A Short Note on the Effects of Propaganda

During routine perusing of the internet, I happened across a very interesting and informative video documentary titled, War Made Easy¹.  This video examines the devastating nature of propaganda and its perverse and insidious capability to alter the human experience.  Nevertheless, it seems rather apt, that on the five-year anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, we might do well to remember what truly matters most; the continually increasing body count: 4,000² Americans, 175 British and an estimated – believe it or not – 1,033,000 Iraqis³; this is a statistic that we rarely, if ever, hear from our supposedly unbiased western news media.  All the same, I highly recommend taking time to watch this revealing and poignant documentary.

 

With depressing regularity, political pundits and the news media, who publicly espouse the virtues of democracy and of a free press, obfuscate reality and shirk their sacrosanct duty to inform the citizenry.  Democratic societies can hardly function when the civil body is misinformed and poorly educated; perhaps the goal?  This documentary builds on what the great George Orwell, attempted to warn us about well over 60-years prior, but we didn’t listen then and few are listening now.  The simple fact is that most of the American news media – even the so-called “liberal” ones – jumped on the pro-war bandwagon because to do otherwise, would be akin to doing violence to their profitability.  If any do decide to watch this video; in the very last minutes, the narrator speaks of a Senator emeritus, Wayne Morse of Oregon.  This man was absolutely correct in what he said, and it makes me wonder whatever happened to such courageous leadership?  Why is that most Americans have never heard of this man?

 

For those of us living in the so-called “free world,” propaganda and its effects are something that each and every one of us must constantly be on-guard against, for, as it stands, our collective somnambulism is undermining the very freedoms we claim to champion.  As Professor Noam Chomsky pointed out, “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”⁴  What will be required in order to rouse us from our great slumber?  Now is the time to hold accountable our media, our politicians and, most importantly, ourselves for the atrocities of our inaction.  The propagandists are hard at work revising reality, yet we sleep… As some may recall, the protagonist of “1984,” Winston Smith, employed by the Ministry of Truth in the important yet ironic capacity of “editing” history, stole a moment to write to a future generation these prohibited and haunting words:

 

            To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone – to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone:

            From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink – greetings!⁵ 

 

 

End Notes:

 

1. http://throwawayyourtelescreen.wordpress.com/
2. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/23/iraq.main/index.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties
4. Chomsky, Noam. (1999), Profit Over People.  Seven Stories, New York.
5.  Orwell, George. (1948), 1984.  Borzoi Books, London, 1992.

Why Intelligent Design Mustn’t be Taught in the Science Classroom

A rather noteworthy passage in the book of Ecclesiastes declares that there isn’t anything new under the sun, indeed. And when it comes to the Theory of Intelligent Design, never were there truer words spoken. Put succinctly, Intelligent Design is the assertion that living organisms are far too complex for mere happenstance, and thus leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the world and all its living organisms have or had a creator — an intelligent designer. Those who advocate the Intelligent Design Theory believe that it’s a scientifically viable theory and therefore seek to have it taught as science within the American public school system.

Of course, one would surely have to have been living in a vacuum not to have noticed the recent media frenzy regarding the ongoing battle to have Intelligent Design inserted into the science classroom. Using politically-framed language, advocates of Intelligent Design claim that it’s an equal and competing theory; therefore it should be taught alongside Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. However, there’s one glaring and major defect with this proposition; Intelligent Design is not science; it’s little more than a concocted euphemism for religion and it’s masquerading as science. For this reason alone, Intelligent Design should neither be qualified as a scientific theory nor should it be taught in public schools. Let it also be noted that many people often refer to Intelligent Design simply as ID, but I refuse to do this as I believe it softens the reality of this entirely inane concept.

Having made the assertion that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools, I’d like to direct the reader to three major components which are central to understanding the sinister nature of Intelligent Design. First of all, as we shall see later, the postulate that God or an Intelligent Designer created the universe is a priori knowledge and therefore does not meet the criteria for a valid scientific claim. In other words, the assertion that God created the universe is not a scientifically-testable hypothesis, so there aren’t any means for assessing whether its central claim is valid. Secondly, as we shall also see, the Theory of Intelligent Design amounts to little more than a stone-age creation myth fully clad in a plethora of modern spin, and, as we know, teaching religion in public schools violates the separation of church and state clause. Thirdly, in the attempt to “teach the controversy”, proponents of Intelligent Design are obfuscating science, suppressing factual knowledge and as a consequence, are further weakening America’s already declining scientific literacy.

