Category: But How?

But how? Part 31: What game is this?

Al Denelsbeck

First off, we’re not really answering any religious questions with this one, but asking a lot of them instead. Second, while I have tried (with varying success) to avoid going on the offensive with posts within this topic, this one is disregarding that restriction entirely, because we’re going hard on the offensive now. I’ve broached aspects of this in one form or another several times before, but now it’s time to get as many of them together into one place. So let’s ask, What kind of game is being played here?

We’ll start with a basic tenet of the abrahamic religions, that only applies in related ways to a few of the others: the concept of eternal reward or punishment – heaven and hell. On the face of it, these seem to make sense: any individual is rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad, until you ask why these are useful and implemented, which always comes down to, it influences future behavior. You cleaned your room when asked, you get a new videogame, or you hit your brother with a pinecone, you lose internet privileges for two days. Whatever. The idea is to promote future behavior that’s beneficial. But let’s face it: if you don’t want something to happen again, boom, kill the child. Done deal. Horrifying, right? Not even a fraction as horrifying as tormenting someone eternally for whatever misdeeds they might have done. What purpose could that possibly serve? And isn’t it enormously sadistic, I mean, really sicko behavior? Further, what use is a perpetually expanding realm of either ultimately happy or ultimately miserable souls? Are they currency of some kind, and for what? Is the supreme being trying to score certain points?

There’s also the bare fact that we only recognize ‘good’ and ‘bad’ living conditions or circumstances in relation to those that aren’t. Is it even possible to be perpetually happy, and if so, how would you know? Is it, like, a constant orgasm? What do you do all day, anyway? Is there any longer such a thing as anticipation or dread? Are there goals? Are there, to be blunt, any of the aspects that we view as ‘life’ in the first place? If you think about it, everything that we experience right now (provided that you’re living while reading this, and not a ghost or something,) reflects on not just the biological needs and desires of a living organism, but a social and finite one at that. We try to get along, we try to perpetuate our genes, we strive to accomplish things and/or be remembered, we even enjoy food that fulfills the evolved desires for proper sustenance. None of those apply to perpetual souls, or indeed have any meaning to such. Even people that have retired from their careers, successful at the primary goal of their survival, end up finding ways to occupy their time – new hobbies, new goals, new challenges, because that’s how our minds work. Does traveling the world or carving more elaborate statues have any meaning in heaven? How about regretting taking the lord’s name in vain, or planting two different crops in the same furrow, while burning in hell?

Oh, the afterlife isn’t actually perpetual, but temporary, a stage before the rebirth cycle, like in hinduism? Sure, whatever; what was it you did in the past life that you now know you shouldn’t do again? You don’t remember? Well, that’s certainly functional. Worse, if you follow the ‘greater/lesser beings’ idea and are reborn a cockroach or something, what, exactly are your choices for behavior now? “I probably shouldn’t have robbed all those people – I’ll be sure to be a good little cockroach now and – “… um, do what? Plant fucking trees? Maybe avoid eating or infecting human food? Sure, I’ll buy that; show me the reborn cockroaches that refuse to get into the breakfast cereal. Or perhaps the ones that recall just enough about their previous existences to hold still and let the shoe slam them back into the cycle to be reborn a step higher…

Which also leads to the question of what point a rebirth cycle has. I mean, it makes slightly more sense than the idea of perpetual good/bad afterlife – but only slightly. Again, where are we going with this – what’s the goal? Ultimate enlightenment, like in buddhism? Sure, what’s that? Does it mean omniscience? Fantastic – and what do we do with that? Knowledge is great, when it can be applied to improve something in our lives. But just to have it? And imagine trying to have a conversation between two omniscient people…

Underlying all of this is the basic tenet that religion overall is intended to guide us towards good behavior, which is fine and commendable, but ultimately unnecessary – we’re actually quite capable of determining what’s beneficial and detrimental, because it’s not actually hard at all. The biggest stumbling block is that we’re too often conflicted between what’s personally beneficial (or desirable) and what’s socially beneficial, or short-term versus long-term benefits, or the fact that winning some form of competition, real or imagined, usually does not actually equate with benefit in any form. It would be far easier if we couldn’t become this confused, since it’s mostly emotional/glandular, but again, that’s the way we were made, right? Though at least, the acceptance and active practice of religion is so adept at thwarting most of these ills, which is why we never, ever hear that religious people commit crimes, or take advantage of others, or engage in bloodshed, or [absolutely fucking huge list of social ills from a long history of religious persecution and abuse.] This is also why the cultures and countries that are the most religious are also the happiest and the most advanced. I’m sorry – did that sound like sarcasm? I do so try to avoid using that…

At this point, by the way, there’s never any shortage of people who protest that none of these heinous acts were committed by those who were really religious, but the nasty question is, could you tell that before they committed these acts? Because, you know, a hell of a lot of people could have used that guidance before the thefts, abuses, and murders occurred…

I’ve covered the inherent flaws in omniscience and omnipotence before, because they’re mutually exclusive (if you know everything, you already know what you’re about to do and thus have no power to do anything else,) but if we admit that maybe the scriptural chroniclers got that bit wrong and the supreme being isn’t ultimately knowledgeable or powerful, we still come back to the idea that we were created to be exactly this way – including our ability to make mistakes. Now, the idea of any master plan thwarts our behavior entirely and eradicates the very concept of free will, because we’re only players in this plan, automatons. Or, okay, said supreme being is only watching to see what we do, because, why? What’s the point? They could create what they wanted, do anything they wanted, with or without our participation, so…? What could possibly motivate a being – a perpetual being, mind you – to accomplish anything? Can they be bored? Can they gain any kind of fulfillment when it’s virtually guaranteed that they’ll succeed in everything because they can make it so instantaneously? Not to mention that there’s evidence in nearly every form of scripture that said being is capricious and capable of changing their mind, but also (much more alarmingly,) often quite emotional and petulant when its creation performs as it was created to be! What kind of a mental case would I be if I made a toaster that could also blow the roof off, by design, and then get mad when it happens? I mean, we know why we have emotions, and still don’t have very good control of them, but why would an infinite being have or need such a thing?

Not to mention that, while this supreme being loves us, it sure has a wicked history of being quite vicious about it. Pardon me for referring once again to the abrahamic scriptures, since I’m far more familiar with those, but we have lots of accounts of god playing obvious favorites when it comes to conflicts and wars, including stopping the sun in the sky (and not the planet from turning,) to provide enough daylight hours for the chosen portions of its creation to slaughter the unchosen bits. Lovingly, of course. Or we have the expulsion from the garden of eden, because this being planted a tree right there and said, “Don’t eat the fruit,” (all-knowing, of course, that it was going to happen anyway,) and then in retribution, made its creation susceptible to sinning. Like they weren’t susceptible to it beforehand when they were tempted by the fruit? And what was the tree, we ask? The tree of knowledge, often given as the knowledge of good and evil. Seriously, what’s the scattered and nonsensical message here?

Notice, too, that all of the animals (in this case meaning non-human) were expelled too, and then learned to prey on one another, because, um, they were complicit in this act? Because god doesn’t love them and so they might as well suffer the consequences too? Because god just likes burdening mankind with guilt? This plays out again in the noachian flood, when the vast majority of the world population (human and non) gets slaughtered too, save for a breeding set, because I guess the act of creating the entire universe made god too tired to do something millions of times easier and target simply the sinners.

We’ll broaden our scope now, and point out that not one of the creation stories, from any of the hundreds of different religions that have peppered the Earth, manages to fit in even slightly with all of the evidence that we have (intermeshing and corroborating as well,) of how the sun and planets started, of how life evolved, how old things are, and so on and so on. Now, the trait of studying cause-and-effect, of figuring out just about every mystery that comes in front of our eyes, is deeply ingrained – and has proven to be enormously useful as well, responsible for every last advancement we’ve ever made as a species. But, this fails when it comes to understanding our origins? It’s, as countless religious pundits have maintained over the centuries, all misleading, “testing our faith,” as it is so often put? First off, why? Seems like a hell of a lot of trouble to go through for a simple test, not to mention that the supreme being already knows what’s in our heads, not to mention that it already knows how it will all play out (oh, wait, we have to ignore that omniscience angle.) And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this make it all a huge lie? I thought that was one of those bad things, but I suppose only for us to do, and not the perfect being. So what else is it lying about? I mean, we read or hear about scripture through the same eyes and ears that tell us about fossils and geological deposition and atomic forces, so where does that leave us?

The especially amusing bit about all of this is, religion is repeatedly claimed to provide “all of the answers,” and I cannot count the times that I’ve heard that science can tell us how, but religion tells us why. Feel free to pose any of the above questions to any religious authority that you like and see what kind of answers you actually receive. I’ve been on enough forums to see what they consist of, which is always a dodge along the lines of, “we’re not meant to know,” making the claim of providing answers rather hypocritical of course. I’ve also been on enough forums to hear the countless stories of people who, in their youth, posed such questions honestly and earnestly to their religious instructors, only to be chastised or punished for even asking (which naturally started that distrust and resentment rolling.) Even the explanation of what jesus’ sacrifice (is it a sacrifice if it was all planned, and he went to heaven afterward?) was supposed to provide for mankind somehow isn’t agreed upon by the devout; I’ve heard at least seven different variations personally, none of which made any sense.

Now, I can easily accept that cultures long past were attempting to provide answers, and that’s what most scripture (of any kind) consists of. It is, in fact, the only way that any of this makes sense at all. But to claim that this is how any supernatural being(s) communicated with mankind in order to guide, or inform, or enlighten us? It’s remarkably inept and pathetic, really, hardly the efforts of even average intelligence, much less an enormous intellect, or even one that created the game in the first place.

It’s often maintained that science doesn’t have all of the answers either, but this ignores the bare fact that it never proposed to in the first place, or even proposed anything at all; science is only a methodical process of learning, not any form of pronouncement nor any attempt to guide mankind. That said, using science to understand the origins of this planet and life thereon, as well as the odd and seemingly conflicting emotions that form our motivations, has produced thousands of times more answers than all religious ‘information’ put together, even as our understanding remains incomplete. Yet, this is a misleading comparison, since it’s not an “either/or” situation, a competition between two choices. Even without what science has demonstrated for us, religion does not serve to move us forward or explain our origins or actions or how to behave properly, especially if we take the myriad examples provided within scripture. The moment that anyone feels the motivation for it to make sense and “fit,” it is revealed as sorely lacking in such regards, and the only thing that can be obtained from it is self-indulgence – provided, of course, that one purposefully ignores all of the portions that fail to support such indulgence, or openly contradict it. But answers? Don’t be foolish.

But how? Part 30: Responsibility

Al Denelsbeck

[As a throwback to the early days, I did this one as a podcast too, so you can hear the audio of it immediately below. But if sounds like a long-overdue brake job bother you, you can simply read the text version.]

Walkabout podcast – But How? part 30: Responsibility

This is one that I’ve touched on here and there before, but I was reminded of it while watching Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go Of god (they capitalize it differently, those sillies.) As a small aside, I can certainly recommend the video, and seeing her realizations develop over time is captivating, but I don’t feel compelled to comment upon it too much; like Richard Dawkins’ The god Delusion, I’m in total agreement, so much so that there are no insights therein that I want to highlight, because the path to godlessness is surprisingly consistent – things just don’t make sense any other way, and the evidence for creation and/or supernaturality is totally lacking. We have religion only through cultural pressure, and not because it works in any way.

