So, the breakdown (yes, I’m using that in more than one meaning). Coyne’s three questions are as follows:

1. Can you demonstrate that the logical compatibility of a rarely-acting God with evolutionary biology is a serious and important philosophical question?

2. Your argument about that logical compatibility would seem to extend not just to mutation and evolution, but to all of science. Is that correct? If so, why did you concentrate on mutation?

3. If the answer to the first part of (2) is “yes,” then would it be equally important for philosophers to write papers and give talks about how we can’t rule out the logical possibility that God influences coin tosses to favor outcomes He wants (like a favorite football team winning)? If not, why not? After all, isn’t the coin-tossing argument basically identical to the one you were making for mutations?

These are simple, direct, and consistent, no? They deal with factors that have immediate bearing on the lecture that Sober has given, and repeatedly defended – in fact, they address the very reason anyone would give such a lecture in the first place. Let’s see what Sober did with them:

If by “God” you mean a being who separately created species within the last 50,000 years, then I am an atheist. But sometimes when people tell me what they mean by “God,” their answers makes me doubt that science could ever provide evidence about whether such a being exists. In this case, I feel obliged to be an agnostic. This is why I find statements like “there is strong scientific evidence that shows that God does not exist” unsatisfactory; the claim is correct for some concepts of God, but not for others.

Note that, in the last sentence, Sober is dealing with another subject entirely; neither the lecture, nor the responses given by Coyne or Rosenhouse, involved this statement at all. It is worth noting that, “there is strong scientific evidence that shows that God does not exist,” is not the same statement as, “there is no evidence for the existence of god.” Again, an argument from proving negatives and, bluntly, a straw man. And nothing to do whatsoever with his lecture.

Even before that however, Sober doesn’t answer the question posed to him, but wanders away into the definitions of others, admitting that the concepts of ‘god’ are too variable to provide anything of use. Which raises the question, why did he try to blame science (or even individual scientists) for their failure to consider something that he cannot even define himself? I hope I’m not being too unkind when I say that even an uneducated person is an idiot for arguing in consideration of something he doesn’t believe in and cannot define; a professor doing so is inexcusable.

On to questions 2 and 3, which for our purposes here can be combined. Sober admits that his supposition about cause can be applied throughout the sciences, not just within evolutionary biology. His excuse for spending all of his time on evolutionary biology?

The reason is that many theistic opponents of evolutionary theory think that accepting the theory forces one to be an atheist. They hear biologists say “mutations are unguided” and think that the theory says that God plays no role in the evolutionary process.

So, what Sober is saying here is that, because some bunch of neurotics are concerned that their personal belief system isn’t supported by biology, biologists should reword everything in the literature to express an opening that accommodates said neuroses.

Notice that there is no recognition that science is so extraordinarily useful because it emphasizes the elimination of preconceived bias. Or that scientific theories revolve around explaining what evidence we do have, not outlining the literally infinite possibilities of the evidence we do not. Not even that the pursuit of knowledge can only take place by accepting the results we get, regardless of how they make us feel. This whole situation openly demonstrates the flaws in setting emotions higher than reason, a pertinent and useful topic in philosophy, yet Sober spends his time only in perpetuating these flaws. And this is what a prestigious philosopher of science is providing?

It takes no effort to see how badly knowledge is hampered when ideology is accommodated (or forced upon, as history shows irrefutably.) It serves no purpose whatsoever to make allowances for people who fail to understand how the scientific method operates and why, especially when effort spent in promoting such understanding can actually eliminate the problem. Numerous further questions were raised by Sober’s backwards approach to biology, all of which illustrate problems solved decades to centuries ago and were directly responsible for the methodology we have now – yet Sober either remains ignorant of these, or chooses to suck up to religious whiners instead. It really doesn’t matter which.

There’s another useful thing to consider in here as well. Religion isn’t pursued because it provides answers, makes sense, or even guides us morally – it’s pursued through cultural pressures and because it’s indulgent (and, in the cases of religious leaders, because it’s a great way to make money from bullshit.) The religious problems with evolution do not stem from either evolution failing to explain some aspect of life, or from the few people who cannot reconcile the facts with their scripture; the problems stem from religious leaders actively trying to discredit it because, without “the fall” and the idea of sin, the entire structure of the abrahamic religions falls apart (and with it, the leverage religious leaders can use against the wallets of their flock.) This means that it’s not evolution that has the flaws, it’s religion. Yet evolution, in the US at least, is much more often simply ignored, considered propaganda and brainwashing – biologists aren’t heeded in the slightest among that population. Even if the efforts to find a crack into which could be stuffed Sober’s idea of “Feeblegod” reached more than .05% of evolution-deniers, this would do nothing towards a greater acceptance of science, since all it would signify is how one tactic of religious pressure actually worked; it would only lead to more efforts to discredit evolution.