On December 20, 2005 a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Judge, John E. Jones III, handed down a landmark and legally judicious decision regarding the future of Intelligent Design: that the Dover area school board inappropriately injected religion into the science classroom. As Judge Jones noted in his written reply, “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect, he wrote. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable [sic] alternative hypothesis grounded on religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions” (Scully 1). It is worth noting that Jones used the word, misrepresent. This “toss the baby out with the bath water” mentality is a maneuver that’s all too often employed by those prone to religious thinking. In other words, if one part of a theory cannot explain everything, then it’s time to disregard the entire theory and simply return to worshipping God. In his essay about Thomas Paine, the superb gentleman, Colonel Robert Ingersoll, beautifully illustrated the epistemological impatience of the religious mind:

[…]The ignorant are not satisfied with what can be demonstrated. Science is too slow for them, and so they invent creeds. They demand completeness. A sublime segment, a grand fragment, are of no value to them. They demand the complete circle – the entire structure. In music they want a melody with a recurring accent at measured periods. In religion they insist upon immediate answers to the questions of creation and destiny. The alpha and omega of all things must be in the alphabet of their superstition. A religion that cannot answer every question, and guess every conundrum is, in their estimation, worse than worthless. They desire a kind of theological dictionary – a religious ready reckoner, together with guide-boards at all crossings and turns. They mistake impudence for authority, solemnity for wisdom, and bathos for inspiration. The beginning and the end are all they demand. The grand flight of the eagle is nothing to them. They want the nest in which he was hatched, and especially the dry limb upon which he roosts… (Ingersoll 67-68).

But what of the question that complex design in living organisms implies the universe has or had an intelligent creator? Proponents of Intelligent Design will point us toward the observation that the useful objects produced by human beings strongly resemble the order and design we observe in the natural world. For example, the human body so strongly resembles a machine; the entirety of its individual yet complex inter-working parts all operating in unison. The conclusion, however, presupposes that because the effects we observe in nature so strongly resemble the order and effects found in man-made objects, that it’s logical for one to conclude that they both result from similar cause. This hypothesis is what is commonly referred to as the Argument from Design – a well known form of this argument was presented during the Middle Ages by the religious philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas.

However, in 1802 the Argument from Design was presented yet again by an eighteenth-century theologian named, William Paley. In his treatise titled, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, Paley ponders a watch which he’s discovered lying on the ground. He concludes that even though we may not know how this item came to be, the very fact that the watch possesses complex design leads one to consider the watch’s designer. Likewise, he concludes that when we observe the complexities of life we infer a creator. But this leaves one begging the question as to whether the conclusion necessarily follows the premises. As I’ve stated previously, this represents a priori knowledge and this type of information does not lend itself to empirical analysis. In layman’s terms, modern scientific understanding has rendered the design hypothesis completely groundless. According to Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned evolutionary biologist:

Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it’s wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind (Dawkins 5).

As is now fairly obvious, the Argument from Design and its modern counterpart, Intelligent Design, are nothing more than dreamy attempts at explaining the origins of complex organisms and the world, but they’re both sorely lacking when it comes to presenting any corroborating empirical evidence. Ah, but more to the point: the pressing question is whether Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools as an alternative theory to evolutionary biology? To this question I offer a strident and resounding, “No!” As we previously noted, Intelligent Design does not meet the generally accepted criteria of science. But what then, one might ask, is required for a theory to be seriously considered by the modern scientific community? The answer to this question is not as elusive as one may think. In fact, the answer is very simple; it’s what we commonly refer to as the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a systematic, rigorous and self-correcting process scientists use in order to achieve as accurate a picture of our physical universe as possible. Science uses the term “self-correcting” since it is not uncommon for scientific theories and research methodologies to be published in scientific journals and newspapers. The published results provide other scientists the opportunity to examine or “peer-review” both the methods used and the results offered. When errors are discovered, the theories – much like the case with cold fusion – are discarded altogether, or they are revised to fit new information and facts. Sadly, purveyors of religious dogma often point to this “weakness” in science, but if one takes time to consider the implications here, it’s quite the contrary; the concepts of self-correction and peer-reviewing actually point to science’s robust and intellectually-honest nature.

