The Case for a Creator: Chapter Three, Part 1

It's been a while since I had the stomach for this book -- and given I only got through discussing two chapters and reading the third, that's saying something.

But with the holidays looming and the religious right braying about the imaginary "War on Christmas," and with the blog and much of what I have to do either having slowed or taking lots of render breaks, I thought I should come back to this and try to get at least another chapter out of the way before the end of the year. I do still intend to get through the whole book. Eventually.

If you missed the previous two chapters, you can find them here:

Chapter One
Chapter Two

And now we move on to Chapter Three: Doubts about Darwinism.

Like Chapter Two, the introductory pages to Chapter Three are massively tedious. Here's a taste of it, starting at the beginning and skipping a bit here and there:

There were one hundred of them -- biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, bio-engineers, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists, and other scientists. Their doctorates came from such prestigious universities as Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Rutgers...[He lists 8 more.]

They included professors from Yale Graduate School, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...[he lists 20 more, and a vague "and elsewhere."]

Among them was the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry...[et cetera.] [page 31]

You see, I trust, where this is going. In a book of about 300 pages, 10% of the way in, Strobel has gone for broke with the Argument from Authority, with over a hundred scientists who wanted to...what? Present evidence that discredited evolution? Present alternative interpretations of the existing evidence?

But no, it's nothing of that sort at all. Apparently this lot of ~100 scientists "wanted the world to know one thing: they are skeptical." [ibid]

The argumentation here is so massively flawed as to be positively breathtaking. In one page, not only has Strobel managed to present an entirely invalid and overstated Argument from Authority, but he's made it a twofer and also presented an Argument from Incredulity:

Their statement was direct and defiant. "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," they said. "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [page 32]

Setting aside Strobel's attempt to lionize the dissenters by using such descriptors as "defiant," it's astonishing that over 100 scientists should apparently have no idea how science works. Of course the evidence is given careful examination! That's what evolutionary biologists fucking do. It is given careful examination, and experimentation, and is proven reliable again, and again, and again. If it wasn't, despite what the creationist/ID proponents seem to want to believe, it would be discarded.

Am I supposed to be impressed that over 100 scientists -- many of them from areas of science that are not relevant to evolutionary theory -- are "skeptical"? The National Center for Science Education has a list of nearly 1000 scientists who are not skeptical of evolution, who accept it as a "vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences" -- and that's only a partial list of the ones named Steve.

You want to play the numbers game, Strobel? Because we can, but you lose.

He goes on to make several claims that evolution is and has always been a controversial theory. He (partially) quotes historian Peter Bowler. When I say partially, well:

[A]ccording to historian Peter Bowler, substantive scientific critiques of natural selection started so early that by 1900 "its opponents were convinced it would never recover." [ibid]

Where to begin with the problems here. First off, as I said, this is a partial quote. The first part of the quote, the part that provides context to the second, is in Strobel's own words. It may be an accurate paraphrase, but it may be a fabrication. There's actually no way to tell, because while he does provide an endnote citation for this quote, like the Dennett quote in Chapter Two he does not directly cite the specific work of Peter Bowler in which this quote, and its context, can be found. Instead, the source he gives is:

See: Getting the Facts Straight (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2001), 11. [page 309]

The Discovery Institute, if you are unfamiliar, is a religious organization masquerading as pseudo-science¹. Since their whole goal is to present Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, it seems reasonable to assume that their pamphlet "Getting the Facts Straight" will be biased. So, once again, I find it alarming that Strobel neglects to quote Bowler directly; either he has not done his due diligence to ensure that he is accurately representing Bowler's statement, or he is intentionally obfuscating the source and context of the quote.

Since Bowler is (according to Wikipedia) a vocal critic of creationism, and proponent of evolution, it seems to me his views would be unlikely to be properly supported in such works.

Even if the quote is completely accurate to Bowler's statement, the fact is that we are 108 years beyond 1900, and the theory of evolution has not only "recovered," but it is still the only cohesive, scientific explanation for the diversity of life as it is observed.

There is no controversy, and anyone who tells you there is, is trying to sell you something. Like this book, for example.

Moving on to the first subheading, and at last, the first interview with someone who will hopefully help build the eponymous Case. This first one is Jonathan Wells, who Strobel not-so-subtly indicates is a man with not one, but two Ph.Ds. The heading is ""Interview #1: Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, Ph.D."

Right. As I said in my wrap up of Chapter Two, Strobel's obviously misleading tactics have compelled me to look into the subjects of his interviews, and the claims they make. We already knew, by Strobel's own admission, that he would only be speaking to people who he knew would say what he wanted to hear. So, what is there to know about Jonathan Wells?

Well, first off, he is a member of the Unification Church established by Sun Myung Moon -- aka, the Moonies. (Sun Myung Moon's followers believe that Moon is the second coming of Christ, fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission.)

As Strobel points out, Wells does in fact have a Ph.D a the relevant field of biology. And while Strobel does acknowledge (in an endnote) Wells' association with the Moonies, and even goes on record as disagreeing "thoroughly" with their theology, he does not see fit to reveal that Moon in fact paid for Wells' doctorate, and that, in Wells' own words:

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Oh, and one more thing: Wells is a Senior Fellow at the aforementioned Discovery Institute.

Since I keep railing on Strobel's rhetorical fallacies, I will not commit one of my own by attacking Wells the person instead of his arguments. But if this information cannot be said to undermine the credibility of Strobel's first interviewee, it certainly makes his impartiality on the subject somewhat questionable.

Not that we, the readers, could have expected impartiality when Strobel has already stated that there will be nothing of the sort. But Strobel takes this intellectual dishonesty to dizzying, previously unimaginable new heights. In the run-up to the actual text of the interview with Wells, he throws a quick little end-note on the end of the paragraph. Follow the end-note and Strobel tells us this:

Note that all interviews have been edited for conciseness, clarity, and content. [page 309]

I just about shit myself when I read that. Not only has Strobel openly admitted to selecting only those who would agree with his conclusion, but he has also -- again openly -- edited the interviews "for content," more than likely selecting only those statements that support his conclusion.

This guy was a journalist?

I should point out that we are, at this point, five pages into a thirty-seven page chapter. Given how long this entry is already, I think I'll leave off Wells' actual interview until next time. Savor the anticipation.

---

1. I find it hard to imagine what kind of "science" they do, since the foregone conclusion to any mysterious or even mundane observation is "God did it." No need for any kind of research, or even intellectual curiosity. You've chosen the answer before you even bother to ask the question. Seems like it'd be a pretty short day at the office. ↩

But what I REALLY want to do...

Been a while since I wrote an actual blog on filmmaking, whether procedural or philosophical. This comment ties back to an earlier post I made about how some people really feel passionate about what they do in the industry. I had another experience of the sort that made me want to elaborate a bit more on the topic.

The common "wisdom" about the movie business is that everyone, whether overtly or secretly, is angling to direct.¹ Because of the pervasiveness of this idea, I think many of the more "lowly" positions on the set -- the PAs, the grips -- are treated with disdain by the higher-ups, who view them as opportunistic (and, for the more insecure artistes, as potential threats). An older hand at it, a career grip, who's been in the business 40 years for example, might be treated with a subtle pity, as though they had failed to reach what was presumably their "true" ambition.

More experienced filmmakers who have worked with proper crews I'm sure know better than this, so I'm talking more to the up-and-comers in the crowd. When you get to the point that you get to command a set, do not under any circumstances condescend to your crew. Do not assume that you are better than them, or that you have achieved what they never could. Because that's probably not the case.

When we were shooting Sandrima Rising, they hired a grip by the name of Popcorn.² And he was phenomenal, I gotta say. Got the work done, kept his focus, never complained. And we would get to talking, as you do on any project, especially a long-term one. And he talked about how his father AND grandfather had both been grips in the film industry. He was a third-generation grip. and he loved what he did.

He loved the fact that he got to be a part of the creative and technical processes, without the rather crushing burden of having to run the show. He didn't mind that no grip, even key grip, is a household name (unlike directors and, to a lesser degree, writers), nor that he was not in the part of the industry that would ever make much more than a "modest" living.³ He just loved being a part of it, and love the part of it that he was in. Had no interest or aspiration for directing, loved being the one to realize the visions of the directors, solve a different problem every day, and most importantly, work regularly.

A director works on one project at a time, generally, and follows that through to completion, which can take a year or more. But crew can move from production to production, three or four months of shooting apiece and moving on to the next. The work is far more regular and, from a certain perspective and mindset, more rewarding. Like I said, every day a new challenge, instead of working on the same shots and sequences endlessly as you hone it into completion.