So, instead of answering any questions here, I point out something that is never recognized by the religious, never examined or considered, which is personal responsibility. Sweeney was struck by it when first considering that perhaps there was no god, and realizing that, for instance, all of the people wrongfully imprisoned or suffering from circumstance, those that prayed desperately for deliverance or help, actually had no one looking out for them at all. Initially, this is a depressing and dire thought, especially when considered against an alternative that a god is capable of changing this somehow, and the very idea is so anathema to the religious that they, at the very least, often credit atheism as being distasteful and cruel. Taking away hope like that!

Which, naturally, has no impact on the facts regardless. How we feel about something is the last thing we should resort to in deciding if it’s true or not, and just about everyone knows someone who should have learned that lesson a long time ago, often about relationships or major purchases. More to the point, the ‘hopeless’ perspective only comes about because we, as a species, spend so much time fostering the idea that there is a magic sky daddy that can come to the rescue (change details as necessary.) The problem is not that anyone has taken away hope – the problem is that we’ve insisted that there is someone or something magical that can jump in when needed.

It’s easy to imagine that, in circumstances where ‘hope is all someone has,’ that denying this is being cruel; let them have a bit of fantasy, a vestige of optimism, and so on. And there is admittedly some merit to not introducing further elements of depression or despair to someone that is already having a tough time. Such situations tend to be few and far between, however, and even doctors are straightforward when the prognosis is not good, because they’ve found that solid information, no matter how unwanted, is much better than facile fiction. People may insist that they don’t want to know when they’re going to die, but the foreknowledge of such also gives them time to do the things that they want, or feel obligated to: taking final trips, getting affairs in order, reconciling with loved ones, and so on. Moreover, living one’s life in full recognition of how things are is not just easier, it means that we’re able to face adversity much better. We do not view misfortune as judgment or failure or even abandonment, we do not cling to desperation that a ‘loving god’ won’t really let this happen (or try to invent rationales over why it does,) we simply accept it as circumstance – we may not like such circumstance, but we don’t resent it as if it was a conscious decision of someone else. Perspective does count for a lot when it comes to mental outlook.

One of the common denominators among the new atheists is the recognition of how much they were told, were assured, were impressed with from religious sources, that turned out to be nonsense, often outright lies. People really resent misinformation, and this too may come on top of whatever adversity they were undergoing. In many cases, it’s actually condescending, because what it subconsciously says is that I may know what’s real, but you can’t handle it. While it can be argued that most religious people really believe in the power of prayer and so on, ask them how often such prayers are answered, how often they really work. Watching all the hedging and dodging is quite fun, but revealing in itself; no matter how often someone might urge prayer as a useful action, they know it’s hardly dependable.

Further along those lines is what affect this reliance on spiritual intervention has on those that believe it. It has often been pointed out (from reputable sources, i.e., actual scientific studies) that religion flourishes in the more impoverished and stricken regions of the country or the world, and we’ll leave the chicken-or-egg arguments for someone else. Again, there’s this hope aspect, but there’s also the aspect that someone else is taking care of things, and even that this is the way things are meant to be. That leads to nothing but complacency, and a completely guilt-free sense of it as well. Some may resort to the argument that prayer and/or waiting on godly influence is harmless, but this is true only if there are no other options. To settle on prayer instead of, for instance, donating money, time, or materiel, or fostering legislation, or really, any other beneficial actions at all, is not just incredibly self-absorbed, it’s this placebo taken in abject dismissal of positive action. Donating just one dime, ten lousy cents, to any cause beats prayer every time, because there is never any time when those ten cents doesn’t work, never an excuse that it has no value due to ‘god’s plan,’ never an attempt to explain away the utter lack of improvement. The effect is magnified exactly as much as the amount of money/time/attention is, as well. Every time.

[People will also argue that they’re giving to good deeds through their church, which is the major selling point behind soliciting donations/tithes/etc, and this may be true – to a degree. Nearly every church that I see is in pretty damn good shape, however, and in many cases, the staff attached to them are amazingly well off – funny, they don’t seem to believe that god provides. But okay, I’m sure the middleman serves a purpose, so I’m happy to help out in the same manner, and you can donate to me instead, because I have no overhead in the form of meeting places and landscaping and all that. I’ll see that the money goes to a good place. If the thought of that makes you suspicious, good – you get it. Now apply that same critical thinking without bias, or lame excuses.]

I’ve pointed out, too, that the idea of a supernatural overseer can potentially have dire consequences when it comes to responsibility for the bigger things, like taking care of our planet. President Reagan made it clear, multiple times, that he believed in Armageddon, and his environmental policies reflected that in spades; why bother trying to protect something that will be destroyed in a few years anyway? He’s gone now, but we’re still here, well beyond the time that he (and every self-proclaimed prophet) thought that we’d be done, and we – and our descendants – have to live with the wanton disregard towards sustainable resources and, really, cleaning up our own messes. Which is something that I was taught to do at an early age, but I can’t vouch for how ineffective any else’s parents might have been. Considering the opposing position for the sake of argument, I still would have thought that any god might bear some judgment on how well we’re able to take care of ourselves, and show consideration for others, and bear that same responsibility that my parents, at least, tried to instill, rather than sitting back and believing that it’s all under control, so why bother? It’s a bit like Pascal’s Wager, only if Pascal wasn’t aiming to justify pre-existing beliefs. If we take personal responsibility, assuming that we’re the sole proprietors of our lives and nothing will happen if we don’t make it happen, and there really is no god, then we’ve covered our asses and done everything that we could. And if there is a god, can we imagine that it would look unfavorably on such actions? Does anyone out there really believe in a god that would encourage complacency and selfishness? I certainly haven’t found a religion yet that espouses this, but too often you cannot tell this from the practitioners…

There’s also this very subtle aspect, that once we receive the (self-appointed) label of ‘good,’ then we’ve fulfilled our natural obligation and have no need to establish further ‘proof’ or maintain such a thing – there are, of course, no requirements or tests to becoming religious in the first place, so it’s an instant, effortless boost in status. But people cannot be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – we’re all a mix of emotions and motivations and justifications, and such labels are a judgment call anyway, a matter of perspective. Actions, however, can be beneficial or detrimental; moreover, they tend not to lead towards a ‘once-and-done’ method of establishing status. Most people would be (rightfully) embarrassed by admitting that they performed this one good action five years ago…

I don’t think most religious people have consciously decided to be this way, and imagine most believe that they’re doing good in their own ways; it’s just the subconscious idea that some being can make things right (because, as we’re so often told, this being is nothing but good,) that fosters an idea that we all have backup. That’s part of what I do here: bring the subconscious, or assumed, or never-quite-logically-considered items out in the open to be examined. If we are to believe that there’s a supernatural entity that can correct our flaws or protect us from terrible events, we should be asking where it was during the Holocaust, the crusades, the countless purges (some of them perpetrated by, as we are so often reminded, those godless regimes,) the three centuries of witch hunts, the slave trade, the plagues, and so on and so forth – really, if you want a complete list it’ll take me a couple of days. And I think it’s safe to say that everyone involved did not somehow forget ‘the power of prayer.’ But then, we think that suddenly, notice will be taken when we get COVID, or some such triviality? How many ways can someone handwave away all the counter-evidence before they admit that we’re really on our own, and what we have is only what we make of it?

Further, when we see desperate situations in the world, they were never ‘meant to be,’ they are not ‘deserved,’ and no supernatural beings are going to set things right – we can’t distance ourselves with the idea that it’s not our responsibility, because it surer than hell isn’t anyone else’s.


Along these same lines, I’ll also suggest the post Bigger stakes than that, which highlights the oft-ignored aspect of consequence.

But how? Part 29: Selfishness

Al Denelsbeck

It’s been over a year since the last example of this topic, which is intended to answer the questions raised by a non-religious worldview, and it was making me suspect that I’d exhausted just about all of the possibilities, but new ones still pop up here and there. Today’s is kind of a multi-level one, because several aspects run together, so bear with me. I’ve also tackled one aspect initially before, which I’ll link to at the appropriate time, but that was over a decade ago and I don’t mind revisiting it a little. So with all that, and in recognition that the original question format doesn’t quite work this time either, we’ll delve into, But isn’t atheism selfish and meaningless?

The initial aspect of this is the assumption that only religion provides Meaning™, and things like altruism and even morality, which is repeated ad nauseum. Without the remarkable and innovative guidance of scripture like the ten commandments, we’d all be vicious animals; this is, of course, also used to handily trash evolution. That a ridiculous number of animal species have much better and stronger social habits than we do is generally ignored or, most likely, never realized in the first place, and I challenge anyone to name a species that has killed even a notable percentage of its own kind, much less the numbers that we’ve managed for our brethren. I’ve tackled the topic of morality twice before, including in the very first But How?, so I’ll simply refer to them for the detailed treatment. And we’ll get to meaning in just a moment.

But I think the topic of selfishness deserves a very close look, because it’s an insidious little elephant in the room. While most religions get credit for instilling morality and a lack of selfishness, the bare fact is, most of them are pretty terrible at it. And I’m going against my cardinal rule of avoiding going on the attack in the But How? posts, since they’re intended to answer questions, but this will serve to highlight a really damning trait. While not every religion suffers from this, the most prominent ones, with the greatest number of followers, are enormously guilty of promoting an astonishing level of selfishness: the very idea of ‘salvation’ through faith, obeisance, and devotion is strictly personal, and literally, to hell with everyone else. First off, it almost demands the question, “Are you actually in favor of worshiping a being that even developed the concept of everlasting torment?” And of course, there remains the question of what purpose this would even serve. I mean, fuck it, just keep spanking and spanking and spanking the kid, endlessly, because we get our morality from scripture.

Personal salvation is pretty much the pinnacle of selfishness: the entire emphasis is on the individual. And in far too many cases, it has nothing to do with what someone does, only what someone is, as in, faithful and devoted to god and all that. Hell, the Abrahamic religions (islam/judaism/christianity) hold that title in recognition of Abraham, told by god to kill his fucking son and perfectly ready to do so, until he was informed that it was only a test (and worse, that he passed.) That’s what deserves recognition as the definition of morality? And it’s far from the only example within scripture. christianity gains the barest recognition for subverting the overwhelming authoritarian narrative of retribution and wrath with a hint of altruistic guidance and non-judgmentalism – which quickly gets buried under the various rants from those purported to be jesus’ followers, so we see how valuable that firsthand guidance was. More importantly, far too many churches/temples today are more interested in the judgment and authoritarian aspects than in actual guidance, providing more than a hint that their vision of religion, at least, is intended for controlling other people rather than informing the devotees. There’s also a very distinct class consciousness endemic within religion, the followers and the heretics, which has historically allowed for some truly horrific actions to be taken under the guise and overwhelming belief that this is how ‘good’ should be defined. It is often argued, naturally, that these occurrences, all umpteen thousand of them throughout history up to and including this very week, are all examples of people that do not follow the True™ meaning of scripture, which is, again, just a class consciousness thing: I know what was really meant by that, better than all of these devoted followers all over the world, a remarkable display of ego. But one really has to ask how good the guidance is if it has fucked up that badly, that often? Not to mention that any omniscient god knew this was how it was going to turn out.