Not to mention that corrupting the methods of science to gain greater acceptance of the methods of science is simply a fucked-up approach, which (again) you would think might be obvious to a philosopher of science. Unless, of course, such a degree was utterly pointless.

I guess it’s because I’ve seen this more times than I can count, enough that I’m coining a phrase, if only for my own use: “Attorney for god.” What I mean by this is the supremely selective application of interpretation, attention to small details, and meticulous definitions of terms in order to produce loopholes and caveats in support of their standpoint – actions that are never applied in the least against their beliefs. When it comes to such things as relying on what science has determined over the past several hundred years, these ersatz attorneys are quick to point out how we haven’t seen any species evolve into another (which is incorrect info anyway,) or that geological and radiometric dating haven’t taken into account the possibility that atomic processes just might have occurred with different speeds in the past. Yet if we consider talking snakes and a worldwide flood, somehow their intellectual rigor evaporates, and of course is deemed unnecessary.

It certainly provides no small amount of amusement. I suspect they believe they’re promoting an air of philosophical and epistemological sophistication (and in no small part trying to stump those evilutionists,) while only betraying their complete lack thereof. I’ve written before about double-standards, but this is even worse, and more juvenile: this is elaborate effort to deny – perhaps only to themselves – that their beliefs lack even the slightest connection to rational thought, and are emotionally driven instead. “I don’t believe in a 4.5 billion-year-old earth because it doesn’t make sense!” – yet the alternatives require countless properties never demonstrated and remarkably mythical.

In many cases, no doubt, it’s not even a matter of applying intellect in any way. Efforts such as Blas’ in the linked post are often intended only to score points for themselves, as if reality is determined by who wins a debate. There really are people who assume that the strength of their position lies in finding any weakness whatsoever in any opposing position – not by actually having a strong position of their own. If applying rules selectively leads to their emotional supplication, then it’s perfectly legitimate, right?

Unfortunately, those who endorse critical-thinking and even just the scientific methods can be exploited by such tactics. Such pursuits require a certain level of rigor, and especially the consideration that any standpoint or conclusion may be wrong; in most of the professional sciences, putting one’s work up for dissection is standard practice. So we respond honestly, even when suspecting that in most cases such challenges have no honesty behind them. When considered from the standpoint of having any effect whatsoever on the originator of the questions, it’s an abject waste of time.

Except when it takes place publicly, such as in a forum or open discussion. Then the dodges and the double-standards can become obvious, and show any ulterior motives (and emotional blindness) in sharp relief. There is often no feedback from any listeners, so it can seem like efforts to answer forthrightly fall on empty ears, but everyone has their own experiences where they realized one person in a conversation wasn’t being honest, and these discoveries can mean a lot more than repeated facts. Small battles also have impact.

Attorneys, by nature, aren’t trying to obtain ‘truth’ in any court case – they represent their client (and, too often, not even that, but only themselves.) They have one standpoint to consider, and put their efforts solely into that end of things. But reality is not a court case, nor a matter of public opinion; as humans, our efforts to fathom what is are only effective and worthwhile if we don’t advocate at all, but serve as the jury instead. A jury that only listens to one side isn’t a jury, and obviously, finding reality in such a case is highly unlikely. Being this one-sided is effective if you’re afraid of what reality may bring, but if anyone has stopped being scared of monsters under the bed, honest consideration of every argument is the only thing that leads to knowledge.

I’ll be blunt: I am astounded at how incredibly selfish most religion is. It is a near-constant litany of how any individual’s status is determined and maintained, frequently at the expense of others, and it is incredibly anti-social. There, now that I put every religious person firmly on the defensive, they won’t be reading any further, and I can put anything I want from here on in. Yet I’m perfectly serious, so if you’re curious (or up to the challenge,) keep reading.

First off, note that the primary goal of the abrahamic religions (meaning christianity, judaism, and islam) is personal salvation, placing the eventual position of the immortal soul above all other concerns. To achieve this, we are often admonished to “accept jesus into our hearts” or follow the ten commandments, too many of which have to do with worshiping an omnipotent being that should, presumably, have no ego to speak of. This is not to ignore the other scriptural passages that do speak to social interactions and behavior that affects others, the ones that [we are often reminded] supposedly form the basis of our laws and morals. But we also need to examine just how those are usually wielded.

For instance, an awful lot of people seem to remember scriptural condemnation of homosexuality, but somehow forget the more frequent appearance of things like not seeking wealth, not judging others, not being prideful, and not quoting scripture. In short, if it can be used to reinforce their behavior, it’s gospel, especially if it gives them some kind of authority over others. But if it requires them to make unwanted changes to their own life, somehow it doesn’t seem to exist.