Another story, and the one that made me think of this topic again. I've been renting the RED to a no-budget feature titled Solitary.⁴ The crew is small, but so is the location, and as such I pretty much just stay the hell out of the way when I'm on set as camera support -- a project which I frequently designate to Anthony, so that I can stay home and work on Sandrima. But this weekend I went out with the camera on my own for scheduling reasons, and I met a grip who is doing his only weekend on the set.

The guy is a perfect case study in not judging a book by its cover. He's young, early to mid-twenties; good-looking, to the extent I'm surprised that he's behind the camera instead of in front. Very quiet, spends the day lugging equipment and such back and forth around the location. Easy to assume that he's a nice enough guy, but probably not very bright and therefore is best suited to manual labor.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, before working in film he took three years of engineering in college, as well as a year and a half of advanced physics studies, before putting college on hold to work in film for a while. His father was (is) a DP and he grew up on-set with crews and is comfortable with the "culture." He loves the physical labor part of it, but also -- as with Mr. Popcorn -- the synthesis of creative and technical problem-solving. He was more knowledgeable about filmmaking technology than most directors I know, and we had a brief but stimulating conversation about cameras, compositing, and shooting techniques. And still he, too, has no apparent interest in doing anything in the film business but what he's doing now.

While the grips carry equipment around and set up the lights, it's not mindless grunt work. They have to understand electrical currents and wiring in order to run cabling and power distribution appropriately; they have to understand the physics of light in order to get the precise lighting effects the DP requests⁵; and they've been on so many sets and solved so many problems that they can really bring a lot of diverse experience to bear on your current project.

If I remember to (and going back through earlier posts I discover a number of topics I've been "meaning to" talk about that haven't happened yet), I'll get into my thoughts on the "Auteur Theory" sometime. But whatever the case, when you get to make your movie, always treat the people working on the set with respect and dignity; and if they have suggestions, keep your ears and mind open.

Because despite the fact that you're the "guy in charge," there's still a good chance they're smarter than you.

---

1. A corollary to this holds that everyone in Los Angeles is working on a script. This one I think is true -- if you walked up to a random person in the supermarket and asked them how their script was going, I would wager 4 out of 5 times the response would be an astonished "How did you know?"↩


2. Seriously. I also know folks who go by Bear and Dragon. And then there's the concept artist Crash McCreery. You can get away with that stuff in this business. Hell, I go by Dorkman, so it's not like I can talk.↩


3. I say "modest" because, with film budgets what they are, a key grip with his own kit is gonna do alright for himself. It won't be in the millions, but a high five figures, even low six, is not out of the question↩


4. Not to be confused with an in-development project of my own that is titled Solitary, a title which really suits the project too well to change it. Not that most of you know anything about that project since it's nowhere near production and may never happen at all. But if it does, you'll know not to confuse them.↩


5. Some DPs are very involved with the process and will dictate what to do at a very detailed level. But some DPs prefer to invoke more of a feeling, and a general sense of where the light will come from and what the quality of the light will be, and the grips interpret that into the actual rigging of the lights. ↩

It is Not for Lack of Bibles

So a few months ago I got a package from Amazon.com. I heart books, so I'm always excited to see a box with the Amazon smirk on the side of it. But I hadn't actually ordered anything, so my excitement was also tinged with curiosity. I opened the package and discovered I had been gifted with a copy of The Case for a Creator (which I will get back to deconstructing soon).

At the time I avoided mentioning who had sent the gift, out of respect for his privacy, but since he's had no qualms involving himself in the discussion of the book I guess it's no secret that it was sent by fellow TFN'er Drew Mazanec.

The discussion has been on hold because I've had other things occupying my time. I had to finish up the course I was doing part-time over at fxphd, and I've still got a lot of work to do full-time on Sandrima Rising.

So imagine my surprise today when I was again greeted by a smirking Amazon shipment -- this time a gift of the Apologetics Study Bible, once again from Drew.

Although I have a cynical view of religion and belief, I am less cynical and more willing to give a benefit of a doubt to the religious and believers. I have no doubt that Drew is sending me these tomes with the best of intentions. More than likely, out of a concern for the fate of my immortal soul. Though I consider the concern misplaced, I do not doubt that it is genuine.

But I went to a Lutheran middle school and a Catholic high school. From those schools, I own a Lutheran Study Bible and a Roman Catholic Bible; I also have a Bible that my mother got when she graduated high school. In addition, my roommates own three Bibles between them, and if I want to get really academic about it, my brother not only also has a KJV Bible, but owns copies of the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

So in printed Bibles alone I've got handy access to ten different editions in four different languages. And just about every English version of the Bible is readily available online. My favorite of which, and the one I read, is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which looks at the text objectively, letting it stand or fall (mostly fall) on its own merits.

It is not a lack of Biblical availability or knowledge that causes me to not believe in Christianity. Indeed, it is the fact that I am familiar with the Bible that causes me to dismiss it. It is not for lack of Bibles, it is for lack of evidence that the Bible is reliable in the first place.

I was a Christian for most of my life, and a devout one through the end of high school and college.1 I understand the mindset and I know the arguments presented. I am not denigrating Drew's concern, or his generosity. Clearly he believes strongly enough to put his money where his mouth is, literally; and in pursuit of what I assume, based on my personal experience as a Christian, he sees as helping me.

But if I needed a Bible (and as I said, I really don't), I could afford one. Land of opportunity FTW. Next time you've got extra cash laying around, instead of spending $30 to send me a book, donate it to a humanitarian cause. Preferably one that provides food where it is needed.

Obviously, the real aim is to address and/or answer some of my questions and concerns. So take out the middle man, Drew. Let's just talk about this. We both have blogs, we both have AIM, we both have e-mail. Name the medium and let's have an actual discussion about this stuff. My only condition is that we be allowed to share the discussion, in whole or in part, on our respective blogs. Clearly you believe in what these books are peddling, so you should be able to articulate it in your own words. It's not fair for me to tear an argument apart when the person making the argument has no opportunity for rebuttal. So let's have a dialogue. It'll save you money in the long run.

My intention is not to "call Drew out" or put him on the spot. But I think it could be educational for both of us, and maybe for our respective readers, to hash this out directly rather than dashing exclusively behind various authors and authorities. Which is not to say that calling upon experts would be out of the question, but the bulk of it should be our own expression.

Plus it'll give me more to post about.

The invitation is open to anyone else who cares to discuss these ideas with me, as well. Just let me know.

And if anyone feels compelled to send me free books in the future, I would much prefer something from my Amazon wish list.

On that subject, I'm also looking for recommendations for new (to me) fiction; I've been reading a lot of non-fiction and technical stuff lately and want to "get away" a little bit.

---

1. At least a few of the folks out there who are currently Christians will, I'm sure, refuse to believe that I was ever "truly" Christian, much less devout. If I truly had a relationship with God I could never turn away, goes the reasoning. I can't really begrudge that thinking, because ironically, that was my thinking when I was devout. All I can say is, believe me, I was. Anyone who knew me at the time could vouch for it.↩

How to Convert an Atheist

Before moving forward with Case for a Creator, I want to address a question that I have a feeling will come up. In fact it already sort of has. I don't know (despite having read two chapters of the book) what evidence Strobel intends to give, so now is the time to establish what kind of evidence I would be willing to accept for the existence of a deity, and more specifically a particular deity as espoused by a particular religion.

Ebon Musings has two great articles that I read through on this subject that I think are just about perfect. Since I got on Strobel's case about not properly citing sources, I'll link you directly to the source so you can read it at your leisure.

The first is, How to Convert an Atheist. The article proposes a list of evidence that would convince him that a given religion was true. I'll summarize the bullet points here, but head over to the page for a full explication of each one.

I agree absolutely with the list, which is why I am duplicating it here.

First, things that would convince the author (and me) immediately of a given religion's truth:

- Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
- Scientific knowledge, in holy books, that wasn't available at the time [of their writing].
- Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
- Any direct manifestation of the divine.
- Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.

Next, a list of anecdotal evidence that, while not eligible for insta-conversion, would get the author (and me) to think there might just be something to a particular religion:

- A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
- A religion without internal disputes or factions.
- A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
- A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.

And third, the list of items that will not be seen as convincing, by the author or myself:

- Speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles.
- People's conversion stories.
- Any subjective experience.
- The Bible Code or similar numerological feats.