Which is a dangerous road to go down, because it quickly leads to (for anyone not abysmally blind) sinners gonna sin, and lots of people were born destined for hell, so where’s the guidance supposed to be anyway? Predestination is like that. Honestly, and logically, you can’t have it both ways: if god has a plan, you’re just a puppet, and your actions are just gonna happen the way he has already seen it, so welcome to nihilism.

This is where we discover that atheism is actually less, far less, nihilistic that at least the majority of religions out there, if not all of them. Now in all honesty, atheism offers nothing whatsoever along those lines; it’s a standpoint, not an ideology. But the dismissal of the assumption that meaning must be provided by religion and/or scripture and/or devotion is distinctive enough; meaning is a personal thing. It can be as diverse as making a name for ourselves (which is ego, even as it manifests in creations or discoveries that many can benefit from) to dedicating ourselves to a worthwhile cause – and it bears recognition that such things are remarkably self-affirming, more meaningful than applying a simple label to oneself (such as, “baptist,”) and believing this has fulfilled a role or a need.

But attendant with this is the idea that we do not have a state of being after our lives, most especially not some reward (that, let’s be real, 99% of religious folk believe they’re in line for) to be bestowed. What’s important is the here and now, and what matters is how we treat other people and what benefit this produces going forward. Our survival as a species is not guaranteed, our distinction as a culture is not as prominent as it could be. We are not in the hands of anyone but ourselves; we cannot abdicate responsibility nor ‘the future’ to some magical being or master plan. There is no single arbiter of our worth, checking off a list of carefully delineated (and woefully inadequate) rules, but an entire planet of them: everyone around us has to determine the benefit of our actions, and that’s really what morality is, the reason why it has value at all.

There are two tangent aspects, not directly related but close neighbors. Secular humanism is the ideology that our morality and any ethical guidelines should remain unburdened by any religious, cultural, or national biases, and while not all atheists embrace humanism, it’s the default choice the moment anyone begins to discuss ideologies in the first place. It is, in fact, the purest form of ideology since it eschews the burden of any underlying motive or allegiance, and is thus the fairest. Contrast this, of course, with the attitude of many religious leaders towards it, who claim that its goal is to destroy religion, which (surprise surprise) is not very accurate or astute, since all it destroys is religious influence upon others. Humanists do not even have to be atheists, but they do have to recognize that religion is too narrow a focus (and mostly, too archaic and inadequate) to provide effective guidance. It is worth noting that the vast majority of laws, in most countries, are humanistic in nature, relying on demonstrable benefits and detriments rather than scriptural pronouncements, and especially eliminating the self-importance and class-consciousness of a religious ‘morality.’ Meanwhile, history and even the daily news is rife with what happens when religion is given free rein within a governing body or the lawmaking process, and the results have never been what anyone would consider an ideal society; the primary guidelines of the US, among others, were laid out with this in mind.

An evolutionary perspective also contributes to a stronger reduction in selfishness and a better grasp of morality. Humans are one among many species, ‘special’ only if we settle for narrow and egotistical distinctions, and we had a long path from simpler ancestors to get here, without being a finished form or pinnacle of any kind. Within our species, the demarcations are incredibly muddy and of no particular value, something that helps us view our previous class distinctions with loathing (slavery, manifest destiny, and all that horseshit.) Moreover, we recognize that not all of our decisions are evidence of rational consideration, but too frequently influenced by emotional bias; this is perhaps most distinct in the topic of capital punishment, which we’re slowly realizing is a relic of fear-based vindictiveness rather than serving any useful purpose, as well as preventing any recourse in the case of wrongful convictions (which occur far more often than they should, also often due to emotional reactions.) But a knowledge of evolution also helps us to realize that we’re all driven by the same needs and desires, and that our goals must at least recognize these, even when they have to deny them. We get a certain satisfaction in the various forms of tribalism that we embrace, whether it’s sports teams or national boundaries or ferreting out heretics, but outside of very narrow circumstances, this tribalism is actually detrimental and should be disparaged. Laws and policies that we personally benefit from, that marginalize others for no useful purpose, are the kind of things that we need to recognize as selfish (rather than, in far too many cases, rationalized with crass and elaborate justifications.)

All of this is evidenced and demonstrated throughout most cultures around the world, perhaps all of them. There are the aforementioned religious governments that are exceptionally bad about instilling altruistic and cooperative societies, while the ones with the highest standards of living and satisfaction, the greatest number of residents reporting as being happy, are overwhelmingly secular. Atheists typically display a much greater grasp of ethics and fairness than the religious, in far more polls than not; they’re also notably underrepresented (compared with the general population) within prisons, while vastly overrepresented within the scientific community. While it should be pointed out that these are correlations and not necessarily linked closely – someone with a more critical and scientific viewpoint may gravitate towards atheism, rather than the reverse – it’s exactly the opposite of what the premise question implies should be true. And of course, religious motivations underlie the majority of restrictive and marginalizing attempts at legislation in the US (Texas, we’re looking at your brain-damaged ass,) while, and I’ll know you’ll be shocked at this, fostering all sorts of exemptions for religious folk, such as churches not having to pay taxes, religious deferrals for medical treatments and vaccinations, and even the ability to be considered beneficial fundraisers while pouring most of the money solely into the perpetuation of the church itself. As I type this, countless high-profile religious leaders, so exemplary in their selflessness and moral guidance, are insisting that vaccines and herd immunity and a federal health policy are somehow infringements on their rights. That’s exactly the kind of guidance that we really don’t need, and beneficial to absolutely no one, including their own flocks – but it plays to the insecure rubes, and that’s what’s important, it seems. Make of that what you will.

*     *     *     *

I feel obligated to add a little aside, not directly related to the main question but often implied by the underlying attitude, and this is far from the first time that I’ve addressed it, though again, it’s been a while. Quite a few people feel that a naturalistic worldview leaves no room, no opportunity, for awe and wonder and ‘spirituality,’ for want of a better word; they think that seeing things as chemical interactions and atomic valances takes away the magic, turning the atheist or the scientist into a clinical, emotionless drone or something. I can only speak dependably for myself in this matter, mostly because I don’t bother interviewing others over how they see such things, though more than a few scientists and atheists have spoken to this. But to be brief, this is horseshit. The bare fact (and it is a fact, in every sense and interpretation of the word,) that these things take place while governed by a few fundamental forces is utterly fascinating. Surrendering oneself to, “god made it that way,” is no more enlightening than, “Because I said so,” and demonstrates not just a total lack of interest in these supposedly wonderful things like life and ‘creation,’ but a willingness to settle for the party line, to perpetuate the idea that the church actually has any answers at all. You can only fall for this if your own insecurity overwhelms your sense of curiosity, because of course it answers nothing.

The development of species from simple origins, the interactions of all lives within this ecosystem that we call home, the methods of teasing information out of inanimate objects or even the bare traces left behind – these are fascinating. And all the more so because they ‘just happened,’ that events produced a confluence of factors that provided the opportunity. We see the sudden increase in fossil species at the same time that oxygen began leaving more evidence in the geologic record, indicating that a richer atmosphere helped spark speciation. We find the sudden cessation of sauropod fossils past a distinct geologic timeline, coinciding with a layer of iridium across the entire planet; iridium occurs very rarely in sediment, generally coming from two sources, volcanic eruptions and asteroids. From this, we may infer that either some massive volcanoes or a huge asteroid strike contributed to their extinctions; lo and behold, we have evidence for both popping up in the same geologic layers.

One of my favorites was when anthropologists determined about how long ago wild pigs were domesticated, from just the ancient jawbones. Teeth from a wild pig species were showing both distinctly shorter lengths and different shapes, due to a change in diets, as well as mineral content consistent with eating a large amount of millet fertilized with nitrogen – animal feces. These appeared only after a certain time – older specimens showed no indications of these. Millet doesn’t grow in large patches or quantities on its own, and animal feces tends to be sporadic and not concentrated, unless it’s collected and used as fertilizer. Conclusion: the pigs were eating farmed grain. These results are consistent among numerous remains, and pin down pig domestication to roughly 10,500 years ago in what is now Turkey, and 8,000 years ago along China’s Yellow River.

Another example is that avian feathers all have a specific pigment-producing cell, called a melanosome, within them if they’re black, which isn’t present for any other colors. Careful evaluations of the sediments that surround the fossilized imprints of dinosaur feathers revealed patches of these same cells, only in the region of the feather imprints, indicating that the melanosomes were deposited into the encapsulating sediment as the feathers decayed, and remained there. Conclusion: some dinosaurs had at least some black feathers. In other words, we could tell some of the coloration of a species that we have never seen, that’s been gone for 55 million years.

Further examples can be found throughout this blog of course, many of which make it into the Too Cool category. Meanwhile, anyone that fails to find things like this remarkable, that tries to find faults within to shore up their concept of a loving god, that simply denies anything that we’ve found and continue to use if it fails to gibe with their scattered, contradictory, and asinine scripture, well, I can honestly say that I don’t feel sorry for you; I’m openly contemptuous of you. It’s a ridiculous, and selfish, worldview to maintain.

But how? Part 28: But why?

Al Denelsbeck

Various aspects and versions of this one have been tackled before, but I decided to approach this directly when reading about some of the alternate theories (other than the Big Bang) regarding the beginning of the known universe. The author said that there were two approaches to some of the traits that have been proposed as alternate scenarios:

  1. We can attempt to devise a theoretical mechanism to explain those phenomena, while simultaneously maintaining all the successes of the prior theory and making novel predictions that are distinct from the prior theory’s predictions.

  2. Or we can simply assume that there is no explanation, and the Universe was simply born with the properties necessary to give us the Universe we observe.

The second outright announces that no one’s even going to try and piece together any explanation or attempt to understand why it is the way it is. But the first is how science works, and what we endeavor to do all of the time; it’s how we get answers, the only way, really. And this approach has stood up well for centuries, and is responsible for damn near all of our accomplishments as a species. It is, in fact, the primary thing that we consider sets us apart from all other species, not acting on ‘instinct’ or mere survival traits, but puzzling out our world to wring the most from it.

Immediately, I recognized this disparity in terms of religion, most especially of an active god, no matter what the concept, or how active anyone considers it. The moment we apply the idea that there is a deliberate, conscious being that is directing any portion of the universe, or even just our single species’ affairs, we immediately raise the question of Why? And, to be honest, the questions of How? and even Where did it originate? spring up too. Except, not to 99.99% of religious folk, the ‘Number Twos’ who dismiss such questions and simply assert that this is the way things are – no need to know anything more, no need to find answers. But like the alternate theories of the universe’s origin, the very act of asking the questions shows the flaws in the entire premise.

Now, for the past decade or better, I’ve been inclined to view all life from a perspective of evolutionary psychology. Each species has the traits that it does, including its behavior and instincts and drives, because these were what worked best among the variations that sprung up over the millennia, what promoted its survival and reproduction. We may consider cannibalism among insect species to be distasteful and worse, but that’s because our perspective tells us that this is detrimental – and it would be, to us as a social species with specific cooperative needs, but we can’t (or shouldn’t) judge other species by our own standards, because we don’t have the same demands from the environment. And when it comes down to it, many of our decisions – probably most – are at the very least influenced more by the instincts that we developed, the inherent perspective and desires, than by our vaunted reasoning powers. Even when we do something as frivolous and unnecessary to our survival as creating artwork of some kind, we do it because it provokes specific emotions within us and, most often, because we want recognition or at least some ‘fellow feelings’ from others, that social interaction thing. To say nothing of actually getting paid for such things and the survival benefits that that promotes. We are not a singular, independent species such as snakes, on their own from birth and gaining no benefit from group/pack behavior, nor a rigidly cooperative species like bees, relegated to a specific task and engaged in a hive-wide quest for reproduction of a single queen’s genes. We have a niche, and are this way because of the environment in which we developed. Had it required either more or less competition, we would be entirely different in outlook and behavior.