Very distinctive within scripture are the aspects of the chosen people, the tribe(s) that gain special favor and status because of some long past circumstances. Specific messages regarding ‘birthright’ and privilege from a bloodline are quite prevalent, which has nothing whatsoever to do with behavior or ethics of any kind. But these don’t compare to the very dominant message that favor comes only from god, and has little to do with paying any attention to fellow humans in the slightest. In such circumstances, the individual acts only to appease the deity, and has no reason to pay any attention to anyone else regardless.

There is a distinct tendency towards focus on the individual and ‘self,’ rather than others or the community. Coupled with this is the idea, frequently promoted, that ‘good’ is a status some individual can actually possess, rather than a quality of actions that they make, and that ‘good’ itself is only determined by a supreme being. While it is certainly easy to see that good actions are ones that benefit others or society as a whole, and that the entire definitions of both ethics and morality reflect fairness and others in our community (at the very least,) there is little emphasis on such in scripture, and far less so in practice. Compare the number of religious promotions of good behavior against the complaints regarding the respect of beliefs, attempts to regulate others according to the divine authority individuals believe they possess, and the overall class consciousness of the religious perspective.

There is a curious side aspect of the difference between good people and good actions. In cases far too frequently displayed, people who are considered good are excused from their bad actions, supposedly with the idea that such things will be ‘averaged out’ on some cosmic scales, and this is even displayed in the folklore of st. peter, for instance, comparing the actions of someone’s life to see if they qualify for passage through the pearly gates. Such an idea leads to an interesting question: what qualifies to offset a policy of hiding child rape within the catholic church, rather than addressing or, heaven forbid, eliminating it? How many good actions does it take to not only balance out such abhorrent behavior, but still earn the title of a ‘good’ organization? Or are such titles simply free from having to demonstrate their value whatsoever? Thankfully, our legal system isn’t based on something quite so asinine – if you break the law, no one compares all the laws that you haven’t broken to see if you’re allowed a freebie (though,admittedly, in practice there is still ample evidence of ‘qualifying circumstances,’ often involving social status and the amount of money that can be thrown at attorneys.)

Countless aspects of religion, from regular church attendance to the wearing of holy symbols such as crosses, serve only for individuals to promote their own piety, and even scriptural guidelines by far emphasize what any individual shouldn’t do, rather than what they should or could. While there is a significant difference between ‘doing good’ (positive actions) and ‘not doing bad’ (taking no action,) this is barely recognized within scripture, and almost never in practice. Community activities tends to be sparse, and those unrelated to either fundraising for the church itself or proselytizing are extremely scarce. While new church buildings can be seen under construction in numerous locations within any given community, new outreach programs for the disadvantaged are exceptionally hard to find. Why do canned food drives take place twice a year, at best, when church services occur every single week? Churches themselves even contribute to the distinctions of class/community/tribe, with the number of sects and individual churches forming dividing lines throughout every community, all while supposedly encouraging the community within its walls.

Almost invariably, whenever it is pointed out that numerous outspoken religious folk are acting in undeniably antisocial and outright crass ways, one gets to hear the response that such people are (as one example) “not true christians,” drawing yet another dividing line solely to avoid any association with bad behavior while retaining one’s own exalted status. Yet there is no criteria for becoming an adherent of most religions, no tests or accomplishments, and no membership to be revoked. Nearly all rabid fundamentalists really are quoting, as selectively as everyone else, from scripture they consider holy. It could just as easily be said that any socially-oriented religious person is not ‘truly’ religious since they are ignoring those parts of scripture that advocate genocide, bigotry, reduced status for women, child abuse, slavery, and purity of clothing – it can be taken either way. But instead of raising the bar to the incredible height of determining ‘goodness’ by actual benefit, fairness, and community, which might nominally require pointing out the fallacies within scripture or simply ignoring it altogether, many religious folk instead draw their cloak of inviolability ever tighter to block out those they are embarrassed by, and arbitrarily declare their own stance as the correct one.

Humans, without question, have strong tendencies towards elevating their status as individuals; we want to set ourselves apart from the crowd. There are obvious benefits to this, among them better mate selection and higher promotions at work. But there are two ways of going about this. The one that comes to everyone’s mind is by doing something better than others. The other is more commonly known, if not admitted, which is to tear down others so we look good by comparison. This is remarkably prevalent, from sports, school, and state rivalries, through political parties, to race relations and national pride. And religions wield this with gay abandon, having developed a wonderful array of tools for their adherents to stand alone on level ground, appearing higher only by virtue (heh!) of driving others downwards. The application of ‘demons,’ ‘pagans,’ ‘heretics,’ selective morals, and behaviors frowned on by their own personal gods (such as birth control) are all great ways for the devout to maintain a privileged status by not doing a damn thing (sorry, but these are fun to throw out there.)