He also lists "Creationism of any sort," but I'll take that one off the table. Strobel gets his shot at convincing me, as long as his evidence is solid. Worth noting, though, that disproving evolution does not inherently prove creationism or intelligent design.

I would add to that list that I do not find arguments from personal incredulity to be compelling. If you say to me "I can't see how [blank] could be true without God," my answer is "Do some research." Nor do I find the argument from beauty to be compelling. A gorgeous sunset, the intricacy of a snowflake, or other astounding elements of natural beauty are not valid evidence of God.

As I said, there is a second article about how NOT to convert an atheist. This one interests me because, looking through, this is like a checklist of exactly the tactics Strobel seems to be employing:

- Don't tell atheists what they think; let them tell you what they think.
- Don't assume that atheists aren't familiar with the beliefs of your religion.
- Don't make assertions you're not prepared or willing to defend.
- Don't ignore sincere questions.
- Don't use threats, personal insults, or ad hominem attacks.
- Don't try to be an armchair psychologist.
- Don't ask atheists to do something for you if you're not prepared to offer the same courtesy in return.¹
- Don't refuse to acknowledge your mistakes.
- Don't assume that any one atheist speaks for all atheists.
- Don't refuse to consider the atheist viewpoint honestly and seriously.

So, let's see how Strobel approaches this.

---

1. Drew may well find a gift of an alternative viewpoint in his mailbox after I've finished Case for a Creator, unless of course Strobel manages to convince me. The God Delusion is, after all, in paperback now.↩

The Case for a Creator: Chapter Two

Remember yesterday, when I said that it seems that Strobel seems very concerned with telling us about himself, and how very very atheist he was? Chapter Two begins thusly:

Rewind history to 1966. The big hit on the radio was Paul McCartney crooning "Michelle." On a television show called I Spy, Bill Cosby was becoming the first African-American to share the lead in a dramatic series. Bread was nineteen cents a loaf; a new Ford Fairlane cost $1,600.
As a fourteen-year-old freshman at Prospect High School in northwest suburban Chicago, I was sitting in a third-floor science classroom overlooking the asphalt parking lot, second row from the window, third seat from the front, when I first heard the liberating information that propelled me toward a life of atheism. [page 17]

I check the cover to make sure the subtitle is, in fact, "A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God," and not "The Pointlessly Detailed Life of Lee Strobel." Maybe they teach you to pad your word count with "colorful details" in the papers, Lee, but I was told that this was going to be an investigation of scientific evidence that points toward God. It would be great if you could get on with that.

It's clear throughout this chapter that Strobel really wants to hammer home just how he was "toooooootally atheist, guys! Like seriously!" Like Durin pointed out yesterday, I can't shake the feeling that this is setting up an implicit Argument from Authority. I mean, if someone THAT atheist could be convinced, this MUST be good evidence.

It in fact has the opposite effect -- I begin to wonder if Strobel was actually ever an atheist at all. The atheism Strobel describes is a standard Christian caricature of atheism, as evidenced below:

I reveled in my newly achieved freedom from God's moral strictures. For me, living without God meant living one hundred percent for myself. Freed from someday being held accountable for my actions, I felt unleashed to pursue personal happiness and pleasure at all costs. [page 25]

It is this statement in particular that leads me to think that Strobel was never actually an atheist; rather, he is attempting to convince me that he was an atheist so that, as I said above, I will be compelled by his radical conversion. Having never been an atheist, he instead describes how he thinks atheists think, which will convince those who already believe (also having likely not been atheists themselves), but actual non-believers will have to conclude that if he ever was an atheist, he was a grotesquely stupid one.

The subject of morality without God deserves a post of its own (and even that is probably selling the subject short; books have been written), so I won't sidetrack this one with the subject. Suffice it to say that no atheist I know actually sees it as an "excuse" to misbehave -- the fact that so many of the religious seem to think that the only thing keeping them from raping and/or murdering every man, woman, child and pet they come across is the threat of God's punishment only belies the fact that they are not good or moral people at all.¹ The moral person does good because it is good; the man who does good because he's afraid of what will happen to him if he does bad is not moral, he is merely a coward.

Buuuut, that's getting off the subject a bit. My point is that Strobel's attempts to convince me that he was an atheist have in fact convinced me of the polar opposite, and I will have trouble putting aside the fact that I believe he is being dishonest with me. Fascinatingly, he even describes himself as being "smugly arrogant" -- exactly the two words I used yesterday to describe the atheist characterization he was laying on so thick.

Ultimately, however, it doesn't necessarily matter if Strobel was or wasn't an atheist (which makes it yet more annoying that he spends so much time on the subject). The more important question is, does the scientific evidence he presents indeed point toward a Creator? Well, I'd like to tell you, but at this point he still hasn't presented any.

Actually, I take that back. In this chapter, Strobel presents the evidence that led to his apparent atheism when he learned it in his science class. This chapter is called "The Images of Evolution," and he refers to several iconic concepts (or "images") that, to him, represent(ed) the undeniable fact of evolution:

Image 1: The Miller-Urey Experiment -- in which scientist Stanley Miller reproduced, under laboratory conditions, an approximation of the atmosphere of the early Earth, and via application of electricity was able to spontaneously produce amino acids, the building blocks of life.

It should be noted, before moving on, that the Miller experiment is one testing the abiogenesis hypothesis -- the notion of life arising from non-life on the early Earth. Abiogenesis is a separate theory from evolution; evolution does not concern itself with how life started, only with explaining the diversity of life that arose after the moment that life began.

Image 2: Darwin's "Tree of Life" -- referring to an illustration in On The Origin of Species, showing life's theoretical common ancestor as the bottom of the tree, and all the diversity of life growing and diverging and blossoming upwards from there.

It's here that Strobel again tips his hand to, if not intentionally misrepresenting evolution, at the very least misunderstanding it:

It seemed obvious to me that there's such a phenomenon as microevolution, or variation within different kinds of animals. I could see this illustrated in my own neighborhood, where we had dozens of different varieties of dogs. But I was captivated by the more ambitious claim of macroevolution -- that natural selection acting on random variation can explain how primitive cells morphed over long periods of time into every species of creatures, including human beings. [page 20]

See, the creationist folk realized some time ago that they could not deny that evolution does occur. It is, as he points out, an observable fact. So instead they have inserted an arbitrary designation between microevolution and macroevolution -- two terms that, in a scientific context, do not exist. There is only evolution.

All evolution is small changes within a population of organisms.² As he says, over time the sum of those small changes can result in organisms so totally different that they are scientifically classified as different species.

As an analogy, imagine that you are five feet tall at the age of fifteen. Every day for a year you measure your height, and on a day to day basis you will see little difference between one day and the day immediately before or after. Yet at the end of that year you find you are six feet tall. Even though the changes were small, at the end it resulted in the need to recategorize you (from "five foot tall person" to "six foot tall person").

Evolution is this concept writ large, with billions of organisms over billions of years. The notion of a separation between "micro" and "macro" is a semantical dodge, designed to allow creationist (or intelligent design) proponents to admit to what they can no longer deny, while continuing to deny what they don't wish to admit.

Image 3: Ernst Haeckl's Drawings of Embryos -- up to a certain point, the embryos of vastly different organisms can look almost totally indistinguishable. This is taken as demonstrating how similar we all are genetically, and by extension the likelihood that we share common genetics, since that would logically result in common development up to the point where our genetics diverge.

Fast-forwarding back to 2008 (we're in 1966, remember), it's worth noting that we now have pictures of these various embryos and their striking similarities, not just taking an artist's word for it.

Image #4: The Missing Link -- referring to archaeopetryx, the famous transitional form between reptile and bird.

Strobel spends the rest of the chapter establishing his argument, which is that you've got to take a stand and choose between evolution or God. He acknowledges that there are some who believe that evolution and God are compatible, but he immediately determines that because evolution leaves no need for God, it leaves no room for one.

And not just any God, mind you, but the Christian God specifically:

Certainly Christians would say that God is not a hidden and uninvolved deity who thoroughly conceals his activity, but rather that he has intervened in the world so much that the Bible says his qualities "have been clearly seen...from what has been made." [page 22]

But what would Muslims say, Mr. Strobel, and what does the Quran say about God's qualities? The Hindus and the Vedas? You haven't even proven that there is a God at all, let's not jump to conclusions about which God it is.

Of course, he isn't concerned with those other possible Gods, because Mr. Strobel has already determined for himself that the Christian God exists, and is seeking only to find and deliver validation for that belief.