Which is why the idea of a supernatural, thinking, and deliberate being is so hard to fathom. First off, from nearly all accounts, this being is perpetual, so there are no survival needs or demands. Monotheism, the idea that there is only one god, is a relatively recent development in cultural history; if we allow for multiple gods, then the ideas of interaction and competition among them may foster some traits with a faint similarity to our own – or they may not because, again, such traits are there to support survival and reproduction, not something that would be any kind of necessity to gods. But if we embrace monotheism, then the very idea of social interaction, and everything that this entails, makes absolutely no sense. There isn’t even any concept of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because there is no possibility of positive or negative outcomes: this being does what it does, and no consequences can accrue. There is no reason, purpose, or function over caring about anything.

This even boils down to any actions such a being would take. Why bother? Why do anything? What would this being’s goals or even desires entail? How could it even have such? Traits such as omnipotence and immortality don’t lend themselves to any kind of progress, and we can only imagine how the passage of time is even viewed. We may posit, for instance, that boredom is the motivation for this being to create the universe, or us, or whatever – which isn’t a particularly comforting thought, since it quickly leads to what else this being would get up to under the same impetus. Does it need to stimulate its intellect by playing games, setting arbitrary rules (for itself or its creation) just to see what happens? Such a posit immediately dismisses the idea of omniscience, since the outcome would already be known then – as would everything else.

And no one wants to examine this idea of an immortal being that could possibly get bored, because it would – far beyond our ability to comprehend, to be honest. Our own species took a few billion years to develop to the point that we could start even understanding the rules that this being created, and in that time – what? What was it doing while that was happening? Okay, fine, let’s posit that the passage of time weighs differently for it. But this would then mean that all of human day-to-day interactions, or even those of the last several centuries, are but a single tick on its cosmic clock, as inconsequential as any such thing to us. Moreover, the idea that we are an experiment to see what develops doesn’t exactly have any meaning, to us or the creator, so why should we care what the intentions or rules are? Who’s to say that our entire universe won’t be discarded on a whim? Are we to believe that such a powerful being is supposed to have some feelings for us, when it could produce anything at all instantly? If it even had any analog of ‘feelings’ in the first place, which would serve no purpose and have no reason to develop.

I’m going to highlight something here too, because it’s a curious trait regarding religion. At any given point, and indeed throughout the entire recorded history of religion on this planet, people have forwarded ideas and possibilities to explain the anachronisms and contradictions that their religion proposes, and this is fine, really. Again, this is part of learning and advancement – to a degree. Because serious advancement only comes when such things are tested, or at the very least examined for supporting evidence – which isn’t the case for the vast majority of possibilities that are raised in the name of religion. The word, ‘excuses,’ comes to mind here, but no matter. The bigger point is that, if anyone wants to start raising possibilities outside of the rigidly defined scriptural passages, then the door is opened, and honesty dictates that we examine all possibilities, as many as might apply – and that’s a lot, far beyond what I’m covering here. The only way to narrow the field down is to find which ones have the greatest probabilities of existing, and/or the greatest evidence.

Or let’s accept the idea that we were made in god’s image, and thus, think like god would (thus negating what I said above about evolved instincts.) Fine. Why, then, do we have evidence of a vast development from much simpler mammals? Why do other mammals exhibit variations of the same thinking processes? Why do we have a sex drive, or indeed, sex or even genders? Oh, that evolving development was intended? Sure, okay – who’s to say that we’ve reached the goal yet? Or the other side of that argument, that all the evidence of an ancient Earth and the evolution of species is all false, a test of faith or whatever? I’m game; how do you differentiate the ‘tests’ from the ‘truth’? If we can’t trust any aspect of our senses and reasoning, what can we trust? Let’s be real: it’s a hell of a lot easier to fake some scattered writings than it is to fake a few million kilograms of fossils, and the vast expanses of energy that we detect from space.

From time to time, people ponder about how insects or fish or whatever view our interactions; neither could possibly comprehend what cities are, or that we could go into space. And this disconnectedness is then extrapolated to any proposed gods: we couldn’t possibly comprehend how such beings think, and so on. Which I’m good with – it makes more sense than the vast majority of scripture. But this also means that what we do, the actions we take, our interpretations of religion in its entirety, are just as inconsequential, near-total ignorance of the master plan, so where does that leave us? Just getting on with life, it seems. Doing what works best to the limits of our awareness. Certainly, losing the fucking ego trip that comprises religiosity and treating others on the same level as ourselves, just as likely to be right as to be wrong. Since there are thousands of religions, picking any one means the odds are stacked heavily against it being correct – if, indeed, any are.

[I’m going to sidetrack here to address an argument that I’ve heard far too often, in that someone’s choice of religion – virtually always the only one they’ve ever known anyway – just feels right, as if the emotional aspect was a key factor. If humans could feel what’s correct, there wouldn’t be the huge number of religions that there are. There wouldn’t be divorces, there wouldn’t be failed businesses. We wouldn’t need the scientific method; we wouldn’t need schooling at all. It’s a remarkably stupid argument that needs to be treated as such, and it’s generally only used when someone cannot rationally explain their standpoint yet won’t abandon their emotional attachment to it.]

Parsimony comes into play here, the reminder that Occam’s Razor serves; in order to rescue so many aspects of religion from the contradictions, the unobserved properties, and the huge failures to explain what we see and test every day, more and more ‘possibilities’ are proposed, an edifice of traits or extra-physical doodads to permit dismissal of these problems – and never answering them. Remember, real answers give us information that is useful later on, that predicts what will happen, that fits with everything else. But the simpler answer has the highest probability of being correct, and becomes more so with the better it fits into everything else. Seriously, what sounds more likely: that the universe contains a huge amount of properties and events that never show physical evidence, with at least one extra-everything being that’s responsible to some degree, or that tribal elders centuries ago told tall tales in order to sound wise and consolidate their position of importance?

I have to close on a fun note, one that I’ve always enjoyed pointing out: if we accept the premise that some being granted us the power of reasoning, or at least knew that it was likely to develop, then we were made to find all of these flaws; the very act of questioning and seeking is what propels us forward, improves our cultures and living standards, even reveals to us the idiotic and unproductive tribalism that we carried for so long (and that a disturbing number of scriptural stories try to encourage.) Too many ‘holy’ leaders tell us to ignore the benefits of reasoning and accept their version of reality ‘because they say so’ – but we can’t dismiss our investigative, cause-and-effect minds so readily. So you tell me: what are we actually intended to find?

But how? Part 27: Not even the start

Al Denelsbeck

We’ve long departed the question format and are now delineating how many ways religion is merely a sop to ego and wishful thinking, and this one is perhaps the most distinctive evidence of that trait. So let’s look at how proving the existence of (a) god would barely even be a start.

I’ve encountered a lot of rationales behind believing in the existence of god – and the vast majority of believers seem to think that this could only be a singular thing, no recognition of the myriad gods throughout history and presently across the globe, no attempt to distinguish any in particular. With no exceptions that I can bring to mind, all of these were far from what we could charitably call, “robust;” most were so flimsy that they wouldn’t even make it to a standard arraignment, things like, “Everything must begin someplace,” and, “I had a vision,” and, “This many believers can’t be wrong,” and the latest that I’ve heard, “It’s impossible for all of this to happen by chance.” Yet I’m not here to point out the pathetic nature of these ‘proofs’ for an omnipotent being (even when this aspect really should be highlighted frequently,) nor that proving an omnipotent being is actually impossible. Instead, we’ll make a huge and unwarranted assumption that any given one really can serve as proof, and move on to the key topic, which can be characterized simply by saying, “And?”

Let’s take the latter argument first, the one saying that such things couldn’t happen by chance (again, impossible to prove in any way, but we’ll assume that it has been.) This establishes nothing more than a non-chance factor, which could be as simple as a new law of physics, or extra-dimensional interference, or yes, even a directed and sentient being. And everything in between. Choosing any one, or even ruling out any given aspect, would take a lot more evidence, some very specific proofs. When people started noticing how well the coastlines on both sides of the Atlantic seemed to fit together, as well as the similarity in both geology and fossil finds on opposing continents, and first proposed the idea of continental drift, the immediate response was, “But how are continents supposed to move?” While intriguing, the concept wasn’t considered very useful until this method of movement was not only proposed, it was proven to be taking place currently – this took no small number of interconnecting bits of evidence. Imagine, if you will, trying to establish the difference between a new law of physics and a dimensional rift, for something that happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

Or let’s assume that we’ve proven that a ‘vision’ was something more than imagination – somehow, I’ll let you hash out the details. How, exactly, would we know who or what it was? How could we trust anyone’s assurance that it was the virgin mary and not isis, or izanami-no-mikoto, or tiamat? I mean, none of them had their appearance recorded in any verifiable way, and none of them spoke English. We’d best be producing something a lot better than, “female” – especially if we want to convince the followers of all other religions. But for something useful, the message had better be pretty specific to account for all of the ways such a thing could be interpreted – which should not be outside of the powers of any supernatural being of course. It’d be pretty pathetic, really, for any such message or vision to have any vagueness whatsoever.

It gets far, far worse. No religion, no scripture, no faith, that I’ve ever come across is not rife with varying interpretations, multiple versions, different sects, and countless disputes, some of which get quite bloody. Oh, you’ve established that the christ story really took place? Well, is it the catholic god, or the protestant god? This isn’t a trivial distinction, since not only do they have wildly different accounts of afterlife and redemption, it remained a bone of contention between England and Ireland up until very recently. Even in the very early days of christianity (like within the first century,) there was a rift and disagreement over whether christ was a human with divine influence or a wholly supernatural being, something that scripture (no matter what version) fails to address entirely.

And the choices are not limited to only two – they may, in fact, be extremely difficult to count. I’ve said before that there’s more evidence for every religious person’s concept of god to be different from all others, rather than for any consistency even within a local church, so for religion to be of any guidance, pinning down these details is actually paramount. What are this being’s actual views on abortion? Especially given that it’s not actually spoken of anywhere within scripture. Is eating shellfish really a damnable sin? Are women really just baby-makers? And what’s with the huge disconnect between the creation stories and every last bit of physical evidence that we have? What kind of game was being played here?

Further, imagine now trying to convince muslims, and buddhists, and even jews, that they’re all wrong and this particular sect, whatever it is, is the correct one. I mean, you’ve got the evidence, right? So there’s no chance of abject denial, or pushback, or any further holy wars and conflict? I’ve long said that just having religious people agree on only one religion, even the broader interpretations, would be a start towards proving the existence of a god, and that’s because overcoming simple human nature in this manner would be a superhuman feat. So sure, prove me right.