Especially high amongst this attitude is prayer, which consists of ‘good thoughts’ and might go so far as to involve a body position. As evidence of benefit, it falls behind even saying, “Watch out!”, but it serves its purpose in letting (in fact, encouraging) the religious to feel they’re doing something that matters while expending no precious energy of any kind. Worse, in cases demonstrated by such phrases as, “I’ll pray for you,” it proves to announce to all concerned that the prayor has special powers in their communications with the supreme being. When someone is crass enough to point out how little effect prayer has, the defensive statements have gone so far as to claim (apparently with some special insight that no one else must possess) that god does indeed answer every prayer, though sometimes the answer is “no”; it’s a shame that is never seems to dawn on anyone that simply getting off their ass and taking some physical action provides measurable results every fucking time.

Whenever any aspect of religion is questioned, much less prevented from having a deleterious affect on others against their will or rights, there is no shortage of religious folk whining loudly and pathetically about how their own rights are being trampled and denied, usually without the slightest recognition of how rights are actually defined (and how they differ from privileges, which are not automatic, and opinions, which are not sacrosanct, nor able to be elevated above any other.) The idea that rights involve an equal and non-partisan application is far-too-frequently missed, or ignored in favor of some individual trying desperately to retain their special status as a Sneech With A Star.

The Jessica Ahlquist story is an excellent example, as is every snit thrown over displays of ten commandments in public places, or the phrase “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance. None of these involve denying any rights of any religious person regardless, nor in ‘persecuting’ them or even trying to ‘destroy christianity.’ They are simply reminders that religious folk do not have special status over others – you know, those very same others who they’re supposed to love, help, and be good to. The ironic part of this is, too many of the devout honestly believe that they are doing what they’re supposed to, or at least, deserve this accolade without having to make any such effort in that direction. They see good in pushing their religion on others, forcefully if necessary, rather than in simply doing something beneficial – which, amazingly, takes far less effort and is usually received without resistance, and puts those doing so in a favorable light.

Most especially in this country, countless devotees feel it is their solemn duty to dictate how others must live their lives – perhaps this may only go so far as to pass judgment on them, as if this somehow makes it better. The authority that they wield, usually a collection of scattered and whimsical writings thousands of years old with the philosophical depth of frozen dinner directions, is indistinguishable from the authority of any other religion the world over, and their claim to divine support comes from, in all seriousness, either the number of other adherents, or the remarkably obtuse referral to assurances of verity within the writings themselves. This is exactly like scribbling “genuine” on a homemade badge. And somehow, this is supposed to provide religious folk the privilege of acting as an omnipotent being’s proxy, occasionally while calling themselves, “humble servants” in an attempt to repeat the same leap across the chasm of hypocrisy.

I wish it could be said that, at the very least, such folk did their best to live by example and exemplify the traits they insist others must possess, but the painfully apparent truth is that religion is wielded far more often as something for others, not something to be followed personally. The claim that any criticism of religion is an attack on ‘personal beliefs’ flies in the face of every last act where religious people attempt to control others through legislation, intimidation, or simply their special status as ‘god’s folk.’ Despite the aspect of executive privilege that this implies, even more self-absorbed is the idea that everyone else lacks the intelligence or ability to make any decision on their own, and must be guided in their infantile incompetence by the special elite, those who occasionally attend two hours of services per week – since sitting on one’s ass is, after all, a special accomplishment. The sheer number of people who feel they alone (or their congregation, at least) are in possession of this gold nugget of mental prosperity that they call the “word of god” beggars belief. It’s exponentially worse than someone enthusiastically trying to introduce you to this great writer you’ve never heard of, J.R.R. Tolkien…

The persecution angle mentioned above is another fascinating concept. It takes little effort to find religious martyrs who seem to think that they are under vicious attack by those who express a different viewpoint (which, to be sure, is historically among the worst ravages mankind has ever faced, right up there with having to stand in line at the movie theater.) The expression of the very words you’re reading now, forced so horribly on the reader, is torture of purest agony, yet these brave souls bear the slings and arrows with furious bouts of whining, and the hopes that politicians might pander if they squeak in great enough numbers. I admit to finding no small amount of amusement from the thought that, bolstered as they claim by the almighty power and grace of god, they seem ever so threatened by books and the occasional interview granted to those who disagree. Decades ago, I learned of how light bends and can separate into different wavelengths, and no number of speeches and publications will ever eradicate that knowledge from my mind – yet religious folk seem in dire and mortal peril that their faith will be spirited away by a decent argument. Because of this, we are treated to everything from crying about the lack of respect that they so richly deserve to concerted actions to prevent schooling in sound, and useful, scientific principle.