The scientific method is a methodical process which contains four steps: one, observation of a physical phenomenon; two, as a result of observing a particular phenomenon, the observing scientist formulates a hypothesis or premise to explain the observation; three, use of the hypothesis to predict additional phenomena or make new observations; four, formulate various and careful experiments in an attempt to confirm the hypothesis. If one looks carefully and is also of a scrupulous character, then this is where one would be forced to concede that the concept of Intelligent Design has run aground. Because the concept of God or an Intelligent Designer is purely a metaphysical one (beyond the physical world), then there isn’t any discernable method for scientists to test the hypothesis that the universe was designed by an intelligent force. In short, it does not necessarily follow that order implies design. Once again, this is a priori knowledge and thus does not lend itself to scientific experimentation. This simple yet inescapable conclusion consigns the theory of Intelligent Design to the realm of religion and pseudoscience.

Furthermore, aside from the fact that the concept of an Intelligent Designer doesn’t lend itself to experimentation, Intelligent Design does a very poor job in making predictions about other phenomenon. For example, it fails to explain various occurrences such as the poor construction of the human eye; with its blind spot and an initially inverted image, or various other “relic organs” such as the spleen and tonsils which suggest the forces of natural selection are at work. In addition, proponents of Intelligent Design appear hesitant to answer the central question of whom and what the “designer” actually is and how “it” came to be. Instead, it seems that advocates of Intelligent Design much prefer the unanswerable questions, according to Poole:

ID’s strategy was instead to focus on unanswered problems. As with any scientific field, areas of evolutionary biology are incompletely understood. To scientists, the areas suggested new research, experiments, and hypothesis. To IDers, they represented a chance to claim that these would never be answered by science. We cannot currently explain how this part of a bacterium evolved, they would reason, so it must have been created by an intelligent entity. This type of argument had for centuries been known as the ‘God of the gaps’. It is easy to do: you simply find a gap in current understanding and claim that it can only be filled by positing God (Poole 54).

What, then, does this tell us if science cannot test the hypothesis that the universe has or had an intelligent designer? It’s simple, without evidence to support its claims Intelligent Design amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking. Looking at it another way, it could be argued that proponents of Intelligent Design are actually hostile to science and its all-too-important condition of demanding supporting evidence. If we’re honest with one another, advocates of Intelligent Design are asking us to accept their claim sans proof and without any discernable way to confirm or deny their claim’s validity. In essence, we simply must have faith that their claims are true, and as is plain to see, this is a religious notion. The great English Philosopher, Bertrand Russell, eloquently and judiciously illustrates this point, “Moreover, the attitude that one ought to believe such and such a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices” (Russell, 30-31).

Let us consider for a moment the implications of Russell’s statement, and its relevance to the question of Intelligent Design. If there aren’t any means in which to garner evidence or test the validity of Intelligent Design’s key concept, why, then, should any reasoning person accept the puerile notions entrenched within the Intelligent Design Theory? In fact, in many cases the sponsors of Intelligent Design are creating evidence to fit their theories, and this hardly seems the stuff that science is made of. The conclusion is inescapable: for any spurious ideas, astute and logical people must reject or at least suspend judgment until such time as more data are collected.

By implication, however, if one accepts the conclusions rendered by Intelligent Design, then by default one will also be compelled to accept the First-cause Argument; that for every observable effect there is a cause, and pursuing each effect to its original cause we call, God, but as, once again, Russell points out, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause” (Russell 6). So it would be reasonable for us to conclude that it is just as likely that the universe itself is the first cause as much as is God. However, we mustn’t stop here. What of the question regarding the existing evidence that advocates of Intelligent Design have previously presented regarding their hypothesis? As I said earlier, this, as we shall see next, is a case where advocates of Intelligent Design have forced the evidence to fit their theories.

As the author Christopher Hitchens refers to them, “The Intelligent Design Boobies” claim that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old; that Jurassic-era dinosaurs walked the earth alongside anatomically modern homo sapiens-sapiens and that, as a result of a massive flood, the Grand Canyon was carved in a matter of weeks, and not – as most scientists agree – in millions of years. It is very important for the reader to understand that all of these claims are in direct contradiction with the consensus of the scientific community. For example, by using potassium-argon dating, scientists have determined that approximately 65-million years separate Jurassic-era dinosaurs from anatomically modern humans. How do we know this? The isotope of Potassium – an unstable element containing more neutrons than protons and abundant in the earth’s crust – is known to decay at a steady rate to argon 40. Scientists are then able to determine the relative age of various materials, usually non-organic materials such as minerals and fossils, by calculating this ratio (http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu).