It gets even worse, because all this, so far, has assumed that at least one of our concepts of a god and its intentions is correct, while it remains distinctly possible (especially given the huge variations in religious thought across the globe) that none of them are, and we’d have to determine what, exactly, are the thoughts and goals of this supernatural being. None of the collections of scripture that we have are very comprehensive in that regard, usually far less so than we believe, since churches and priests and so on have been filling in the gaps and ‘interpreting the metaphors’ for centuries now; most christians, for instance, are unaware that hell receives no mention whatsoever in the old or new testaments, and remains a concept cribbed from the Mesopotamians. So there really should be a lot of legwork to determine what this god’s intentions for mankind are.

And that’s assuming that any communiqué that we receive is trustworthy, regardless of whether we feel comfortable with having a god that matches any of our previous descriptions. If we’re brutally honest with ourselves, many of the scriptural accounts are of beings too petty to put faith in, often demanding ego-stroking, and too often displaying a rather cavalier attitude towards its own previous pronouncements and ‘plans.’ Who’s to say that what we receive is actually truthful? Science fiction, at least, has made recognition that mere mortals may bear little to no significance to any being that can create at will, and let’s face it, we’re pretty damn petty ourselves, not really displaying a lot to be proud of. We could simply be a casual pastime, an experiment, or even the project of a sadist. How are we to know?

So yeah, the questions! There are millions of them, just regarding the proper interpretations of vague scripture all by themselves, to say absolutely nothing about the ones not covered or even hinted at. And then, then, you have the billions that would arise over the very existence, structure, and processes of a supernatural being itself, of enormous interest to the scientific community as well as the merely curious, or for that matter, everyone that is not simply looking for validation in their personal choice in the first place. And all of the Why questions? The purpose of it all, the rules of the game, the definition of evil (much less the necessity,) the processes of afterlife, and on and on and on. If you imagine the number of things we would have to study about any form of extraterrestrial life that we might actually encounter, multiply these exponentially for a supernatural being or force. To start.

This highlights something that I’ve pointed out numerous times before, and that’s the idea that real information, useful knowledge, isn’t about mere self-indulgence, but serves to advance us, improve our lives, enrich us, and so on. It answers questions even while posing more, but most of all, it gives us something to work with, something that predicts and explains and forms a building block for even more improvement – this describes virtually every scientific achievement that we’ve made over the centuries, even the ones that took decades to show their value. Just finding out, for example, that chocolate is the most popular ice-cream flavor can lead to questions about how and why, and what functions this provides within humans to become this way, maybe what areas of the brain it triggers, and so on. The bare fact of chocolate’s popularity is, by itself, of little use.

The kind of people that find some simple factor is acceptable as evidence of any kind of god are only seeking gratification, and to be sure, when it’s as vague as “god,” anyone can and will interpret that to mean their own; well, hooray for that tidbit. That puts us no closer to finding the True™ path than before. And in fact, when it comes to providing guidance for humans, to get along, to achieve peace, to improve ourselves and our culture – the one thing that all religions can agree is their primary value – this puts us even further away from it, promoting false confidence in “the way” rather than inducing any actions to actually find it.

Which introduces another telling aspect. Atheism, for instance, doesn’t have anything at stake: there’s no penalty for the wrong belief, other than what humans end up doing to themselves in the names of such beliefs (which is significant enough, to be sure, and where secular humanism picks up the reins.) But most religions across the globe are pretty adamant about the penalties of incorrect faith, of following false idols, or even just ignoring key tenets while following the correct ones. With this kind of danger hanging over their heads, consequences that may involve reincarnation as lesser beings all the way up to everlasting torment, you’d think that the search for exacting evidence, the support for the one proper path, would be absolutely paramount in the minds of the religious; they simply cannot afford to be wrong. And given many of the scriptural accounts of what happens when a god is displeased with humans – even if we (rashly) consider these to be only metaphorical – the consequences may go well beyond the strictly personal, so any and all individuals bear the responsibility of ensuring that they’re absolutely correct.

Thus, the criteria for evidence should be exceptionally demanding, shouldn’t it? In fact, it may become never-ending, but at the very least, anything that is open for interpretation, that could be mistaken for chance, that might apply to a range of the world’s deities (or a new law of physics, or extra-dimensional interference,) wouldn’t be anywhere near enough, and would likely not be considered evidence at all. If it can be questioned, it’s not sufficient – we can’t afford to screw up.

Given that this is hell and gone away from what we actually see from a very large percentage of religious folk, we can only wonder what they do believe, and/or what they’re hoping to accomplish when settling on their specific faith. But it’s safe to say that the benefit is minimal if not nonexistent.

Of course, I have to put this here:

But how? Part 26: Some other religion

Al Denelsbeck

I think I have to go back and rename these posts so the topic title is more appropriate and no longer a question, but that would ruin all of the outside links to these posts (snerk!) so for now, we’ll just continue blithely onward even though we can no longer phrase things in the form of a question. Today we’ll talk about how the disturbingly huge number of horrendous and outright bloodthirsty actions done in the name of religion inevitably invokes the response, “but that wasn’t my religion!” or more generically, “but that wasn’t us!“

First, there’s a curious distinction that needs to be addressed, because I am very much in favor of avoiding over-generalizations, ‘painting everyone with the same brush’ so to speak, and firmly believe that actions should be judged individually; there is no ideology in existence that can be said to enjoin or provoke specific behaviors universally, and may of them are so vague that they can be interpreted at will. When we look at any of the christian crusades in history, for instance, they were a product of cultures, of economic circumstances, of current knowledge and educational practices, and of perceived consequences as much, if not more so, than they were a product of religious leaders’ provocation, much less scriptural guidance – it is not safe or accurate to say, “religion caused this,” in any circumstances.

But then, there’s the other side of the coin, where we notice that religious motivations lie entwined within that huge number of vicious actions, then and now, and are forced to ask, “So why is this so frequently the case?” It is certainly safe to say that anyone’s local episcopal church is not even remotely aimed towards slaughtering infidels, but ignoring the common denominators in some of the worst events in history – again, then and now – is not prudent or rational. We can put such things down to simple ‘human nature,’ which is a rational possibility, and claim that the religious influence is simply a unifying by-product, a semi-tangible cause that people can focus upon, and note that it occurs for other ideologies as well – political parties for sure, and cultural influences, and so on. But by what margin should these outnumber the religious motivations, especially the outright religious banners and organizations and root goals? And as I’ve asked before, if religion is a by-product, a handy flag to wave because the cultures of the times put influence upon them, how did this even come to be seen as ‘proper,’ especially given how often most religions espouse doing ‘good’ things? At what point, and in what manner, did, “Love thy neighbor,” get twisted about to mean, “and watch him die in pieces”? If we put such a thing down to, for instance, a particularly misguided but charismatic leader of any kind, how did so many followers manage to miss the departure from the True™ message of their faith?

Since the reputed value of religion is in how it makes people good, we have to face the ugly fact that when it is linked in any form to violence, persecution, bigotry, and other such detrimental actions and attitudes, the value is nil – there is no better demonstration that it fails, really. What we have left are the claims that, no matter how horrific an action, “this is what god wants and I’m doing as I should,” one of the more common definitions of piety, but again, should we even attempt to see any value in this? Personal salvation is, as I’ve said before, remarkably self-centered and antisocial, not to mention completely antithetical to the altruistic messages put forth by most religions in the first place. And quite frankly, if any god really is pitting humans against one another in its name, who the fuck needs that? You could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such a god exists and I’d still consider it a piece of shit – I’d just make the switch from atheism to antitheism.

We’re now a lot closer to the heart of the matter, and the message, which is that zealotry of any kind can too often lead far, far away from beneficial outcomes; this includes religion, this includes politics, this includes animal activism and “health consciousness” and “the right to self-defend” and so on. While examining the deep sociological motivations behind large groups of people driven to extreme actions can be useful, especially in identifying the causal factors, the goal really is to prevent such things from happening again. Is it necessary to determine the exact sequence of events, the distinct methods of motivation? Or is it easier to espouse approaching all of our actions critically, the function of asking, “How is this supposed to help, and what am I hoping to accomplish?” for everything?

And let’s face it: anyone who believes in an ultimate authority, a guiding force larger and more important than humans themselves, is remarkably easy to manipulate, requiring nothing more than convincing them that they know what this authority really wants. Do we honestly believe that all participants in holy wars have received their instructions from divine visitation, that god spoke to them all directly? Or did most of them receive their ‘religious’ impetus through some self-appointed mouthpiece, one that even told them that such-and-such scriptural passage really means, “Let’s apply weaponry to others”? Exactly how many religious adherents are even capable of listening to any and every religious leader and saying, “No, that’s not right,” when the preaching starts going off the rails? Because we all know that virtually every religion really, really hates that kind of behavior, and the priests and rabbis and imams and other figureheads do everything in their power to ensure that it doesn’t take place. And so, when the protest comes that, “That’s not my religion,” the response remains, “But could it be? In what way do you assure yourself that you cannot be driven to extreme action?” Are we to believe that any given religious adherent is responsible enough to halt a trend towards antisocial impact, or is the protest merely that they have never been directed to act viciously yet? There’s a huge difference between these.

Most people believe they’re in control and not prone to irrational excesses – but then, when enough get together, what becomes the ‘norm?’ I live among three college towns, and when the local sports team of either snags the annual country-wide championship of one type or another, the downtown area becomes a riot scene in celebration of this. Why? What does this accomplish? Why do so many of the idiots out there setting bonfires in the middle of the street never ask themselves any questions at all about the function of this? And this is in relation to a fucking game, a ‘title’ that depends on more than a smidgen of random luck and disappears in a few months – followed and supported by those enrolled in one of our institutes of higher learning, the place that we count on to teach useful thinking skills…

There’s another aspect that I wish to point out, because I’ve personally seen this kind of response far too often, and it’s gotten both old and insulting. Whenever someone brings up any instance where religious fervor has led to reprehensible behavior, we’re/they’re not looking to throw blame – the goal is to prevent it from happening again. The protest that, “It wasn’t me!” is meaningless, whiny bullshit, especially if the protester can demonstrate no way in which they couldn’t have succumbed to such behavior. But more to the point, if you’re not part of the solution, shut up and get out of the way. While religious folk hate being compared to other religious folk when it comes to bad things, they certainly depend on it when the attitude seems to be beneficial, and extol their great numbers frequently, never bothering to differentiate. Worse, even when they’re assured that they’re following the right path, the one supported by the highest of authorities and powers, somehow they never involve themselves in eradicating or even protesting these ‘false’ religions that cause the ills. Who else in the world is most capable, most supported, in a goal of this nature? If god is on your side, then have at it; you’re the best soldiers in this fight.

Wow, that sounds like I’m suggesting another holy war, doesn’t it? And most of us see that as the most likely outcome, because it’s the way that so many such conflicts in the past have turned out – clashing ideologies never results in the formation of one consolidated, True™ one, and zealots convinced of their own goodness don’t ever have the mindset to stop and ask themselves what ‘good’ really means. That requires the ability to question oneself, exactly the opposite of ‘faith,’ and can only be done by those who admit to the possibility of being wrong. And let’s face it: umpteen hundred different religions across the face of the planet, not at all counting the thousands that came and went, does not in any way support the idea that one in particular is even effective, much less correct. This is, instead, what we should expect to see if they were all mythical nonsense.

