alwaystreated as “incomplete,” or provisional.  Only faith is irrefutable.  Science would never make such an arrogant claim.  The standard model of cosmology is far from complete, but that doesn’t invalidate the evidence for black holes and dark matter.  The theory of evolution has unanswered questions, but that doesn’t invalidate evidence such as the fossil record, vestigial organs, and homogeny.

In the same vein, of course quantum mechanics is unfinished, but if the theory has led to such achievements, do you not think it’s unreasonable to say that this is evidence of its merit?

Why Faith is Just an Opinion II

I don’t understand why anyone who’s critical of faith is automatically seen as some rude, crude asshole who’s attacking the sacred beliefs of others and being heedless of their feelings.  I don’t want to insult anyone; I want to have an honest discussion about the difference between opinion and reality.  So often I talk to faithful people who want to state, “You have your belief and I have mine,” and leave it at that.

No, I’m sorry.  If you have a position, defend it.  Don’t ask the rest of us to turn off the rules of logic for your special belief simply because it’s sacred to you.  I don’t consider it disrespectful to ask tough questions of someone who’s making an assertion without any evidence.  Disrespectful would be ad hominem attacks, nasty attitudes, and hurled insults.  Disrespectful would be casual disdain or intellectual arrogance.  I’ve come to the conclusion that when people say “You’re being disrespectful my faith,” what they really mean is, “You’re asking tough, direct questions about my faith.”

Some people have faith that God is real.  Others have faith that He is not.  Some people have faith that cutting off a little girl’s clitoris pleases God.  Others have faith that it doesn’t.  Some people have faith that homosexuality is a sin.  Others have faith that it is not.

All of these people can’t be right, because there are contradictions there.  So obviously, reality is not determined by someone’s faith.  Either God exists or He doesn’t.  Your faithe in the matter doesn’t change this.  No matter how strongly you feel about God’s presence, you’re not going to alter objective reality.  If it is a fact that your child committed a horrible crime, then no matter howmuch you love them, no matter how much you want to believe them, no matter how much you just know with all your heart that they’re innocent – it’s not going to change anything, is it?

This is why evidence works.  This is why the method of reason is the best one we have for arriving at the truth.  Faith is manifestly and demonstrably useless for discovering the truth.  Faith is a subjective opinion that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the objective truth.

Then, of course, there are people who say, “Well, maybe everything is subjective.  How do you know that using reason is a way to the truth?  It’s just one version of the truth, and my faith gives me another.  Truth is dependent on how each person sess it.”

When people say things like that, I refer them to Ayn Rand: “Those who tell you that a man is unable to perceive a reality undistorted by his senses, mean that they are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings.”

Again, feelings do not change reality.  Just because you click your heels and hope with all your heart that your opinion is the truth does not make it so.  Personally, I find the idea of an existential universe inspiring – but that’s simply my opinion.  My yearning for such a universe says absolutely nothing about whether it is truly that way or not.

So, how do we know that using reason is a way to the truth?  If you can’t answer that, then try stating a contradiction such as “My empty bank account actually contains a million dollars” and attempt to spend it.  Try saying, “I don’t exist” without admitting that you do simply because you used that personal pronoun.  Try believing that gravity is just the subjective opinion of some scientists, and jump off a building.  Try doing anything without using the method of reason and see how far you get out of bed in the morning.

The Wise and the Foolish

I’ve noticed that some Christians reassure themselves by treating science like an enemy and trying to demote it.  This type of thinking leads to an attitude of, “Even the scientists themselves admit that they can’t explain everything.  The Bible, on the other hand, has all the answers.  God explains everything, so that’s where I’m placing my bets.”

Yes, God explains everything.  But then, so does a magic platypus from Pluto.  So does the impersonal force of the Buddhists.  The Egyptians had a pretty good creation myth.  So did the Mayans and the Norse.  What makes the Bible store different?  Because it has historical places and facts?  So does Greek Mythology.  Because it has survived for centuries?  So has astrology.  Because it has a nice and loving message?  So does Dr. Phil.

You say you know the ansers to the fundamental questions of the universe because the Bible reveals them?  You “know” nothing.  You’re accepting the blathering of people who sold their twelve-year-old daughters, interjecting your personal opinions, and treating it as revealed knowledge.  Instead of testing what may or may not be true, you’re just picking something that “feels right” to you and professing it as gospel.