If Strobel's intentions are becoming more plain, his methods are becoming more dubious:

I was experiencing on a personal level what philosopher Daniel Dennett has observed: Darwinism is a "universal acid" that "eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview." [page 24]

Note, again, the selective quotation. Strobel puts the word "Darwinism" into Dennett's mouth to ingrain it further. More alarming, though, is the citation found if you follow this quote to the endnotes, which gives this source:

Quoted in: Phillip E. Johnson, "The Intelligent Design Movement: Challenging the Modernist Monopoly on Science," in: William A Dembski and James M. Kushiner, editors, Signs of Intelligence, 34. [page 308]

If the significance of that citation isn't immediately apparent, let me explain. Strobel has not quoted Dennett in his argument -- he has quoted ANOTHER person quoting Dennett, that other person being an Intelligent Design proponent, making the quote in a pro-ID essay.

Why cite the quote secondhand? If Johnson did not include a citation of his own so that it could be traced back to the source -- and context -- of Dennett's remark, then the use of the quotation in both Johnson and Strobel's works is highly suspect. If Johnson DID include a citation, and Strobel chose to cite from Johnson's essay instead of researching the quote directly himself -- and, in so doing, making it more difficult for a reader of his own work to trackback the quote -- then the use of the quote is, again, suspect.

Granted, Signs of Intelligence is readily available on Amazon, but why quote a quote instead of going directly to the source? As a journalist Strobel should know better, which leads me to believe he intentionally evaded properly citing Dennett's remark -- which may in fact have had nothing to do with "Darwinism" at all.

It's not that the quote even really affects the argument being made -- it is, at least as reported here, a statement in support of the non-ID view of things -- but it certainly does not instill confidence in Strobel's journalistic integrity, nor his devotion to "not only...ask questions...but to go wherever the answers would take me." [page 29]

None of this necessarily negates his argument -- good evidence is good evidence no matter the source -- but it certainly makes it clear that Strobel is not playing a fair game.

Nowhere does this become clearer than in the home stretch of the chapter, in which Strobel says:

My approach would be to cross-examine authorities in various scientific disciplines about the most current findings in their fields. In selecting these experts, I sought doctorate-level professors who have unquestioned expertise, are able to communicate in accessible language, and who refuse to limit themselves only to the politically correct world of naturalism or materialism. [page 28]

Emphasis mine. The problem with this approach is that, despite Strobel's attempt to couch it as "politically correct," or previous attempts he's made within to characterize "naturalism" as only a particular "sect" of scientific study, the fact is that science by its very nature concerns itself with the natural, material, measurable world. Once you introduce supernatural hypotheses, science goes out the window because they cannot be tested and are therefore not scientific.

In choosing his "experts," Strobel has in fact chosen specifically only those who are already sympathetic to his beliefs. A truly neutral, journalistic approach would be to talk to people on both sides of the issue and let the facts speak for themselves. Strobel instead reveals his bias by limiting his conversation to those he knows will agree with his pre-ordained conclusion, silencing the opposition by simply not speaking to them.

Astonishingly, he follows that declaration with this one:

After all, it wouldn't make sense to rule out any hypothesis at the outset. I wanted the freedom to pursue all possibilities. [ibid]

So. He didn't want to rule out any hypothesis -- except the natural or material ones -- and wanted to pursue all possibilities -- except the natural or material ones.

...

I...

...

Wow.

Strobel cautions the reader that "getting beyond our prejudices can be difficult. At least, it was for me...I didn't want there to be a God who would hold me responsible for my immoral lifestyle." [page 29]

Again with that. I can't speak for other atheists, but I don't lead an immoral lifestyle -- even by Christian standards. I don't lie to people, I don't cheat people, I am not sexually promiscuous, I don't get shitfaced-drunk or hurt people or do any other "immoral" things, certainly no more than your average Christian and I would bet, pound for pound, less so than most of them.

Strobel wants to assert that I'm afraid to admit God exists; I'm not. I live a good life, I am a decent person, and I'm confident that any God worth worshipping would take that into account when the time comes. If God exists and he/she/it is truly righteous, then I'll shrug, say "my bad, good to meet you," we'll have a laugh and move on with eternity. And if God exists and is not righteous, then fuck him/her/it anyway.

Either way I'm unafraid of the notion that God might be real. But if I'm going to believe, I'm going to need evidence -- and despite the book's subtitle, Strobel still hasn't given any. Instead he's written two "chapters," really glorified forewords or prefaces, which combined have made me more wary of his claims, and more likely to do due diligence on what's being said and who is saying it, than I think they were intended to do.

That being the case, future installments of my analysis may not be daily. I need research time, and I'm doing this around After Effects renders, so that time doesn't come easy. The next chapter is called "Doubts about Darwinism." I'm doing my best to approach this openly and without bias, but when the author refuses to do so, when he announces his prejudices in the same breath as he asks me to set aside my own, it makes it much more difficult.

---

1. Nor does it make much sense, since -- at least in Christianity -- all they have to do, whatever the transgression, is be genuinely sorry afterward and all is forgiven. But that is also a topic for another day. ↩


2. I notice he uses the word "kinds" of animals rather than "species," "kind" being the Biblical designation; another flash of the cards he seems to be stacking.↩

The Case for a Creator: Chapter One

I begin my reading of Strobel's The Case for a Creator with, appropriately, Chapter One: "White Coated Scientists versus Black-Robed Preachers."

My first impression upon reading this book is one of surprise. Considering Strobel is supposed to be a journalist, he doesn't strike me as a very good writer (in the very first sentence, he describes the atmosphere of a newsroom as being "carbonated with activity"). But maybe he's just being overzealous in trying to create a narrative and draw the reader in; after all, this book is presumably more about factual evidence than anecdotal experiences.

The first portion of the chapter is devoted to descriptions of said newsroom, filled with newspaper jargon that I guess is intended to reassure me that he did, in fact, work at the Chicago Tribune. He talks about how his boss sends him, a fresh-faced new-to-the-beat reporter, to West Virginia to cover a brouhaha:

"Crazy stuff..." he said. "People getting shot at, schools getting bombed, all because some hillbillies are mad about the textbooks" [page 8]

Strobel -- the one in the narrative -- demonstrates significant contempt for Christians and Christianity. On the back of the book is a quote by Strobel which I suppose will be in the text: "My road to atheism was paved by science...but ironically, so was my later journey to God."¹

The back cover also provides me with the first red flag as to what I'm reading here, where it says the following:

In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.

I suppose from the title it should have been obvious that this was a creationist tome, and it will apparently be playing the "intelligent design" concept. The flag, moreso, is referring to the theory of evolution as Darwinism.

The theory of evolution should no more be referred to as "Darwinism" than the theory of gravity should be referred to as "Newtonism." Appending "-ism" to the end of the name implies that it is -- like theism or atheism -- a dogmatic and rigid belief system. A religion, if you will.

But evolution is not a religion, having no central tenets of behavior and no ceremonial observations -- unless you include the scientific method, but every branch of science utilizes that, and I don't hear any of them being touted as religions. It's also worth noting that Darwin did not create the theory of evolution, as evolution had been observed for some time before he came on the scene. Darwin proposed the mechanism (natural selection) by which evolution occurs. Natural selection currently offers the best understanding of how evolution occurs, but scientists have no dogmatic loyalty to Darwin's theory, nor to Darwin himself. Should evidence arise that natural selection could not account for, natural selection would come into question and new explanations would be examined.²

Back into the book, and the subheading of the next section that sends up the next red flag: "Is Darwin Responsible?"

Strobel describes arriving in the West Virginian town and interviewing folks about why there was such violence and turmoil over what textbooks were teaching. Evolution, of course, but they also banned other books because students were being asked to analyze them and think critically.

To Strobel's credit, he is not the one blaming Darwin for what's going on in the town; that is the argument given by one of the townfolk he interviews, who says:

"If Darwin's right, were just sophisticated monkeys. The Bible is wrong. There is no God. And without God, there's no right or wrong. We can just make up our morals as we go." [page 11]

Since this is not Strobel's argument (at this point) I won't address the glaring holes in it (at this point). In fact, Strobel articulates -- at least in part -- what was going through my mind as I read this and other quotes he puts down:

In the last part of the twentieth century, in an era when we had split the atom and put people on the moon and found fossils that prove evolution beyond all doubt, a bunch of religious zealots were tying a county into knots because they couldn't let go of religious folklore. It simply defied all reason. [page 12]

He next describes a religious rally that he and an accompanying photojournalist were nearly tossed out of until the local preacher calmed the crowd and let them stay. (The detail of using KFC buckets as collection baskets is a nice touch.) He finishes off the chapter still "in character" as an atheist, looking forward to the day that the concrete facts of evolution show those lot that their whole basis of faith is ridiculous, that miracles are impossible.