Because argon is a gas, the scientifically-literate reader could protest, and rightfully so, by asserting that it’s possible that some of the argon gas contained within a non-organic artifact could have previously escaped into the atmosphere, thus reducing the ratio. Indeed, this is entirely possible, however, unlikely. This is not likely to have occurred unless the substance (usually a volcanic rock or stone) had been heated to a sufficient enough temperature, and upon which it is then possible for some of the gas to be emitted into the atmosphere. And even if this was the case, there exist ways in which to detect this, as well. Indeed, science isn’t perfect but it’s certainly the best and most reliable tool we have for understanding our physical universe. The author, Steven Poole, nicely illustrates this point, “Of course scientific knowledge is always incomplete: that is what drives research. But that is a long way from saying it is wrong, or even controversial” (Poole 46).

When examining the inherent weaknesses of the Intelligent Design hypothesis, one could point to a litany of pseudoscientific nonsense and reasoning blunders, but this would yield only excruciatingly dull and pedantic reading. Nevertheless, as we have discovered, Intelligent Design is clearly not science, and for this reason alone, it must not be brought into the science classroom! Nevertheless, I’d be performing a grave injustice if I failed to point the reader to additional damning elements concerning Intelligent Design, and the ongoing battle to get it introduced into the science classroom.

The complete lack of scientific evidence isn’t the only problem plaguing the supporters of Intelligent Design. First and foremost, because we have demonstrated that Intelligent Design isn’t science but rather religion, this simple fact now raises some troubling legal uncertainties. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution – also known as the Establishment Clause – states the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As one might have guessed, the adherents of Intelligent Design attempt to “get around” the establishment clause by using religiously-neutral terminology.

Nevertheless, as we can see, this is a rather arcane and preposterous distinction. Whether we call it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Intelligent Design or natural religion is an altogether irrelevant point. Let’s face it, the majority of Americans belong to one or another sect of the Christian faith, and there’s little doubt that the “Intelligent Designer” would be interpreted as the God of Abraham. For example, one supporter of Intelligent Design, William Dembski, was quoted as stating, “Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient” (Poole 51). Aside from the completely inane statement that science would be ‘fundamentally deficient without Christ’; his quote does cement the point that what Intelligent Design advocates are really talking about is Christianity. What is more relevant to the point, explicitly speaking, the government would then be placing itself in the position of endorsing religious schemes and supernatural explanations of life and the origin of the universe, and from a legal and constitutional perspective, this is clearly unacceptable.

So, from a scientific and legal standpoint, the Intelligent Design Theory comes up short on both counts and therefore must be kept away from the science classroom. However, there’s one additional yet very important aspect regarding Intelligent Design that I’d like to illuminate. Much like the neo-conservatives of the Republican Party, backers of the Intelligent Design Theory have become very adept at framing their language. Even the term “Intelligent Design” itself is, well…, designed to evoke certain emotional responses from listeners. Once again, the author, Steven Poole, makes this point squarely:

ID’s claim to be science was implicit in its self-description as a ‘theory’. In the parlance of science, a ‘theory’ is not just a casual guess, but a well-established understanding that accords with the present evidence and reliably explains or predicts features of the natural world. On the other hand, IDers regularly referred to evolution as’ just a theory’, appealing to the ordinary-language sense of theory as meaning a mere guess: in this way, you might have a theory about why your friend acted the way she did last Thursday; or you might even sarcastically deride another friend’s opinion by saying ‘That’s just your theory’.

Perhaps the most insidious and pervasive aspect of the entire Intelligent Design argument and those who peddle it, is simply that their incessant and dishonest use of politically-framed language has – in the minds of many Americans – made a parody of science. In his essay, Politics and the English Language, the much celebrated author, George Orwell, states that “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink” (Orwell 116). The phrase ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ coupled with the subsequent and tireless political campaigning of its advocates has – in a manner of speaking – placed it on a political equal-footing with the Theory of Evolution. In addition, the utterly ridiculous and outrageous clamoring of “teach the controversy” has pervaded the American mind so much so that many people believe there’s actually a genuine controversy occurring – that somehow Intelligent Design is a viable and competing theory standing proud alongside Darwin’s great discovery. There is, of course, nothing that could be further from the truth.