I’m reminded of Romans 1.22: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”

Who’s the fool?  Scientists don’t have all the answers because they only make claims about what they can test and study.  They can show you evidence that points to the Big Bang and evolution, for example.  But they admit that their acumen may be flawed.  Even when a theory is very powerful, they still treat it as provisional.  They’re practically zealots when it comes to intellectual humility, if for no other reason then they take nothing on faith.  They challenge each other’s theories.  They hold everything to the same standard.  They wouldn’t dare say, “Evolution can’t be proven wrong.”  Instead, they say quite often, “I challenge you to prove evolution wrong.”  And when someone tries, they meet that challenge with evidence and reason.

And then we have the Christians.  They revel in pointing out that they’re unconditionally correct.  They think it’s a virtue.  They think a divine source has given them everything they need to know about the universe.  They think this divine source is all-knowing and all-moral.  If there is any question about existence that cannot be answered, they don’t say, “We’re working on it,” or even “We’re not sure.”  No, they say, “God did it.”  They profess not only that they are correct, but also that no one else can possibly be correct.  They even claim to have a superior way of knowing things: Faith.  And if someone attempts to criticize this method, they’re told it’s off-limits and should be “respected.”  Not that it would matter, because faith is immune to all such inquiry.  In other words, they can’t be proven wrong, and they don’t care about proof anyway.

So who is it really, that are professing themselves to be wise?

Why Faith is Just an Opinion

When confronted with a person who doubts God’s existence, Christians often say something like, “Well, you have your belief and I have mine.”  It’s annoying.  It seems like a simple evasion.  They’re trying to place their faith on the same level as reason, but they do it by lowering reason, rather than trying to elevate their own position with evidence.

Being skeptical of God’s existence is not a belief.  Skeptics are simply applying the method of reason to God in the same manner they would to any other supernatural claim.  A skeptic who says, “I haven’t yet seen any evidence that there is a designer, let alone a Christian god,” isn’t making a declaration of faith.

If we are to take a Christian’s faith in God as concrete, why not take a Muslim’s faith in Allah the same way?  How is your faith in Jesus different from a Wiccan’s faith in Gaia?  There are true believers of all sorts of religions out there, an most will claim to have a level of faith that is at least equal to anyone else’s, and certainly not less.  Name one thing that separates your particular faith from another’s faith in astrology.

What if an atheist comes up to you and says, “I have faith that there is no God.  I just know it.  I can feel it.  My personal experience in this matter is real, so don’t you dare belittle it.  This is not an opinion.  I have faith.”  If you wouldn’t be impressed, then congratulations.  Maybe you’re more of a skeptic than you think.  Now try applying that same skepticism across the board, instead of arbitrarily choosing when and where.

There is no way to measure faith.  Bill and Tom might have identical faith in the fidelity of their wives.  Suppose Tom’s wife cheats anyway.  Does that mean Tom’s faith was ever any less than Bill’s?  Of course not; all it means is that Tom’s faith was proven unfounded.  You could never, ever determine whether Bill or Tom’s wife is cheating based on how much faith her husband has in her.  Similarly, you can’t prove that God exists based on strength or surety of His followers’ faith.  If we were to do that, why shouldn’t everyone believe in Allah?  After all, there are people who devoutly destroy themselves and other innocent people for their faith in Islam.  That’s some mighty strong faith, is it not?

I don’t mean to belittle people’s faith, though I’m sure some would take it that way.  I’m not attacking faith, I’m just saying that it’s utterly useless as a method of learning the truth.  The truth has nothing to do with your personal feelings about what waits for you in the afterlife.  The truth is not affected by what you “just know” deep in your heart.

Instead of assuming that I’m attacking your faith, try to look at it from a skeptic’s point of view.  How am I supposed to take faith seriously, in light of the questions I just asked?  How am I to know that your faith is genuine evidence for one thing when half a billion other faithful people have come to a completely different conclusion?  Am I supposed to now have faith that your faith is real?

I am sometimes told that I must respect the faith of others.  I disagree.  I promise to respect your faith in a virtuous idea (such as the notion that all human beings are equals), but not bad ideas, and not the faith itself.  I promise to respect you as a human being, as an intellectual equal, but I don’t necessarily respect all of your opinions.

I don’t want special treatment – I will never ask you to respect my position.  Attack it all you want.  Criticize it.  Try to destroy it.  I won’t get upset; I’ll simply ask you to tell me where I’m wrong, I’m interested in the truth, not in validating an opinion or protecting a sacred belief.  Before we respect people’s opinions, let’s make sure they’re good ones.  Before we respect a sacred belief, let’s respect the truth instead.  As Sam Harris said, “Nothing is more sacred than the facts.”