Unfortunately, pointing such a thing out to most religious folk is only motivation to immediately make excuses, to search for loopholes, or to merely assert their own correctness once again by dismissing everything that runs counter to their faith. “This is the way god planned it to be,” they say, usually at least aware enough not to add out loud what they’re thinking, “and I will be the winner in the end.” Yet the soil is made up of others that believed exactly the same thing, and we don’t even know their names.

But how? Intermission

Al Denelsbeck

Intermission? Does this mean there’s, like, 25 more on the way? Actually, I have two potential topics in the category on my list of suggested posts, but this is more of overall observations that I was making the other morning, kind of a anti-‘But How?’ post. It will become clear in a moment.

I had observed some time after I started the Ask an Atheist page that very few people feel the need to ask atheists anything; they just assume they already know what the answer would be, with a degree of inaccuracy ranging from, “You’re not grasping the point,” to, “What the bloody hell made you believe anyone thinks like that?” – the condescension can run quite high within such subjects. And as I have remarked more than once when tackling some of the ‘But How?’ posts, such questions aren’t actually asked too often either. I am well aware that this hews far too closely to making any or all of these posts mere straw man arguments, answering a feeble caricature or parody of any real issue to make them easy to take down, but then again, I do see variations of these from time to time in various locations; I was active on several forums, sites, and newsgroups for years, before most of them devolved into pointlessness or inactivity, and have seen plenty of the arguments put forth by religious folk, so I’m going to assert that I am not, at least, completely guilty of knocking down top-heavy cartoon characters. I will also point out (if only to myself) that I have not shied away from addressing sophisticated theology, as well as philosophy, on numerous occasions, both here and where other people can be found. Just to get that out of the way.

Right now, I’m going to tackle some musings on why this is: why so few questions seem to be asked over something that is as important as the devout hold it – indeed, if it forms anyone’s worldview and shapes their actions, it is important, and not just to themselves. If you think about it, it’s immensely curious that something which bears so much emphasis across the world, providing the most impact on attitudes and decisions by a huge margin over anything else, is often arrived at/supported by/reinforced with/explained with some really trivial criteria – it isn’t hard at all to poke holes in most of the arguments and ‘evidence’ that I’ve seen, anywhere. And even when long, dense tomes are produced by theologians, it’s difficult to find anyone that even has a passing familiarity with the content; these are not being used to inform anyone in their own pursuits, but only as a rejoinder to any attacks on religious thought (yes, in much the same vein as this post – again, trying to remain self-aware.)

The first thought that comes to mind is the difference between ‘finding answers’ and ‘seeking indulgence.’ Answers are sought openly, with an honest curiosity over How or Why, and most especially, if any answer produces further questions, those are pursued with equal vigor. Indulgence, however, is a means to an end that’s already been reached; the goal is either to justify some pre-existing idea, or to satisfy some emotional desire, and these are often closely intertwined. However, this is falling for an ugly trap, because human beings are always driven and ruled by emotions – it’s simply that different ones have different affects on individuals, and attempting to find something universal, even among a defined group of people of any nature, is a fool’s game. The best that we might discover is a tendency – which may be sufficient, or it may not, and I’m leaning towards ‘not’ at the moment.

Nonetheless, there are quite a few factors that indicate that such things could bear a lot of responsibility. Virtually every religion on Earth has some explanation for what happens after we die, more than, “bacteria run wild in my body and someone else has to discard all my junk,” (and it occurs to me as I type this that it would be a lot easier if our possessions eroded away quickly with our passing – maybe I have to start considering more perishable assets.) And it’s no surprise why this might be – the life-after-death bit, I mean: avoiding death is a key factor in all life, and we have it as a background goal within our minds, far beyond a simplistic fight-or-flee reflex. So yeah, there’s a strong desire to avoid death even when it’s inevitable, making any promise of an immortal soul very appealing. And alongside that, as a social species we’re also concerned with fairness and justice, because we couldn’t be social without them, so post-mortem judgment is also emotionally reassuring.

But while we all have these feelings, they don’t produce the same bias regarding a belief in an afterlife, and the same might be said for any other aspect of religious thought (and countless other things besides.) While the above is one example, much of what I’ve tackled here over the years falls into the same general category: the evidence is superficial, sometimes little more than a soundbite, but that’s enough. Why? What’s the difference between those that find this sufficient and those that find this inane?

It would be easy to assume that there is a difference, perhaps intrinsically, perhaps just learned at some point (like how some personal experiences can have a huge impact on our lives and thinking afterward,) but this is dangerous, and unlikely to be correct – not to mention it fosters this concept of elitism, the idea that atheists, for instance, are smarter/better/more refined/sexier/possess cooler things than, you know, them, something that the various attempts to find a new label for atheism (“brights,” “free-thinkers,” etc.) starts to impinge upon. Hell, the idea of being ‘special’ is one of those factors that may influence religiosity – and yes, I have no doubt that some atheists, perhaps a lot of us, are influenced by the very same base desire. We’re certainly accused of it often enough, but you know, pot/kettle and all that jazz…

Yet there still remains the idea that, on average (perhaps even bordering on a defining trait,) religious folk do not question their beliefs, and in many cases do not even express doubt or the mere concept of fallibility. Often, the idea of religious fallibility is automatically extended to a god rather than remaining personal: of course I cannot doubt a perfect being! This concept being held, of course, without the faintest thought that we haven’t yet established a perfect being of any kind, and the fallibility part was simply on the human end, something that none of us has any trouble accepting. And there is no doubt that confidence and assurances are a mainstay of virtually every religion on Earth, drilled repeatedly into millions of sermons and pamphlets and almost the entire idea of religion in the first place; yes, culture does foster this more than a smidgen. Which is why I promote critical thinking over anything else; doubt is a remarkably useful function, because it makes us seek enough factors to give us confidence, as well as cutting the legs out from under those that would prey on our tendency to believe mere assurances. A simple practice of thinking, Does this make sense? and, Is there any other explanation for this? can reveal a world of deception, self- and otherwise. (You can add in, Who would profit from this? too, to round out the basic questions that should, as far as I’m concerned, underlie most of our thought processes.)

I tend to view this as the key difference between being religious and not – or at least, one of the key differences. We can see other countries that have much lower percentages of religious thought and activity, and higher too, and know that culture plays an important role, and this is certainly no surprise; the human tendency to take one’s cue from others is well-known and used extensively, especially in churches, especially in advertising (“millions of users agree!”) The attendant thought that starts some contradiction is that this, in itself, is a form of doubt, not trusting in one’s own choices but relying on others for more confidence, yet this doubt isn’t the same as that ‘critical doubt’ above, nor is it sufficient to start the questioning of religion itself. So we have the doubt that exists within atheism (or at the very least, self-provoked atheism rather than any instilled by parents or culture,) which causes one to question scriptural accounts and miraculous events and numerous realms of being and/or metaphysics that we can find no evidence for; this same kind of doubt seems to underlie much of scientific thought, perhaps provoking individuals on the path towards science in the first place. And then we have the doubt that causes individuals to ‘go with the flow,’ taking their cue from others and reinforcing the very culture that provokes/promotes such behavior. Often, such tendencies are positive, such as being in a well-behaved classroom or among a multitude of careful and considerate drivers, but it can go both ways, and history is full of examples. Are these distinctly different, and if so, why?

Admittedly, there’s a spectrum even within religious thought, so much so that labeling all of the wide variations as ‘religious’ is both too broad and runs the potential of being grossly misleading. I have seen extremely few people who actually believe all of the malarkey that their scripture delineates, and even among those that insist that every last word of their scripture is absolutely true (to the point of denying vast areas of scientific research, including simple physics,) they seem ready to ignore some of the most ludicrous passages about cutting hair and wearing clothes of two different materials – and more power to them, really, despite the easy target of their obvious hypocrisy. There are millions, theologians and priests among them, who find passages to be mere parables or metaphors, or just edits from some overzealous scribe in the past. I’m not sure anyone has ever attempted a poll to determine who actually believes in two originating humans in a garden, or a cycle of rebirth guided by past actions, and so on and so forth, versus how many simply pay lip service to the concept because they’re expected and encouraged to; I suspect it’s very few, to be honest. And such a poll would be nigh worthless anyway, because a significant percentage of those that don’t truly believe such things will not admit to such, even to themselves. While there are obvious reasons why anyone would not confess any doubts or disbelief within their own congregation, since ‘calm acceptance’ isn’t the most likely reaction that would be encountered, the aspect of self-denial is far more entertaining. Wouldn’t an omniscient being tumble to this immediately? Or do believers simply not ever make that connection? Maybe they believe that wishing despite disbelief is enough to satisfy the holy requirements…

But more importantly, how do we bring to light these differences, and especially start to eradicate the negative aspects of them? I personally have no desire to attack someone over their beliefs or eliminate religion or anything of the sort, though I am more than happy to point out that, if we can definitively show these to be detrimental in nature, then yes, we should eliminate them, happily, and never look back. But more to the point, we should be able to define our actions and even our worldviews in terms of benefit and detriment, not in terms of arbitrary labels and cultural associations from ages long past, nor be influenced by base desires or wishful thinking; the importance of any decision should help define a self-imposed examination and criticism. And I am under no illusion that this is an easy or quick thing to establish. But if there exists some key point of focus or effort, some facet of behavior to address or a better way of establishing the concept, I’d be delighted to know what it is.

As I’m wrapping this up, it occurs to me that maybe my initial approach wasn’t quite so incorrect after all (purely by happenstance): the questions that I’ve tried to answer were rarely ever asked, but nonetheless should have been, and perhaps this has been highlighting the omission in itself.

But how? Part 25: This week’s explanation

Al Denelsbeck

I made it a point, throughout most (if not all) of the ‘But how?’ series, not to attack religion in and of itself, but to defend/explain the secular standpoint. This is not due to any kind of altruism – I have attacked religions just a few times in the past here – but instead to stay true to the subtopic itself, which is answering the questions posed so often from religious folk. I’m going to depart from this a bit here, by reversing the direction, and instead posing a leading question to religious folk in return: But how do the explanations keep changing?

While I’ve touched on this concept before, I was prompted to approach it more directly by the article ‘Path across the stars,’ by David MacMillan, a self-admitted former creationist. Within, he talks about a trait that is remarkably present in apologetics, which is the practice of turning to a new explanation every time a previous one works out to be dead wrong. In his particular case, it revolved around the radical disagreement about the age of the universe: 13.772 billion years by scientific measurements, but just a few thousand according to abrahamic religious scripture – that’s a really goddamn big difference. The scientific view is supported by countless actual measurements, not just of the speed of light, but also radiometric decay and gravitational measurements, which also tie in extremely well with geologic deposition and even DNA mutations rates (not mentioned within the article, but corroborating the numbers derived in other disciplines with trustworthy accuracy.) And many others besides – it’s this corroboration that gives us the confidence in these numbers to begin with.

The abrahamic figure (most often quoted) for a six-thousand-year-old universe comes from scripture, but not even directly – it’s an extrapolation of the various generations detailed within, and not completely in agreement even among the faithful within any given sect or splinter of those following that scripture. Which says nothing of all of the other religions the world over, which all have different claims for the age of the universe, and mankind, and all that. This is bad enough, but not even the topic that I’m approaching right now.