I feel the need to point out that the fact of evolution actually proves nothing of the sort. The truth of evolution does nothing to demonstrate that miracles are impossible, as they are two completely different things. It's here that Strobel tips his hand as to perhaps not being entirely truthful about his approach. Strobel protests a bit too much, characterizing himself as smug and arrogantly anti-religious -- going so far as to insult the believers specifically, rather than just their beliefs. I'm sure they exist, but the characterization of atheists as thinking "haha jesus w/e noob grr i hate everyone" constantly is not accurate to most of the atheists I know, least of all myself, and seems to be more of a common Christian caricature of what they seem to think must go through the minds of atheists, than anything like atheists actually think.

So overall, a lot of groundwork laid that Strobel is, at this point in the tale, a non-believer of religion ("just like you," is the implication), but no arguments yet in the case for a creator. I guess in a sense that made this first chapter the foreword. Presumably he will begin making the book's eponymous case in chapter two, which we'll look at next time.

---

1. I can give that to him as irony, in case you're wondering.↩


2. In fact, my example of Newton is a prime one, as the established system of Newtonian physics is insufficient in certain situations, such as "at very small scales, very high speeds, or very strong gravitational fields" (from Wikipedia). This has required new models of understanding, like general relativity and quantum mechanics, and not a dogmatic adherence to the use of Newtonian equations.↩

Book Reading: "The Case for a Creator"

So, interesting development. One of my readers/a fellow I know from TFN and other places has sent me a book of apologetics, Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, subtitled "A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God."

I've been meaning to read some more apologetics, Christian and otherwise (I'm very interested in reading some Muslim apologetics, and of course the Quran itself), and this is a fair enough place to start, especially since Drew went out of his way to send me this book as a gift (nicely wrapped by Amazon and everything!). This will also give me an excuse to do more blogging -- as I go through the book, I'll discuss my impressions of Strobel's argument. If they're convincing, you'll get to see a real-time conversion right here! Won't that be exciting!

The book is relatively brief, with short (~30 pages) chapters, so I should be able to get through a chapter and my impressions every, or every-other day. There's eleven chapters, so this should get me through the next few weeks, assuming I intersperse it with other stuff as it comes up. Maybe I'll even get one up later today.

Thanks Drew!

Let's be "Honest"...

A lot of people think I'm a jerk. In fact, probably more than a jerk. A "right prick" as British slang (my favorite type of slang) goes. In particular, the people who know me primarily via the internet.

For a while, especially looking back, I was pretty much a prick. I was young and brash and I was right about EEEEEVERYTHING. Now I'm older and I don't necessarily always feel that way -- I am still usually right, but I'm much more willing to consider the possibility that I'm not.

And now you ask yourself (or maybe you don't, which is part of the issue probably): "Is he being sarcastic, or is he serious?" I'll let you mull it over, because if it's sarcasm it's hardly as funny if I have to say so.

Certainly that's part of it. People who meet me online seem to think I'm a tremendous ass. People who meet me in person generally find me to be very funny and approachable. The problem people have with me, I think, is that I'm honest.

An example:

Recently, a new series came on ABC called Eli Stone. It's about a lawyer with a brain aneurysm who hallucinates musical performances of George Michael songs that also manage to show him the path he's to take in life, and his Chinese-American acupuncturist/spiritual guide has a tendency to insist that Eli may be a prophet. If the description feels cumbersome, then it's captured the show. The description of the show as a male Ally McBeal is about right, if a little less quirky.

We probably wouldn't have wound up watching the show, if not for the fact that Ryan is working on the show as part of the Stargate Digital team. I watched it several weeks late, having a lot to get done and not a lot of time to watch the show. When I watched it, I was struck by one sequence in particular. Eli is up on a mountain in the Himalayas, for reasons that are beyond the point of my story here, and it was SO OBVIOUSLY greenscreen. Like, it was pretty bad overall. But other parts of the show were quite good -- several parts I didn't even know were effects until Ryan told me.

So later that night, Ryan and I were out to dinner and I asked "So, are you involved with the team that does Eli Stone?"

"Yeah, I'm on the show."

"Did you do any of the work on the pilot?"

"Yeah, I did some shots for most of the episodes so far."

"What did you do on the pilot?"

"That stuff where he was up on the mountains."

"Oh...yeah, I thought that stuff was bad."

My other roommates, who were there at the time, were shocked at me. To be fair, it did kind of seem like entrapment where I was getting him to confess to the part I didn't like. But I was honestly hoping that he would say he'd done something else. Someone else might have changed their tune upon finding out what it was. Just veered away with a "Ah, just wondering. Good stuff overall." But that's not what I do. I don't blow smoke up peoples' asses, and at any rate Ryan isn't someone who wants smoke blown up his.

After that, I discussed with Ryan why I didn't think it worked. For example, the background was too sharp to be strictly "correct" as a composite. But that's what the client wanted ("We paid a lot of money for that shot, we want to see it in focus"). If I had just told him good job and patted him on the back, neither of us would have learned anything. In this case, I was the one who learned a lesson about being a good client and trusting the artisan to know the right thing to do.

I believe in being honest. For one thing, that's the best way to learn. For another, even if it means I'm often critical, it also means that if I'm praising someone for something, they know that I mean it, because I wouldn't say it if I didn't. I don't think that my opinion of something ranks too highly on anyone's scale right now, but I do think that people value it for what it is. If I don't like something, I'll say so, and I'll say why. If I say I like it, I really do like it, and no one ever has to wonder if I was "just being nice", because that's not how I roll.

The other benefit is that I engender the same honesty in return. If I was strongly critical of someone's work, then when I come out with my own work, they're more likely to be critical back at me. If they thought I was particularly harsh in my criticisms, they will themselves be harsh in judging my work. To an extent this can mean that the negative reviews I receive need to be parsed -- what part of this really didn't work, and what part of this is just this guy being an asshole because he doesn't like me? But by the same token as above, I know that the positive comments and reviews I receive are genuine. When someone wants to tear me a new one but has to grudgingly admit that I pulled something off, that has way more value than people who are going to tell me anything I do is great.

Honesty is one of the most important traits, and constructive criticism one of the most important skills, that I think anyone can develop, especially working as an "artist" in some form. Both giving it, and taking it.

Now, there's a difference between honest, constructive criticism, and just being an asshole who tears people down. I think that when I was younger, I was probably on the wrong side of that line. I delved into this a little bit in one of my earliest posts, regarding insecurity and what I called the Better-Than Fallacy.

Acknowledging that someone is good at what they do does not equate to denigrating your own talent, and trying to cut someone down or insult them probably just means that you think they make you look bad. Don't be that guy. If someone is good at what they do, you should be getting to know them. If they're better at it than you are, learn from them! Find out how they do what they do. Trade ideas, build a relationship. You can't do it all yourself anyway.

Likewise, realize that being honest doesn't automatically mean that you're right. One extremely important "spoonful of sugar" when giving criticism of some kind is to make it clear that it is coming from your perspective. "I didn't think this worked," "I didn't understand why the character would do something so stupid," "I don't like the color combination here," "I think it would have been better if you'd let someone else have a pass at the script." Whatever.

You can be as harsh as you need to, as long as you remember two things:

1) It is coming from you. You do not speak for everyone and should never make absolute statements like "You shouldn't break the 180-degree rule, you'll confuse the audience." Rather, it should be "When you jumped over the 180-degree line, it confused me. It may just be a guideline, but I find that outside of action scenes it's generally less distracting if it's followed."

Always remember the difference between "This is how it is" and "This is how I see it."

(You may notice that in my blog I sometimes fail to phrase it like this. For one thing, it's more important to do when your criticisms are addressed TO the person; for another, being that this is a personal blog, I'm just assuming that "this is just my perspective" is a given.)

2) Your criticism should be aimed at helping the other person improve what they're doing, to get better. The saying goes "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." I disagree with that. Instead of "nice", I would amend it to say "If you can't say anything useful..." Many times you may see something that doesn't avail you to say much that's positive at all. But presumably the person has a passion for what they're doing.

If you're better at what you do than they are, then it's your job either to encourage them and help point them in the direction of where they went wrong, or for all our sakes, just keep your fucking mouth shut.