Lurking amongst all of this is another aspect that is often raised, that of religion’s benefit on a personal level. Numerous polls support the idea that churches fulfill a desire for community and socialization within attendees, often to a greater extent than the aspect of moral guidance. Accompanying this is the argument that religion provides emotional support for many, especially during trying times. Yet, these are emotional arguments, serving (yet again) only for the benefit of the individual. While everyone seeks to feel better, the value in emotional indulgence is the same as that derived from narcotics. Insecurity is certainly a human trait, but no more debilitating nor damaging than anger or lust, and it hardly justifies the hulking bastion of religion, or even a tiny fragment thereof. And the argument of benefit often ignores that we already have valid ways of feeling better; no community requires any particular guidelines or structure, and emotional support isn’t the sole purview of churches.

Given a population of people not only motivated by social interaction but the drive to maintain (or increase) their moral standards, churches have the remarkable power to accomplish a tremendous amount for a community – yet, such activities, or even attitudes, are few and far between. Think about it: with so many in this country counting themselves as religious, we should be seeing a huge emphasis on beneficial works, shouldn’t we? Feel free to tally these against the displays of religious intolerance and blaming untold woes upon everyone else, not to mention personal attacks on anyone who even dares to raise questions. We only have homophobia, abortion restrictions, and concerted efforts to deny good science such as evolution because of religion, a mission that no one gaining their warm and fuzzy feelings from their churches seems able to recognize.

Worse, the support that churches supposedly give in hard times is of little demonstrable value – belief in the efficacy of prayer or the promise of an afterlife is not only evidenced in no way whatsoever, it supports the incredible idea that people should find faith itself, belief solely through hope, to be a virtue, and fairness to be achieved after death. That is, when emotionally vulnerable people are not opportunistically exploited for the church’s benefit, something that happens far more often than someone gaining any support by weak words when a loved one has died. We also cannot ignore that countless instances of vulnerability and emotional turmoil are directly caused by religious influence, including the (still unsupportable, and totally nonsensical) concepts of judgment and hell, ideas of original sin, and even the insistence that sexual feelings are abnormal. Compounding this is how often these things are inflicted on children too young to comprehend and unable to cope well with such fears, simply because children are more susceptible to indoctrination. Convincing adults requires a lot more emphasis on reason and making sense.

Right there is where we see that churches and organized religions can indeed take specific actions – only, such actions serve only in the interests of the churches themselves. Missionary work, required by several different religious organizations and merely encouraged by others, spends far more time and effort to indoctrinate others into the faith rather than simply assisting them, despite the fact that countless churches solicit funding specifically for humanitarian efforts. Youth groups are not only encouraged to gather more followers, they receive special training to do so, while few if any are encouraged to do any actual community work. But such things pale against the extraordinary efforts put into denigrating, denying, and outright lying about the world we live in, from the age of the earth to the descent of man, from the sciences we use daily (to tremendous benefit) to the actual functions of our minds. Whether you use scripture as your guideline for moral behavior, or behavioral studies, or simply common sense, lying is considered unethical, most especially lying to large degrees, yet more effort is put into this than in all other church activities combined. Religious folk tend to be very quick to point out any fallacy (past or present) they can find within science, but never admit to the obsessive efforts to promote belief systems they have no evidence of (no, a book is not evidence – it’s a book; we’re in a paragraph about people lying, make the connection.) Books, websites, pamphlets, and pretty much everything churches ever publish contain more assertions of how things are without any support or demonstration whatsoever, and a very large percentage of them purposefully and knowingly lie about the findings of scientific investigation, nor do they display any recognition, least of all honesty, when shown that they are absolutely wrong.

Countless people would willingly argue that this does not represent all religion, or that their own practices do not fall prey to such abuses. But it’s hard to justify this when we examine what religion even is, and how it exists. Religion survives because we accept a standard that applies only to religion: that it is supposed to be respected, and that religious people have a right to their beliefs. But respect means nothing if it’s automatic or forced, and a right to beliefs (seriously, since we don’t have thought police no one could do a damn thing about beliefs anyway) does not translate into a right to consider that belief equates with fact, and most especially has nothing to do with acting on such feeble usage of brainpower. Until we get over these detrimental cultural influences, we will remain held back by the imbecilic claims that ancient beliefs somehow have more importance than what we can demonstrate dependably every day.

We already know, as a species, what ‘good’ is, and are perfectly capable of handling it without the privileged-class aspect that most religions inevitably lead to. I learned how to wipe my ass and have been managing it just fine for over forty years, despite the lack of advice from scripture in that regard – mankind is hardly so flamingly stupid as to need guidance on getting along. It is, in fact, the encouragement that we need special distinctions among social groups that reinforces the competitive aspects of our species, and religion is first among them (though to be sure, far from the only, as we draw lines around countries and cities and races and cultures.) Religion rates so highly – or, in the interests of accuracy, so abysmally low – because it provides elevated status without any demonstration of benefit, or even special effort. Join a church and receive a new title, one that allows ego-stroking and arrogant superiority, bolstered by a never-present ultimate authority figure.