Since we have real measurements and dependable physics, which we use constantly, apologists are required to explain why the scripture says something so incredibly different, and this is where the fun begins. Note that scripture provides absolutely no explanations or even suggestions regarding this topic; it’s all outside speculation by apologists. And I’ll take a moment to comment on this, because speculation is just fine – it’s one of the ways that we start investigating our world and determining just what any given cause is. But there’s a radical difference between scientific and religious speculation. In science, a lack of confidence and solid supporting results is virtually always present; it’s almost a procedure to couch things in terms of, “This is a possibility, but we don’t know yet.” Within religion, on the other hand, such speculation is very frequently offered with utter confidence, no caveats or indeed any supporting factors. “God made it appear like there’s a speed of light, and an old universe,” and all that – no maybes or admissions that this might serve to explain what we see and measure.

And very frequently, it doesn’t. Most notable is how there is no agreement on any given explanation even among the faithful, who want to find a way to support scripture. Those that consider themselves christian may range from the young-earth creationists, who consider every scriptural passage to be unquestionably correct and the entire universe only six thousand years old, to the vague theists who believe in some kind of creation, but that science is mostly on the right track. I’ve personally been in countless discussions with people ranging throughout this spectrum, and it bears noting that the majority feel that their version is the only correct one, with little recognition of any other standpoint nor admission that any part of their own is speculative. Religion really does breed a shitass trait that humans don’t need at all, that of false confidence and assertion, causing people to veer away from an honest appraisal of any given situation, and/or from seeking support for an argument or standpoint. Much as I don’t like rules and proverbs, it’s usually a safe practice to automatically distrust anyone that assures you that something is true without bothering to demonstrate how or why.

Which is going a little afield, because in this topic, there are explanations – just, ones that don’t hold up, or that fail to account for everything we see. The explanations for the age of the universe have ranged from the speed of light being wrong (it isn’t – we use it to very fine decimal places,) to it having changed at some point in the past, to it being affected by local conditions. None of these hold up, and really don’t take much knowledge of physics or more than a little careful thought to establish as wrong. The same can be said for the fossil record, which not only provides evidence that the Earth is much older than scriptural accounts, it supports evolution and trashes the whole ‘created in final form’ thing. “No no!” say the creationists, “Geologic deposition all occurred during the great flood four thousand years ago!” or, “Radiometric dating is wrong,” or “Radiometric decay was different in the past.” Again, not hard to put the kibosh on.

But like anti-vaxxers and their various claims regarding the dangers of vaccines, once any given explanation of how the laws of physics really aren’t as we interpreted is shot down, there is no recognition that maybe, just maybe, they’re barking up the wrong tree. Instead, there’s the desperate attempt to find a new explanation, and the hunt goes off in another direction. And lest you think that I’m exaggerating a couple of isolated cases, there’s this link to a list of creationist claims – quite a few of them, some of them contradictory, and all of them answered or refuted. Now, in scientific circles if the theory doesn’t work, it’s abandoned, but within religion and fringe beliefs, the ‘theory’ (it isn’t, not by a long shot) is maintained while evidence to support it is sought after – cart before the horse and all that. Rational thought involves a chain of evidence that leads towards a conclusion, but rationalizing is the exact opposite, settling on a conclusion first and trying to make it sound like it works. This is generally the purview of people who are desperate to indulge in some desire at the expense of reality.

It isn’t even a matter of competing theories, even though the efforts are made constantly to couch things in those terms (you know, ‘teach the controversy’ and all that bilgewater.) Because the scientific model works just fine, and is used constantly to great effect – and really, there are very few who don’t know this in their hearts. It’s the reason why so many supposedly ‘scientific’ explanations are sought, and held up triumphantly – few people feel that they can argue against the solid results that we achieve every day (and rightfully so, really,) so they try to make it sound like science really does support scripture in some way. But it’s not like there are egregious flaws in the scientific models presently in use, and what we still seek, what we don’t know yet, hasn’t been replaced with assertions or explanations without evidence – we just say we don’t know yet, even if we append that it might be this or might be that. Our understanding of the universe and its physics, while far from complete, is overwhelmingly solid and undeniably useful. No alternative explanations are necessary, for the vast majority of our knowledge base, nor has any alternative presented by apologists served any function whatsoever, much less better explaining any given factor of evidence. It is abundantly clear that the only function that such explanations serve is to try and salvage the nonsense that is within scripture – and the only use for this is crass self-indulgence. Scripture doesn’t lead us towards a better understanding of the universe, or even human nature. It doesn’t provide a path towards any improvement, and in fact, it offers more excuses than knowledge, outright saying that we’re not supposed to understand what the creator is up to.

I have to sidetrack slightly, because I’m me. Anyone even passingly familiar with the abrahamic religions knows how often the adage that “we cannot know god’s plan” is repeated, and humility is very frequently promoted as well. Which makes it especially amusing to hear how unbelievably often any self-proscribed religious spokesperson will distinctly tell us how things are, despite the fact that nothing at all regarding their pronouncements can be found within scripture. You’d think this hypocrisy would be noticed more often.

A final aspect (that usually goes ignored) is the consequences, and this can be applied to virtually every religious argument there is. In short, the scripture tells us one state of affairs, and our examination of the world tells us something entirely different, and I want to stress here that these are not equally plausible scenarios; we use our scientific knowledge every second of the day in billions of ways, while in the entire history of mankind we have yet to see any miracle, any talking snake or bush, any worldwide flood, and so on. Our scientific knowledge has allowed us to predict thousands of new findings, from star formation to new periodic elements, while scripture has predicted jack shit. Yet if we, for the sake of argument and humoring apologists, accept the premise that all of the evidence that we have of an ancient universe is actually wrong – that everything that we’re not just measuring, but using to good effect, is a deception – then what purpose is this supposed to serve? Cause and effect, learning from what happens, is the primary way that we even survive. And the message from apologists – from, supposedly, the word of god himself – is that we’re supposed to ignore all of that in favor of something that really goes nowhere? Sure, the universe looks billions of years old, but that’s just a trick to… um… do… something, I guess. The typical response is that this is to ‘test our faith,’ because there’s some game that god must be playing where we’re not supposed to believe our senses – which seems extraordinarily useful. This becomes a nice existentialist dilemma, because where is that supposed to end? Should we start with not believing the senses that we’re using to read scripture?

Moreover, if we actually had taken such a message to heart, if we simply ignored all of this ‘false history’ and stuck with what scripture tells us, we’d still be in bronze age technology, if that. All of our scientific advances came about because we examined our world and learned from it, and that includes all of those bits that tell us that scripture is dead wrong. Mind you, it’s the same scientific methods that those funny little claims above, about how the speed of light is wrong and all that, are trying to glom onto to sound legitimate and trustworthy – it seems that even the uber-religious aren’t really buying that premise (or capable of seeing the obvious conclusions, which certainly makes their guidance so valuable.)

In parting, I present two observations:

1) If the explanations for any given standpoint or hypothesis are continually changing, the chances are overwhelming that the standpoint/hypothesis is horseshit;

2) The pursuit of knowledge can only accurately take place with a mind open to the evidence, whether we like it or not. If we are intent on trying to force a particular end result, we’re not after knowledge, but only self-indulgence. We should be bigger than that.

But how? Part 24: You’re just rebelling

Al Denelsbeck

This is another one that I’ve broached a few times before, mostly superficially, so I figured it was time to provide the full treatment, especially since it’s one of the arguments that’s been directed at me personally. So while it does nothing to explain a world with no god, it is an argument that’s been used thousands of times to bolster belief, despite the fact that it provides nothing relevant to belief in the first place. Regardless, we’ll address, Atheists are just rebelling against god/authority. And boy, is there a lot to address!

First off, it bears recognizing that such an argument is nothing but pop psychology at best – in my experience, there rarely (if ever) appeared to be any traits presented that would support such an accusation of superficiality, and few atheists are incapable of presenting a variety of distinctive and reasoned arguments in favor of their worldview. It’s irrational to evaluate someone’s personality based on, for instance, an acrimonious forum comment, even if it’s emotional and lacking in detail, since we can’t expect all comments to provide a complete list of supporting factors. Just because someone hasn’t provided their reasoning doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and of course, judging anyone (about anything) based on minimal exposure to them is both condescending and ignorant. Take a moment, if you like, to savor the irony of calling someone petulant or shallow over such exacting criteria…

Personally, however, I’ve come close to admitting that there might be a grain of truth to the accusation, since in more than a few circumstances I do challenge authority, and am honest enough to question my own subconscious motivations as well. Yet, saying that someone questions authority is one of those tricks of horoscopes, since just about everyone does this at one point or another, especially if a politician that they don’t like makes it into office. And at the same time, you can also point out to anyone that you meet that they’re, on the whole, pretty forthright and law-abiding, and not be met with any resistance over this either. I am quite sure more than a few people that I’ve worked with would tell you that I’m too straitlaced; it all depends on perspective, and how you phrase the question.

Going a little deeper into this aspect of it though, questioning authority is not necessarily a bad thing; critical examination of how such power is used is the very thing that keeps it in check, since we’re all well aware of how commonly it’s abused; it’s not exactly hard to find plenty of advice along these lines, as well as the active contempt towards those who blindly follow some form of authority despite evidence that it’s not going to turn out well. References to “sheep” are common here (and yes, we’ll take a second to nod towards the common use of “flock” among the religious, just for giggles,) and we shouldn’t forget that a faithful adherence to authority in the face of common sense is pretty much how a cult is defined, and not just religious cults. “If all of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?” “Of course – I’m not a rebel…”

Then we come to what anyone might mean by authority in the first place, one of those terms that is used blithely without recognizing that the definition is, as often as not, personal. If any atheist doesn’t believe in a god, then it’s rather obvious that there is no authority there to recognize, any more than anyone yields to the authority of any fictional character; to call this “rebellion” is being ridiculously overdramatic, and I have little doubt that there is a certain manipulative influence in the choice of the word at least some of the times it’s used. When we hear the phrase, “rebelling against authority,” we tend to think of a kneejerk reaction to all forms, teenage frustration applied without consideration, which is of course a far cry from questioning authority, or every other manifestation outside of blind obedience or blind rejection. Assessing a situation accurately, however, isn’t nearly as self-aggrandizing…

[One must wonder if all of those, the world over, who fail to follow the accuser’s particular god are all rebels. How does this work, exactly? Do they get a free pass because, as wrong as they are, they’re still trying to follow some god? Are allowances made for culture, or majority following? What ‘authority’ is in use here?]