This does, however, leave one begging the question as to why? How is it that so many people who claim to cherish Judeo-Christian values such as honesty, fairness and moderation will steep themselves in such blatant histrionics, obfuscation of truth and interference with factual investigation? One possible answer lies in the unsettling thought that when one creates the illusion in people’s minds that evolutionary biologists or “neo-Darwinists” – as the supporters of Intelligent Design like to call them – are little more than religious adherents to a natural religion themselves. This is most certainly a term which does nothing more than to stultify our tremendous gains in scientific knowledge, and it makes “straw men” of the countless hard-working scientists who’ve for centuries engaged in tireless and meticulous research.

But, as I noted, it also frames biology as a quasi-religion, and this is certainly something the purveyors of misinformation in the Intelligent Design camp know their adherents will comprehend. It works just as well in reverse, you see? So it goes: evolution is merely a theory, not unlike any other, hence it’s reasonable to conclude that evolution is just another competing belief system juxtaposed alongside and, at times, even opposed to the tenets of Christianity. Thus the term “Neo-Darwinists”, and when it is put this way, the terminology portrays him as some sort of divine being, and the rest of his disciples are merely “believers”. This conclusion may be tempting for the obtuse, but we must not forget the tremendous differentiation; evolution has an overwhelming amount of verifiable supporting physical evidence, Intelligent Design, as we have seen, does not.

I suspect, however, that the language and political bullying is the end result of what religion has always done best –the suppression of free-thinking individuals and the squelching of scientific inquiry. By way of example, it wasn’t until as recently as 1984 that the Italian astronomer and mathematician, Galileo Galilei, was pardoned by Pope John Paul II. In 1616 Galileo was brought before the Inquisition. His crimes you may be wondering? This ‘giant of history’ merely built a telescope and peered through its lens to discover a universe far richer and much more remarkable than the Church had ever or could ever have imagined.

Galileo revealed our galaxy in stunning detail, and made the simple observation that the planet Saturn had numerous satellites caught in its orbit. This, of course, strongly hinted at confirmation of Nikolai Kopernik’s heliocentric solar system. The problem for Galileo, however, was that during his lifetime the accepted dogma of the Church was centered on the concept of a geocentric solar system, or earth-centered. Once again, the prudent and assiduous mind of the scientist was correct. I wish to be counted among the many who have previously given their praise and thanks to the brave and conscientious men named Galileo and Copernicus, but this is to name but a few of history’s great minds. These men possessed the requisite courage to stand firm against ignorance and tyranny, but they also set the stage for human enlightenment and rapid scientific understanding.

In retrospect, when one peers through the lens of time one begins to understand both the tremendous and influential role the Church has played, but also sees its uninhibited cruelty and insatiable desire for control; especially the flow of knowledge and scientific education. One could point to a litany of the Church’s scientific errors, logical fallacies and its deplorable cruelty, and only then begin to hint at the lengths its purveyors have gone to maintain their influence. It is to this end – especially in light of modern scientific understanding – that those of us who value freedom and democracy must wholeheartedly and steadfastly reject spurious notions such as Intelligent Design.

As we have seen, Intelligent Design Theory has most assuredly failed to establish itself as credible science; it has neglected to provide any convincing and testable supporting evidence, and it has gone so far as to bully itself into the forefront of public consciousness. But those who see value in unfettered scientific pedagogy must stand firm against the teaching of religion and pseudoscience; especially within our public school systems. To do so would not only undermine the tremendous political experiment our founders laid down over 230 years ago, but also our future. Otherwise, if we allow such poppycock to be taught to our children, we will only see the continual and steady degradation of America’s scientific literacy, and, along with it, our standard of living and ability to compete within an ever-increasingly competitive global economy.

Is the riddle of God, Man, and World, then, so arcane? No! But no one wants to hear this; thus a secret it remains – Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Works Cited

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: Norton, 1996.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion: New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007.

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Ingersoll, Robert. What’s God Got to do With it?: Hanover: Steer Forth Press, 2005.