Now, you're going to come across people who don't actually want constructive criticism. They don't want criticism at all. They just want you to tell them how great they are.

I cannot abide these people. You go out of your way to give them a detailed critique, and they just turn around and start insulting you, or accusing you of being a jerk or trying to make them give up.

As I've always said, if anyone's critique can make you give up on something you supposedly want to do, you probably didn't really have a passion for it anyway, and it's better that you quit anyway. If you DO want to do it, then nothing anyone says will deter you. So don't ever let anyone tell you that you've killed their dream, and don't you DARE be someone who tries to put that shit on someone else.

I just thought of a third thing to keep in mind:

3) You're learning too. Whenever you critique someone, you're articulating why you feel the way you feel about what they've done. It helps you understand your own sensibilities and your own work better when you give an honest, informative critique.

Anyway, I usually like to wrap up my posts better than this, but my writing brain's attention is kind of split between this and the script that I've got to finish in the next seven days, and this wasn't the topic I originally set out to talk about when I started writing this entry. So I'll just say that's all I can think of right now, and if I think of more, I'll write another post about it (questions and comments always help!).

Be not afraid

Last week I spent three posts describing the origins of my disbelief in the existence of a God, and the reasons that the idea of a God, and especially the Christian God, are completely unsatisfactory in the face of any rational consideration.

One thing that no one said but a few people hinted at was along the lines of "Look, it may not make sense. It may not be even true. But it helps people live better lives, so why not just let them have it?"

And my answer is: because it doesn't. What religion does is make people live in fear.

In many cases, it's fear of Hell. People live their lives stifling perfectly natural and healthy impulses and desires because they've been taught that they are engaging in "sin". They flagellate themselves -- sometimes literally -- with guilt when they commit some act that they have been taught is sinful or immoral for no good reason. They deprive themselves of joy in this life on the promise of another life after this, yet still always have the gnawing fear that they may have done something wrong or aren't quite good ENOUGH to curry God's favor so they won't be cast into the flames. This is not the way to live a better life.

It manifests in fear of others. Other people whose customs present a threat to your belief system and your sense of morality. If people were killing each other over whether Mother Goose or the Brothers Grimm were the true authority on morality, it would be madness. But when it's "real" religion, suddenly it's more serious and deserves more respect than that. Nothing that leads to fear and hatred deserves respect. That is not the way to live a better life.

It becomes a fear of new ideas. Every truth that you discover about the world, the universe, the nature of reality itself is almost certainly in contradiction to something that you are supposed to believe -- you should believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, that insects have four legs, that all animals were created and lived simultaneously up until the flood. People are dying because of religious opposition to stem cell research. A potential human has, in some cases, more rights than an actual human.

Any idea that contradicts the "perfect Word of God" cannot be accepted and must be rejected out of hand, lest "Satan" take hold of one's mind and draw someone away from the fold.

And ultimately, this boils down to fear of being insignificant. Fear that this is all there is. Fear that we are not worth anything unless someone else tells us so.

I have a friend, who I will not name, who once admitted to me that she knows that she is dependent on other people for her own sense of self-worth, that she is nothing without validation from people who care about her.

On another occasion, we were discussing religion (she's a believer), and she said "Even if there was all the evidence that there was no God, and I knew logically that there wasn't, I would still believe in God. And I'm not sure why."

A loving presence that , despite being tasked with keeping the whole Universe running at once, cares about you individually and tells you that you matter in the grand scheme of things. The God-as-Santa that many people today "believe in". And it seems obvious why it's so important to her that God exist.

Put back-to-back like that, it seems obvious; but these conversations were weeks apart, and unless she reads this blog she may not make the connection at all.

When pressed, anyone who calls him or herself a believer cannot come up with logical reasons or evidence for believing as they do, they just believe it. When pressed further, the revealing word that starts to show up is "want".

"I wouldn't want to think that the people I love who die are gone forever."

"I don't want to feel like we're alone in the universe."

"I want to believe that there's a higher power with a plan for all this stuff."

Well, I'm sorry to say this but here's a truth in life, truer than anything else: What you want, has no bearing on what is.

Read that again and make sure you understand it.

The fact that it dismays you to think that this is all there is doesn't change the fact, if it is fact, that this is indeed all there is. And frankly, that shouldn't dismay you. It should be a source of freedom.

If this is all there is then it's idiotic to live one's life trying to build credit for the next one. It's here, and now, that's important.

Religion takes away from the beauty and wonder of life by turning it into something manufactured, planned, understood even if not by us. If God created us, then we're not really that special all-in-all; we're a toy in his sandbox.

But if nothing created us, if we just came to be, then, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the fact that we have come to exist, and to exist at such a level as to question our own existence, when all the odds are stacked against us, is such a profound, moving realization, and one to instill such a deep appreciation and meaning into every precious moment of our fleeting time on Earth.

One of the most egregious faults of religion is taking credit away from humanity. People who suffer through illness, and credit God for their recovery are selling themselves short, selling all of humanity short when it is science, it is the beautiful brilliance that is human knowledge, that saved them.

People who throw off the shackles of an addiction and credit it to God are demeaning themselves. If there is no God interested and involved in human affairs -- and there is no reason to believe that there is -- then THEY broke the spell of their addiction. THEY had the strength and the will and the power to do it. When people give all the power to God they fail to recognize the power in themselves. It holds them back as individuals, and it holds us back as a species.

I went off on a long and very specific rant about the problem of amputees, and how if God existed he would answer the prayers of amputees, even if only occasionally, and we would have cases of people spontaneously re-growing limbs. But they don't, because humans aren't salamanders.

But then there's this:



Humans DO have the capacity, in our genetic code, to regenerate limbs. We can do it when we're young and if we were funding stem cell research -- which the RELIGIOUS people are blocking funding to, remember -- we could have that capacity. And it's only a matter of time before the science gets there, U.S. government funding or not.

God didn't do it. We did. To give up the praise for God, or to decide that you WILL pray for your arm to grow back now that Alan Russell has figured it out -- but it won't work without God's intervention -- is total bullshit. It's a travesty of logic, and it completely misses the real miracle: WE did this. WE are figuring this out. WE are learning to understand, and may even learn to control, the very forces of the universe itself.

And if WE don't learn to master our fear, and let go of the idea that someone smarter and more powerful than us will swoop in at the nick of time, show us how to do it right, and save us from ourselves, we will destroy ourselves.

Even on the off chance that God exists, we are coming to an age of power and technology where the true morality will be found only if we assume that he does not.

There are people who are unwilling to help stop global warming -- not because they don't believe it's happening, but they believe that God put us in dominion over the Earth, that God wouldn't let it get to the point that we wouldn't survive because he promised us he wouldn't, or that God will bring the Judgement Day before we get to that point.

We cannot live under the assumption that God will fix it, that God is in control. We must accept that nothing and no one is in control, and do our part to take control and make things work.

I picked global warming for my example but you see it time, after time, after time. There is too much at stake and the world is changing too fast to let first century mythologies inform twenty-first century humanity. Think of all the things we know today that we didn't know even two years ago. And we're supposed to believe that people TWO THOUSAND years ago knew jack-shit about the universe?

I'm begging you, WAKE UP.

Listen, I have no problem with people taking a philosophical stance on religion. If the Christ you were taught in Sunday school is an example you want to live up to, more power to you. That Christ isn't Biblical -- Christ was a mean, petty, misogynistic guy if you actually read the Gospels -- but he's a great role model. So is Luke Skywalker. Or maybe Frodo Baggins is your thing.

I understand the power and the value of mythology and fiction and storytelling. It helps us understand our own experience by watching someone else's, even if they're fictitious. I'm devoting my life to creating and wrestling with and understanding it.

But there is a reality, too. It's easy to say "Well, Jesus was God, so of course he was good. No mere human could get there." But we've had Martin Luther King, we've had Gandhi, we've had hundreds of people who could be true heroes and role models, and the idea that they are human and their strength comes from them -- and the same strength lives in you -- should lift you up beyond the fear and weakness of submitting yourself to the will of a fickle God.

You are beautiful. Life is beautiful. And you don't need anything else but this life, right here and now, to have meaning.

A friend of mine who stopped believing in God recently, after a whole life of faith, confided in me that he is now afraid of death. This seems genuinely incomprehensible to me. If death is the end, then it is nothing to fear. It can't harm you, it can't bring you pain. As Mark Twain said, "I do not fear death, as I was dead for millions of years before I was born and have not suffered the slightest inconvenience for it."