Even the simplest demonstrations of benefit – that religious influence provides for better social relations or more moral societies – cannot be found to speak in its own defense. Prison populations are not particularly thin on religious inmates and commensurately more full of atheists; in fact, atheists are significantly under-represented in prisons in relation to outside ratios, even when reported by prison chaplains. Countries that spent centuries in development long before any contact with the religion of anyone’s choice still possessed remarkably sophisticated moral and legal systems, including both North and South America and countless cultures in Africa and Australia – and contact with Europeans didn’t exactly drive any of them forward. Countries today that are largely secular show distinctly higher indicators of stable and satisfied populations, as opposed to near-theocracies that are frequently involved in racial tensions and outright genocide. It makes one wonder just how many demonstrations of failure are necessary before enough people actually pay attention.

We are a social species, and ultimately obtain satisfaction from group dynamics. Which is great, because that’s the only way we could survive (and, suspiciously enough, why we even think morality and ethics are good things in the first place.) We are protective as well, and realize that some forms of competition are both important and necessary. But raising both competition and false-status higher than honest accomplishment is pointless, destructive, and most especially selfish. We can obtain status if we seek it, freely given and requiring no protection of privilege, by doing beneficial things for others, individually or within the greater community – this is the only thing that deserves to be called ‘status’ in the first place. We have no need to create smaller and smaller tribes to build stockades around, since we are already one tribe, all with similar desires and goals. The emphasis needs to be on cooperation and accomplishment, rather than separation and demonization, and to do this, we need to recognize where such things occur.

Imagine, if you will, if a god had not claimed judgment as its own prerogative, but left that instead as a decision from a jury composed of all mankind. Imagine if, instead of finding those who could be considered lesser beings, like finding someone shorter to make oneself appear taller, humans concentrated on finding solutions and improvements. Or simply imagine that, instead of being a chosen and carefully crafted example of ideal design, humans were just one among many species, yet distinctive in our ability to devote rational thought to overriding the influences of ‘instinct’ and ancient survival demands. Actually, no one has to imagine this at all, since this is the only thing that we have any objective evidence of in the first place.

It is long past time that we put our focus on humanity overall, and actually saw members of the same species as members of the same species, rather than competitors. Individuality and tribalism denies everything that we have gained as human beings, and weakens one of the greatest strengths that sets us apart in the first place: communication and cooperation. While we have occasions where competition and ‘looking out for oneself’ are important and necessary, they are far outweighed by those occasions where cooperation is essential and of much greater benefit. Nor do we even need some special rules about being good, since we inherently recognize this in others, and even base all of our social reactions on such. It would be great if, intelligent as we are, we could get past juvenile, self-centered behavior.

I also need to know what car you drive; make, model, color, and Vehicle Identification Number. You are on public roads, so this is my right to know. In fact, I really need to know what it is you do in your car, because this impacts everyone else. Most especially how often you play with that little Star Trek Tricorder of yours instead of paying attention to the road. I also need to know if your driving habits are contributing unnecessarily to the depletion of fossil fuels. If you drove an SUV into work with only yourself inside, this is a serious problem that must be resolved, for the sake of everyone.

I need to know what kind of eating habits you have, because this ultimately impacts the cost of health care in this country, and can contribute to the decline in life expectancy and even influences children in their developing years. I’m not very happy with those who publicly eat junk food where kids can see them, even if they don’t appear to be enjoying it. Waste products from food packaging also forms the majority of the bulk in our landfills, which affects everybody, so it’s important to know who isn’t doing their part in reducing waste.

I need to know whether you’ve been to counseling of any kind, and how your past relationships have gone – this requires corroborating info from family members, former spouses, and everyone you’ve dated. A very large number of the crimes in this country are committed by people with some shitty pasts, so this is for everyone’s safety. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine, but you do realize this means you simply have something to hide, right?

I need to see the past seven years of your employment performance evaluations. Productivity in this country is a major contributor to its economic status, and in these tough times, we need to know who’s pulling their weight and who isn’t. Naturally, this also means a good record of your usage of company resources, especially computer and corporate vehicles. I will probably need to install some monitoring devices wherever you work. This is not your own time, after all. Remember, as a taxpayer, my curiosity must influence you since you’re benefiting from my dime, even when you’re contributing your own. Your taxes don’t count in this regard.

What you watch on TV, and the movies you select to view, are of paramount importance. You are potentially a voter, now or in future, and we cannot have effective leadership if the voters in this country are ill-informed. There is also the possibility that violent movies lead to violent behavior, as well as patriotic movies leading to bad foreign relations – since this makes perfect sense, I’m not obligated to actually support this with any kind of facts. Common knowledge is dependable knowledge. If I can draw a connection, it must logically exist.

While I’m on the subject of voters, who did you vote for in the last dozen elections? If they achieved office and made bad decisions, this means that you led us all in a downward direction, and perhaps we need to be looking at voter privileges a little closer. Responsibility is something that should be both earned and sustained.