And so, we now get to another meaning of “authority,” one most often used in cases such as, “leading authority,” or, “an authority on cultural paleontology.” Science in and of itself is a form of authority, or to be more concise, a method that garners confidence in its findings based upon how rigorously it examines them. That’s why we bother to learn anything: to know how something works, to use accurate predictions of behavior and results to our advantage. And that is, surprise surprise, exactly what we expect from any given authority. The whole purpose is to have someone (or some abstract ‘body’) that we defer to because they know more than us. And to the great misfortune of religion, just about every one of our defined sciences demonstrate that damn near everything we consider a religion in the first place is just fucking wrong. You might think I’m being harsh, but the recognition is rampant even among the religious, from the oft-repeated mantras that ‘faith’ is important and god works in mysterious ways and so on, to the very concept of supernatural, somehow separate and unrelated to ‘natural,’ to even the efforts of moderate religious folk to distance themselves from fundamentalists, the ones who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and fossils are satan’s sucker bait. The reason that there’s so little cohesiveness within religion (much less even one religion the world over, which we should reasonably expect,) is that everyone hits a point where they simply have to admit, “All right, that’s just batshit.” Atheists simply find that point is religion in the first place, in most cases because the authority that they follow is the tried-and-tested collection of hard evidence; it beats the hell out of believing something because everyone in the immediate vicinity does, or because it’s repeated so often. By that token, atheism is the least rebellious approach towards the strongest and most dependable body of evidence in existence. So uh, yeah, perspective…

I’m not going to neglect an aspect of the topic mentioned right at the beginning, which has a different spin: that of rebelling against a god itself. This one gets a bit weird, because it implies that the accused does believe in god, which isn’t exactly a working definition of atheism. And rebelling against an omnipotent being would probably not be the best of moves, since the ability to enforce its authority is, well, infinite. But if such a being really wanted obeisance, it could instill it right within its own creation, poof, no force or coercion or even demonstrations of evidence needed. So obviously, the option to not recognize its authority was intended, the whole free will thing, even when most religions describe dire consequences of not obeying, so the game that is being played here is yet to be defined. Now, I understand how someone could find fault with authority, and could for instance believe in a god but still think its doing some bad shit (and too many examples of scripture support this attitude remarkably well,) but outright denial of existence? That’s borderline mental illness, at least. Even the furious child who shouts, “You’re not my real parents!” isn’t in denial of said parents’ existence, just their status – obviously, or there would be no one to actually shout at, right? So, let me see if I understand this: such an accused atheist would be on board with the idea of this omnipotent being, but somehow believe that if he/she denied the existence, any potential consequences would be rendered nonexistent? Like a god needs recognition of their power for it to be effective?

Which is where this gets a little deeper, because that’s all that religious authority is, even by the tacit admission of religious folk themselves. If you fail to recognize authority, it has no actual influence on you. Granted, there can be consequences, as you’re thrown in jail for tax-evasion or lambasted for eating Cheez-Whiz with Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, but that’s merely an attempt to enforce an authority, which may or may not spur recognition of such. And when it comes to religious folk, there’s a vast majority that know such divine retribution isn’t forthcoming, which is why they have to take things into their own hands, or even decry these rebels in the first place. It’s remarkably easy to live one’s life without deference to any religion whatsoever, and nothing changes. Atheists do not suffer any more, or less, misfortune, misery, lightning strikes, plagues, animal attacks, or floods than anyone else – and neither do the followers of any religion, much to the dismay of countless religious martyrs; that word wouldn’t even exist if it were otherwise. The world goes on, almost as if simple physics is the only thing at work.

Finally, even if it could be established that atheism was completely and solely due to such a rebellious attitude, it’s still a form of unevidence; it does not strengthen any claim of a god’s existence in any way. In practice, however, it’s often much worse, when it’s used to be entirely dismissive of atheists and any argument they might present, rather than addressing the topic at hand. I’ve often said that people aren’t good or bad, just particular actions that they take, and by extension, people aren’t irrational, but arguments certainly can be. However, if someone can be labeled irrational, then any argument they put forth by extension must be too, and so there’s no need to discuss it, right? That appears to be the attitude very often, on topics much more varied than religion, but it does seem to imply a certain desperation from those presenting it, likely unwilling or unable to discuss the matter on normal terms. And even though this is borderline pop psychology in itself, how often is it used to turn the tables, to try and put an atheist on the defensive when the debate isn’t going as well as hoped? How often is it a manifestation of the second form of competition, where one doesn’t try to improve their own standpoint/value, but tears down others so their own looks better by comparison?

So while it might be nice to be dismissive of an entire worldview in the belief that it’s just due to childish petulance, it’s probably better to at least look for evidence of such, first. Or better still, to make value judgments on ideas and actions, rather than people.

But how? Part 23: What would it take?

Al Denelsbeck

I’ve kind of covered this in portions of several different posts, but expanding on it seems warranted, as I change perspective a little just to highlight something. So let’s look at the question that religious folk often like to ask of atheists, “But what would it take for you to believe in god?”

I imagine that half of the time, it’s asked out of frustration, as the atheist displays a higher standard of evidence than the religious querist. They find it hard to believe that the factors that they found compelling could fail to impress someone else. Other times, it’s asked out of a deep suspicion that there really isn’t anything that the atheist would find convincing, that they’re emotionally or ideologically wedded to the idea of no god, and thus there’s no hope of having a rational discussion (which may actually be true, but not for the reasons that they suspect.) Both of these can be rather revealing in their nature.

First off, it should go without saying that when we’re talking about a being that supposedly created, not just a species or a planet, but the entire universe, proving such a thing is a remarkably tall order. In fact, it pretty much defines ‘impossible,’ but we’ll go ahead and grant that a simple demonstration of spontaneous vast creation would at least be a good start. It’s entirely a non-issue, however, because not one religious person can even come close to such a thing; often, they don’t perceive the huge and overriding difference between being personally convinced (or emotionally convinced, if you prefer,) and having something solid to work with.

While the second approach, the belief that atheists are being emotionally intransigent and not reasonable, is almost exactly the opposite, as if most religious folk have arrived at their standpoint through careful consideration of the evidence and all of the ramifications and possible misinterpretations – I know, I should have appended the ‘humor’ tag to this, shouldn’t I? Because, let’s be realistic, every reason ever put forth for belief has revolved around either weak personal convictions, flawed fundamental premises (such as, “Everything has to start somewhere,”) corrupt philosophical arguments, or the incredibly insipid. There really isn’t much point in engaging with someone that would use an inordinately fatuous argument such as, “The bible says it’s true!” It’s like they’ve never encountered a politician or salesperson…

But let me hasten to correct a potential wrong impression: the argument may be fatuous, but the people making it rarely are. They can, in fact, recognize questionable statements from politicians, most especially the ones they don’t like. And they can recognize weak and illogical arguments from scripture or philosophy – for all of the religions that they don’t follow. But yes, there’s virtually always a set of double-standards at work. While nearly everyone can attest to the value of extensive testing for new pharmaceuticals, or perhaps look critically at the labels of the food they buy, often their requirements for ‘proof’ of a god are remarkably thin, largely because they want such a thing to exist. And we cannot forget the simple human trait of taking one’s cue from others, not only responsible for even introducing the concept of religion in the first place, but establishing the One True Religion™ in their mind, without any need for comparing others or weighing the evidence.

There’s a certain level of humor and irony in the idea that atheists might just find that proving an omnipotent being would require some incredibly kickass evidence, and that the standards of evidence should be the same regardless of personal desire (and even that personal desire actually has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence.) Yes, this means we can be accused of being too emotional and not emotional enough while discussing the exact same topic.

I’ve addressed the personal belief angle numerous times in the past, but it bears repeating in this case. It is often argued that religion is a personal thing, akin to liking a particular food or music style, and that would be fine if that was the only way it manifested. No one, however, makes important decisions regarding how their children are raised, how they treat other people, what politicians and laws to support, and so on and so on, based on what flavor ice cream they prefer. If someone is forming a worldview, one that serves as a foundation for a large part of one’s life and decisions, how is it possible that the standards for selecting such a view are almost universally weak and facile? I’ve seen people do more research into where they’re going for vacation than the vast majority of religious folk have done when deciding on what mystical process governs the entirety of creation.

And we arrive at an interesting dichotomy. A lot of religious folk, in my experience, seem to feel that control is in god’s hands – the concept does not originate within them, of course, but is fostered by literally thousands of sources claiming such a state of affairs. And so their obligation, their onus to even make informed decisions, doesn’t actually exist; the one decision that they’re responsible for is simply to be religious, and there isn’t even a factor of which religion, because the only one that counts is the one they have direct experience with when growing up. Until and unless, of course, they run up against something that they don’t like. Then, they will manage to find (or twist) some aspect of scripture into justifying their preconceived notions, secure in the idea that they are following god’s path. All other passages, especially the ones that explicitly deny their notions or any other aspect of their current lifestyle, somehow don’t count. And while it’s easy to believe that I’m addressing a tiny subset of religious folk, the bare fact is that I’ve never encountered anyone that fails to fit into this category; I have yet to find someone devout enough to follow every tenet that their own scripture provides. In a lot of cases it’s impossible anyway, given the contradictions inherent in the passages, but it does mean that, to them, “religion” apparently means a set of guidelines specific only to themselves. Which makes it a lot easier I guess.

Admittedly, some of the blame must be placed on whatever religious leader or organization the ‘devout’ find themselves in the thrall of, since countless concepts originate solely through those. They’re responsible for so many of the ills that religions foster, now and at all times past: witch hunts and heretic purges, anti-evolution efforts and fretting over satanic whateverthefucks (it’s always something different,) what women can be stoned for doing and putting bombs in public places. The scriptural guidance towards these ranges from incredibly weak to completely nonexistent; instead, the idea of these being “god’s will” comes from voluntary conformity to whatever circle of influence someone chooses, not from anything remotely resembling divine provenance (which, as noted above, is impossible to establish anyway.) And the choice of these influential circles is made… how? Again, are we talking solid supporting facts, or liking whatever particular hotbutton of desire happens to be pushed?

It stands noting that none of this should have any bearing whatsoever, as I’ve said before. Opinion and personal satisfaction aren’t any kind of tools towards real and useful information; it doesn’t matter how much someone likes a particular idea, since this has no affect whatsoever on any actual existence. This is the entire point of evidence: we can form a solid worldview only on what we can establish and demonstrate, not philosophically, not through debate, not through personal satisfaction, but only through dependable, repeatable, and above all predictable behaviors or responses. We know the acceleration of Earth’s gravity by careful measurements, despite the overriding belief for so long that it was entirely different, and the connection to mass has been so dependable that we can put probes in orbit around other bodies in our solar system. Who really gives a fuck whether someone believes otherwise? What’s that going to do for them?

Which brings us to another dichotomy. What I suspect is a disturbingly large percentage of religious folk arrive at their surety through rather lax manners: mostly just following family and friends, occasionally some rather lame theological arguments, and at times buttressed with something personal like a dream or a curious coincidence. And this is fine for circumstances that bear little to no consequences – I like birch beer largely because it was the soft drink of special occasions when I was growing up, and not because it’s so much better than other choices. But then, having established their choice through such banal means, many religious folk then derive the confidence that it’s remarkably supportable and robust, and use it to dictate how others should behave, or what values are useful, even (and if you get off on irony you’re going to need a lie-down,) what tenets of science established through countless experiments and measurements should instead be considered outright lies. I mean, thanks for that guidance, you certainly seem to know how to spot them…

Another just for shits and giggles: I don’t think I’ve come across a religion yet that doesn’t have humility as a virtue, or at least a commendable trait, and treating one another with respect and kindness appears very frequently too. Now, I won’t say that these are the most frequently ignored tenets of faith, but they certainly rank extremely high on the list. Even funnier is that these are two of the values that just about everyone, atheists included, actually support. Arrogance is, of course, welcomed by no one.

So we come back to the question of, “What would it take to get you to believe?” Earlier, I’d said that my favorite response is, “What have you got?” knowing that the answer is, always and dependably, superficial. But now I think I’m favoring a more elaborate response: “An omnipotent and omniscient god that created the entire universe and is remarkably involved in what we do as a species above all others? Wow, it would take a lot – give me a week or so and I’ll provide a list. Why, what did it take to convince you?“

1 2 3 4