Death is nothing to fear; if there is anything to fear, it is not living life the to the happiest and fullest extent. Do not postpone joy. Happiness is a choice, and I urge you to make it right now, and for the rest of your life.

All of this has been a primer towards the subject of living free of the self-oppression that is religious thought and devotion. Other, smarter men have gone a lot farther into it than I, and I have used their arguments among my own. It is not my intention to plagiarize anything and I apologize if I have said anything that I have not properly credited, but my intention is more to get the ideas out there than to claim them as my own.

One of the reasons I did this myself was to get a broad overview, and potentially interest some people reading the blog to read further about a point I have made. It's also to introduce the ideas outside of a context which might appear hostile -- for example, you can find an expansion of some of my points in Dawkins' The God Delusion, but the title may be offputting, and without an interest in the subject matter may never be read.

Some other resources to continue this "path to truth" for yourself:

Read the Bible: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is the full text of the KJV Bible, annotated and correlated to note all of the points that don't make sense on their own, contradict other parts of the Bible, or are just plain abhorrent to common-sense morality, destroying the claim the morality comes from God/the Bible. I guarantee that the quickest path to apostasy is actually reading the "Good News". You can also find some strong anti-apologetics, using the Bible as an indictment of religion, at Evil Bible.com

Check out some other blogs: The guy who compiled the SAB also runs a blog, Dwindling in Unbelief, highlighting particularly interesting (read: disturbing or absurd) Bible verses that most people don't know because they've never actually read the Bible. There's also The Godless Bastard, who is a lot less respectful than I've been (which should tell you something) but makes a lot of good points, at much greater length and detail than I have in this handful of posts on the subject.

And then, of course, there's always the straightforward proofs at God Is Imaginary.

Please feel free to comment or e-mail me with other points of view, critiques of my argument, or good ol' fashioned debate points. As for the blog, it'll be going back to the "lighter" fare for a while.

You already know it isn't true

For the sake of argument, when discussing religious faith in this post, I will be referring to the Christian faith most specifically. Simply because it is the one with which I am most familiar, and the one that any readers I may have are most likely to subscribe to. I am not familiar enough with Islam to really delve into it, I will have to read the Quran before I even attempt to do so.

I'm not going to get into the absurdities of the Bible itself too much -- there are plenty of other sites that do so, and I'll link them either in this post or my next one -- but I do need to address the issue of faith in God.

Simply put: you don't have any.

"The audacity!" you cry. "You dare presume to know my heart?!" Well, no, that's not what I said. I'm sure that in your heart you're a good person and you tell yourself that you believe in God and that helps you through the rough spots. But if you're a Christian, you are not following God's word.

The very fact that you can read this shockingly audacious post is proof that you are not following God's word. If you were following God's word, you would not have the internet, a computer, or even the roof over your head.

To illustrate the point further, I give you a video from GodIsImaginary.com, to spare you from some reading, and me from some writing:



The video neglects to mention Matthew 6:24, Matthew 19:28-29, Luke 9:23-25, Hebrews 13:5, and Acts 2:44-45, which all repeat some form of "give up everything" in a very literal, material sense.

Still here? Of course you are. You didn't run out immediately and sell everything you've got because in YOUR version of the faith, all you have to do is be a good person and say Jesus' name every once in a while. In your version, John 3:16 is all there is. But that is not what the Bible says. And if you don't accept what the Bible says as true, on what basis ARE you basing the notion that Jesus and God exist, and that Jesus is the son of God (and also God himself¹)?

The only evidence of God/Jesus is the Bible. If the Bible is an unreliable source, then there is NO reliable evidence of God/Jesus.

If you're my age or older, your choice of a job will involve the medical insurance benefits offered. If you really had faith in God, you wouldn't have insurance. You wouldn't have a doctor. You wouldn't carry a first-aid kit. You wouldn't even have Advil in your medicine cabinet. You would pray your headaches away.

The next time you get hurt, say a deep wound that's losing a lot of blood, are you going to PRAY that it stops? Maybe, but that's sure as hell not ALL you're going to do. You're going to call 911, you're going to try to stop the bleeding yourself, you're going to wrap it in bandages.

And THEN, when you've done all that YOU could possibly do, and all that's left is to wait and see, you'll start mumbling "Please God, please God."

If you really had faith, that would be the first and only thing that you did. But you are not stupid. You know, on some level, that just praying will get you jack shit.

Unless, of course, you're a member of the Church of Christian Science. They DO believe in prayer-only. They DON'T go to the doctors or take medicine. Their mortality rate is pretty high. And if you're not one of them -- even if you identify yourself as a Christian -- you have no trouble agreeing with me that they are irrational and foolish in their sole reliance on prayer.

Consciously you may really think you believe, but some part of you knows that it's nonsense, and not something you can rely on solely.

Still don't buy the part where I said you don't really have faith in God? Let's talk about amputees.

You may have noticed at the end of the video that it linked to two sites. There was GodIsImaginary.com and WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com.

It sounds like a silly question, but it's actually significant.

Some of my following argument is borrowed from parts of both of those sites. I am essentially summarizing their argument and encourage you to read both sites thoroughly.

If you're a Christian, you presumably pray to God for things.² All things, big and small. You'll pray that you pass a test, you'll pray that your car will not spin out of control if your car skids on a wet road, and if you get sick, you pray for your illness (AFTER making all possible medicinal assurances, as mentioned above). Especially if it's a dire illness, like cancer.

If you or someone close to you gets cancer, durn tootin' you'll be praying for them. And if the cancer goes into remission: hallelujah, it's a miracle! And if it doesn't, well, it was all part of God's plan (which deserves a post of its own).

You would pray for cancer. You would pray for a tumor. You might pray for a broken arm, although most people recognize that since fixing a broken arm is standard procedure, you don't really NEED to put that in God's hands.

But if you LOST your arm, or your child lost his arm, it would never occur to you to pray that God re-grow the arm. You would never pray for someone to re-grow any lost appendage. Would you?

If you would, then my argument fails to address your truly prodigious level of faith, and you can pretty much skip the rest of this post.

But if not, why? You'll pray for anything else, but why not that?

Because you KNOW that the prayer won't work. The prayer won't work because it is currently impossible for a human being to grow back a limb, and your faith in prayer only works as long as the efficacy of prayer is ambiguous. You pray to God to help you with your test. If you pass, it was his doing, regardless of the amount of studying and hard work you put in. If you didn't, it wasn't his plan. You pray to God to cure your cancer. If the cancer goes into remission, it was his doing, regardless of the rigorous chemotherapy and other brutal treatments that beat the cancer back; if not, it is usually MEDICINE's fault for being imperfect or not doing "enough".

You pray for things because it might work out, and you'll be able to hold on to your faith and give it up for the big man if it does.

Except for a lost limb. Because you know, deep down that there is a 0% chance of it working and you see no reason to waste your time trying. But if you REALLY had faith, you would pray to re-grow that limb.

Jesus said of prayer:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:20)

There's no need of interpretation here, it's very direct and literal. Nothing will be impossible to you if you have faith "as a grain of mustard seed". In case you're wondering, mustard seeds are really small.

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. (Matthew 21:21)³

Again, totally direct, totally literal. You will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Mountains into the sea, for fucks sake! Surely a missing limb is nothing.

Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19, James 5:15-16, Mark 9:23, Luke 1:37. God says, unequivocally: I WILL answer your prayers. Not I might if I feel like it, not there's a 50-50 chance it'll fit in his plan. He WILL answer.

And does he?

No. And you know it. You won't pray for any amputee you know because you know that prayer won't do any good. Cancer might go into recession, but humans do not regenerate lost limbs. The limb is gone. And all the mustard-sized faith in the world isn't going to get it back.

Even if God does exist, you have no faith in him to be true to his word -- and rightly so, because he is NOT true to his word. The atrocities of the Bible aside (see EvilBible.com for a list of God's Greatest Hits in that regard), the efficacy of prayer is statistically zero, whereas an unselfish prayer should always be answered according to God himself. A God who does not fulfill his promises is as unworthy of faith/trust as any human being who has failed, time and time again, to fulfill his promises.

That is, if you believed in the God/Jesus that's in the Bible. Which you don't, not really. You have material goods and you take medicine for your ills and you don't bother praying for things that can't be helped, even though supposedly God can help ANYTHING. You don't believe in that God/Jesus because you have clear evidence that that God/Jesus doesn't exist, and if he does, is wholly unworthy of your faith and worship, because he is a liar and a sociopath.