Are any of your children struggling with school, or maintaining less than an optimum grade? This likely means you’re not a very good parent, and someone should be stepping in. I also need to see what entertainment materials you’re choosing for your offspring. We all know where an abundance of stupid kids leads: YouTube server overloads, and dumber advertisements on MTV. Everyone has to deal with these, you know, not just your own little brats.

I am saying all of this because I am smarter and more moral than you, and you need the guidance. You cannot be trusted to cross the street on your own. Those of us who have learned how to make simple decisions have a responsibility to protect ourselves from abject morons, and to be frank, the morons should be grateful to be controlled. Where would we be if we allowed people to give in to their desires, rather than letting someone else make rational decisions for them?

However, who you go to bed with, what you do when you get there, and how you deal with any consequences… that’s all none of my fucking business. It’s a free country, after all.

I don’t find the proverb itself terribly useful, but it serves as a starting point for something a bit more important to critical thinking. I don’t know if it has a name or not – considering that this is how philosophers justify their existence, it probably does – but in essence, it’s the idea that every explanation bears its own consequences. This is better illustrated by an example.

People who support the idea of a US government conspiracy behind the attack on the World Trade towers on 9/11 maintain that there is compelling evidence that the planes could not have caused the collapse, and that signs of controlled demolition exist. When we apply the idea of consequence to this, we start asking several pertinent questions:

Why would the government do this?

How could this be accomplished and kept secret?

What, exactly, is the evidence in support of this?

What, exactly, is the evidence against it?

Can the evidence for either be interpreted in more ways than one?

These cannot be considered unreasonable questions by any stretch, and in fact, our judicial system relies on exactly this type of examination. Virtually every court case requires the demonstration (aligned with the questions above) of motive, opportunity, means, and being beyond reasonable doubt. It also underpins the scientific method, where a firm conclusion (which is, again, defined as “beyond reasonable doubt”) is only reached by eliminating as many other options as possible.

From a skeptical standpoint, the goal is not to automatically doubt any explanation, but to open the door to questions and seek support for any particular conclusion. If A is the case, then we should expect B and C to follow. If B and C are missing, A is thrown into question. With this rides another aspect, where A may lead to B, but so might Q and J; in order to be comfortable with only one explanation, the others must be ruled out somehow. This aspect of logic is routinely ignored when statistics are quoted, where rising intelligence and rising housing costs are considered connected in some way because they both rise. My example is silly, but this kind of mindless comparison is used far too frequently.

Applying this to our 9/11 conspiracy claim (it doesn’t qualify as a theory,) we have to determine useful answers to the questions listed above. Some of them, such as how the government could have kept it secret and how they could have mined the incredibly busy buildings with demolition charges without anyone noticing, already start to strain explanatory scenarios. Moreover, neither one culminated with the collapse of the buildings, but need to be maintained in secrecy, even to this day, and thus require a support structure that must continue through changing administrations. And there had to be a purpose to all of these shenanigans, which supposedly was to goad us into war with Iraq. The fact that the ‘pat explanation’ of this being Al Qaeda’s doing had nothing to do with Iraq, wasn’t sufficient to convince Congress, and wasn’t needed anyway since Bush simply pushed the war through without them, all make the ‘motive’ part rather lame.

Then, when we look at the evidence, we find such marvelous things as offhand comments made by firefighters (during a massive disaster,) puffs of ‘smoke’ (supposedly demolition charges) from a 200,000 cubic meter office building already in the process of collapse (we have to assume, I guess, that the dust clouds that covered dozens of city blocks were also demolition charges, and not caused by displaced air,) and that jet fuel does not ignite at a high enough temperature to melt structural steel. The last is the only one that seems to have a smidgen of science behind it, in that someone actually looked up flashpoints. Perhaps it would have been nice if they had progressed beyond the smidgen, though, or even just remembered that blacksmiths hammering horseshoes are not working with iron that is melted, but merely softened for pliability, and that the furnaces to accomplish this are fired by fuels with a lower flashpoint than the melting point of iron, too. Flashpoint refers to ignition, not resulting heat, which depends on the enclosure and supply of fuel. Yet, these little bits of highly questionable ‘evidence’ are claimed to support the vast idea of the conspiracy.

It is important, in fact vital, to ask if the evidence is solid, incapable of being misconstrued or misinterpreted, before even embarking on scenarios that might support such evidence. Can the observed traits be explained by means other than the initial posits? In the case of the puffs of smoke, supposedly from ‘squibs’ (explosive charges,) there are countless other possibilities, especially since the collapse of such huge buildings would have required several hundred charges, and they would have detonated before the collapse began. We’ve already addressed the jet fuel issue, and it could be pointed out that having the buildings fall almost immediately after impact would have made more sense to most viewers, not to mention keeping a million different media cameras off of the collapse. The collapse of the third building, Seven World Trade Center, should have occurred commensurate with the destruction of the twin towers – there is no earthly reason to let it remain standing for the entire day, nor for any ‘responsible party’ to utter the supposedly damning comment captured by news crews. The claims that the damage was insufficient to bring down the building are trashed by seeing the photos of the damaged side of the building, where the North Tower debris ripped through perhaps 20 floors, not the side opposite, which is the only side that the conspiracists ever show.

Which is another point in itself. All too often, when conspiracy claims are made and the supporting evidence presented, it takes little effort to find that such evidence is not understood, poorly presented, or outright edited – but it takes the motivation to look for it. Taking any claim on faith, no matter what side, is exceptionally uncritical – there is no method of ensuring that any source of information cannot be wrong, nor reason to believe such a thing. And it says an awful lot that most conspiracies throughout the ages only survive by being selective about evidence. Claims that the cryptic line, “We’re going to pull it,” is demolition jargon turn out to be completely false, and photos showing how strong the building was before collapse should not be solely of the undamaged side. The same goes for things like the Kennedy assassination, where a faint haze in one photo and a witness’ claim that the gunshots came from the grassy knoll are used, totally ignoring the countless witnesses who claim the shots came from the book repository, including those that saw someone up there. Witnesses that saw no aircraft anti-collision strobes from the ‘mysterious light in the sky’ do not magically override those that actually did see the strobes.

Going yet further with the application of critical thinking with our first example, we can imagine ourselves as the government trying to spark a war, and think of what kind of apparatus would be sufficient. Considering that the towers had already been attacked earlier by a simple car bomb, it seems rather elaborate to switch to hijacked airliners – an explosion at ground level would fit the planned demolition scenario far easier. Even if sold on the aircraft idea, a cargo plane with a small nuclear device would have been tons more effective in communicating the threat of Al Qaeda/Iraq/whatever, and not subject to passenger interference either. The construction workers that reinforced the Pentagon months before the attack would have had a legitimate excuse to be deep in the bowels of the building planting explosives, and could have done far more damage to the building than what actually occurred. As a conspiracy, it’s actually incredibly inept.

That’s how Occam’s Razor is wielded. As explanatory scenarios get more elaborate, they require a supporting structure of details, that we either should be able to find easily or must have explanations why we do not. Those explanations themselves must also be plausible, and have supporting evidence or good reasons why no such thing is available. The very first part of the claim – that the US government (or some faction within) planned it all – is an attempt to explain how the buildings could collapse if not because of the planes, but lacks any kind of direct evidence at all. Everything related to it is simply wild speculation about how and why, a supposition just to try and patch the very first holes in the conspiracy claim, but bearing nothing at all to bolster it. Something of this nature would be huge, and require untold hundreds or thousands of accomplices – in other words, a structure of vast proportions that is still completely secret. To maintain this as a plausible scenario, one must create more and more elaborate circumstances to explain away the total lack of evidence that could lead anyone to suspect it in the first place. It’s not actually possible to keep building a structure on the scaffolds of the next structure – somewhere in there must be a foundation.

Even science operates with this idea constantly, as scientists test posits through the consequences of their supporting structure, sometimes quite ingeniously, but it always must come back to something fundamental, or at the very least (like the counter-relativistic rules of quantum physics) a dependable set of results. This also requires accepting what the evidence says, which is usually the hardest part for we humans to get past. We have a strong emotional tie to solving puzzles, and get a serious sense of accomplishment from it. In fact, this is likely the prime motivation behind conspiracy claims and paranormal explanations in the first place; something abnormal is noticed, and various explanations for such are contemplated (occasionally abetted by other desires or beliefs, such as feeling like a victim of the government or a belief in realms outside of the merely physical.) The sense of pride inherent within the idea that “I figured it out” is naturally much more powerful than, “Oh, wait, that isn’t right” – this can even be applied to those who did nothing to piece anything together, but merely feel they are part of the elite few who know. Yet the emotional attachment to ‘knowing the solution’ makes us reluctant to let go of an explanation when the evidence fails to bear it out, so we need to be aware that this is emotional, and nothing more. Quite simply, when a good idea cannot be supported through a few specific tests, it wasn’t actually a good idea in the first place, and it’s time to let it go. Adapting critical thinking skills from the outset actually makes this far easier, since the tests are being applied right from the start, before we convince ourselves of how good an idea it is.

Interestingly, it also switches the emotional sense of accomplishment to a different puzzle: not whether our hypothesis is correct, but if we can effectively test such things and catch the errors. Rather than feeling disappointed when a hypothesis fails to bear fruit, we can feel triumphant that we caught the problems – especially before someone else did! Like much of what we do, we get a better sense of self if the trials that we face are tougher, and we constantly raise the bar on ourselves.