So that begs the question: What God/Jesus DO you believe in, exactly?

---

1. This makes no fucking sense to anyone, by the way. Even theologians call it the "Mystery of the Trinity", as though its truth were a foregone conclusion, and it was just beyond our comprehension. Maybe it doesn't make any sense because it isn't true.
   
   Seriously, if I made a movie with a gaping plot hole, and called it the "mystery" of that film, I'd be laughed out of whatever place I happened to say such an inane thing. ↩


2. If you don't, we can skip this step of the argument entirely, because you already have so little actual faith in God that you know better than to expect anything from prayer at all.↩


3. FYI, "what was done to the fig tree" is this: Jesus comes upon a fig tree and is hungry, but the tree has no figs. So Jesus curses the tree on the spot and it dies. This story shows up in TWO of the four Gospels: Matthew 21:19, and Mark 11:13-14, 20. In the Matthew account, the tree dies instantly; in the Mark account, the tree is dead the following day. Also worth noting, the Mark account states that "the time of figs was not yet."
   
   In other words, the tree had no figs because it was OUT OF SEASON, and Jesus STILL condemned it to death. And then BRAGGED to the onlookers about how anyone could also lash out irrationally with the power of God, if they had just the smallest bit of faith. Gives WWJD a whole new twist, don't it?↩

Faith: You're Using It Wrong

A frequent response/criticism when religious belief is questioned goes something like this:

"If you have faith, you don't need evidence." And while Dictionary.com does list faith as "belief that is not based on proof", there is a very important difference between "not based on proof" and "not based on evidence". It is true that belief based on proof cannot be called faith, because we have another word for that: knowledge.

We could easily get derailed here by philosophically discussing the nature of proof, truth, knowledge, and the subjectivity of human experience. Although I am an Atheist, I am also agnostic -- and incidentally, you're using that wrong, too.

Agnostic comes from the Greek agnosis. Agnosis means "without certain knowledge" and is the antonym of gnosis, "with certain knowledge". I will be the first to concede that there is no absolute way to be certain of anything. Descartes believed that one could only be certain of one's own existence, and all else could be a highly detailed hallucination or delusion of the mind, but Eastern philosophy takes it further and posits that individuality, the "self", is also a delusion, and that all matter is essentially the same.¹

But agnostic doesn't mean "I don't know the answer and by necessity sit on the fence". It is an acknowledgement that we CANNOT know anything with 100% certainty. 99% maybe, 99.9999...99% even, but there is always that 0.0000...01% possibility that none of this actually exists at all. Calling oneself "agnostic" reveals your philosophy with regard to knowledge, but it doesn't preclude you from making a judgement based on the evidence before you.

I am agnostic. There is no way of knowing anything with 100% certainty, and that absolutely includes knowing that God does not exist.² But man cannot live on philosophy alone, and taking agnosticism to the extreme would paralyze humanity with uncertainty. At a certain point, whether we can be absolutely sure or not, we start to act in accordance with those things of which we are mostly sure.

With the acknowledgment that absolute knowledge is impossible, there must also be an acknowledgment that there is such a thing we colloquially refer to as "knowledge", and it is that thing which we believe because it is demonstrated by evidence, and what we refer to as "evidence" is, typically, that which two or more people have observed, and which is observable and test-able objectively by others.

While there is no way of knowing that the sky is blue (or that it even exists), most people AGREE on the observation that the sky is a particular color, that the color is what we refer to as "blue", a spectral analysis of the sky reveals that it reflects light of the same wavelength as other objects that we identify as "blue", and so we say that we "know" the sky is blue, and often use the blue sky as I have done here, as an example of a generally-accepted fact.³

So, if I speak of me, or you, or science, or theologists "knowing" something, it is in this manner that I use the term.

Given that, the notion that taking something on faith means to believe something either without evidence, or worse still in the face of contradictory evidence -- and that this is to be considered a virtue -- is, to put it plainly, total horseshit.

If you were to go bungee jumping, you would more than likely research the place where you decided to do your jump. Find out if they've had an inordinate number of injuries or deaths, maybe you'd research the statistics of bungee jumping in general to make yourself feel better about it. Maybe it even takes a friend who has been bungee jumping, WITH the place you're going to jump at, to convince you.

But all of that research, and all those statistics, aren't proof that the cord won't snap when you take the plunge. Therefore when you make the leap, in the firm belief that the cord will hold, you are literally making a leap of faith.

But even though you made the leap without proof that the cord would not snap, you did not do it without compelling evidence that the cord was unlikely to snap.

Even if you didn't do a lot of research, you were convinced by the professional attitude of the bungee cord folks, by their clear attention to safety regulations and their meticulous upkeep of their equipment. And you CERTAINLY wouldn't make that leap in the face of evidence that the cord was likely to snap, such as frayed cord, rusted connectors, or the reek of alcohol on the guy who was supposed to secure the cord to the bridge.

Although it is impossible to have proof that something will happen, we make decisions constantly, every hour of every day, based on the evidence that something is likely to happen. Every action, large and small, is an act of faith based on evidence but lacking proof.

I have faith that when I put food in my microwave, and use the microwave as the manufacturer intended, the food will come out hot. I have no proof that it will do so, but I do know from experience that it has happened that way on all other occasions in the past. I have evidence informing my faith. And maybe the microwave will be broken and will not do what I expect. If that happens, I will not continue to attempt to use my microwave, insisting that I "have faith" it will work the way it is supposed to. I will call a repairman.

I have faith that when the light turns green and the WALK sign is on for my crosswalk, the cars at the intersection will obey the lights and I will be safe to cross. I have no proof that this will happen -- for all I know a drunken idiot with my name on his grille is bearing right for me at 80 MPH in a residential zone -- but my faith is informed by evidence, by the knowledge that that is what the lights are for, and that those are the laws that we agree to live by in order to have a society that is most beneficial to the most people. But if I see evidence that contradicts my faith -- if I SEE the drunken idiot swerving away down the street with no sign of slowing -- then there's no way I'm going to step into that crosswalk, and neither would you.

Every action, big and small, is an act of faith, and every act of faith is informed and, when appropriate, halted by contradictory evidence.

Yet when it comes to otherwise rational people, religious faith gets a pass. Religious faith says that you don't need any evidence at all. Religious faith says you should ignore contradictory evidence and act as though your expectations will be met.

When my microwave fails to act in a manner that agrees with my faith-based expectation, and in opposition to all available evidence to how it should behave, my microwave is at fault.

Yet when God fails to act in a manner that agrees with faith, faith is at fault. It's part of God's inconceivable plan.

Even if the causes of whatever event are perfectly conceivable and possibly even predictable on a scientific, rational level, and go against everything you are taught to expect from God, you are admonished -- or you admonish yourself -- to have faith. That everything happens for a reason.

Religious faith isn't faith at all.

With all due respect to my religious readers -- and I know that they do deserve respect and are no doubt highly intelligent to a one -- I must speak plainly: Religious faith is self-delusion.

If you must believe something without any evidence, in the face of ever-mounting contradictory evidence, then you are in a state of denial, and you are deluding yourself. Just as I would be deluding myself to insist that my microwave was fine, I just wasn't believing hard enough. Just as I would be deluding myself to believe it was safe to cross the street, even as a drunken maniac visibly bore down on the intersection.

What religious faith should be is not belief that God exists despite the lack of available evidence. Properly applied, faith should be knowing God exists (based on evidence), and trusting that he is who he says he is, and will do what he says he will do. It's not being uncertain or without evidence that he exists at all. Faith is taking a proven God at his word, and following the path and the rules he laid out for you.

But God is not proven, and you already live your life, in almost all cases, under the assumption that he does not exist at all, much less is good to his word.

This is a pretty long post already, defining knowledge and faith took a bit more space than I intended, so I'll stop for today. I'll pick up from here next time. Comments welcome as always.

---

1. Given our understanding of matter as being composed of the same basic building blocks (protons, neutrons, and electrons), and even more radical developments like string theory, science is coming more and more to support this philosophy with experimental verification. ↩


2. Technically, if the God espoused by the major Western religions DID exist, as an omnipotent being his/her/its existence would be the SINGLE thing in the universe that could be absolutely proven with 100% certainty. An all-powerful God could, if it wanted to, shatter human philosophy with the undeniable, irrefutable knowledge of its existence.↩


3. This is of course assuming that it isn't raining, overcast, or the sunrise/sunset time of day that will make the sky pink, orange, yellow, green, or purple. But we all "know" what I mean when I refer to those alternate possibilities.↩