Orwell, George. Why I Write. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

Popkin, Richard and Stroll, Avrum. Philosophy Made Simple: New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian: New York: Touchstone, 1957.

Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark: New York: Ballantine, 1996.

Scully, Sean: ‘Breathtaking Inanity’: How Intelligent Design Flunked Its Test Case: New York: Time Magazine, 2005.

Staguhn, Gerhard. God’s Laughter: Man and His Cosmos: New York: Harper Collins, 1992.

An Angry Atheist Fights Back

An Angry Atheist Fights Back…

I’d like to illuminate something which is quite frustrating for people who aren’t Christian; there is a rather palpable double-standard which seems to exist in the minds of many Christians (for that matter, probably most religious people). As such, it’s been my experience that most Christians – which, by the way, they’re the majority in the United States – like to squeal the “intolerance” word anytime one of us “soulless atheists” dares to question even the smallest morsel of their precious ideology. Christians seem to have the mentality that their beliefs are somehow “out of bounds” or untouchable for the rest of us; that we’re offending if we even ask the slightest question regarding their religious dogma. As the author Sam Harris has always said, “Religion somehow gets a pass.” On the other hand, most Christians won’t hesitate for even a moment when making such insensitive proclamations as, “Morals come only from God,” and that, “It’s impossible for atheists to be ethical.” Of course this is complete and unqualified twaddle, yet the reality is quite likely in reverse. By way of example: Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Baker, Catholic Priests and the “Prince of Evil” himself, Jerry Falwell. Having said that and before anyone simply dismisses me as an angry atheist, let me elucidate a very significant point; I am an angry atheist! Why is it that practically one-third of the United State’s population is Christian yet they continuously get to whine and cry that they’re being discriminated against or harassed? Why is that a good number of Christians are the most insensitive and misinformed people I’ve ever had the misfortune of meeting? Why do most Christians lack even the most fundamental skills in the use of logic and reasoning? I have a theory; when one suffers from a dearth of factual knowledge, then it’s quite easy to absorb and believe non-factual information because one doesn’t have anything in which to compare it against.

So, in keeping with my role of “angry atheist,” I’d like to point out a couple more examples of infant-like reasoning that I’ve observed in the course of this thread. As Jim pointed out, this entire thread began as a result of the film, “Zeitgeist” and to some degree or other I’d like to remain on that track. Now, having read a book or two in my time, I’ve come to know a little about the origin of myth and myth’s twin brother, religion. As such, there’s little question that many of the so-called “facts” which were presented in “Zeitgeist” were either incorrect or bent to fit the producer’s outcome. One small example, the Egyptian god, Horus is not the sun god, that’s the role of Ra. Nonetheless, anyone who doubts that there hasn’t been cross-pollination and outright plagiarism amongst the world’s various religions must have been living in a vacuum. Although, I am generally opposed to conspiracy theories, in general – not merely for the sake of opposition itself, but because they’re usually not backed by any sufficient evidence, there were some compelling arguments nevertheless. This, however, doesn’t completely nullify many of the major points made in part one of “Zeitgeist.” Also, as I noted earlier, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with defending one’s position – as long as it is done according to the rules of logic and evidence. As such, I’d like to examine some very poor reasoning – which is usually indicative that a Christian is about – that I’ve observed in this particular thread.

In his or her zealous defense of Christianity, 123 made some rather appallingly deficient and banal remarks in regard to his or her attacks on this film. For example, “I’m a christian [sic] person and I can ensure everyone that they can’t prove anyone that god doesn’t exist by saying: People in the old days always said that the old scholars were wrong.” Ok, first of all, if 123 took time to examine the prose he or she used in this sentence then surely he or she would have recognized that it’s rife with syntactical and grammatical error. For me, this illustrates either a disordered mind and/or the inability to correctly synthesize his or her thoughts. That aside, how exactly is 123 going to prove what he or she has postulated? 123 is proposing that merely because – I am assuming that he or she is referring to the Atomists of ancient Greece – the “old scholars” were correct about the particulate nature of air, that, ergo, they’re correct about the nature of God. Not so fast, here! This is exactly the type of invalid reasoning which I quite often observe from the minds of Christian apologists, and this is exactly what I’d like to examine in a little more detail.

There is a chasm of difference between postulating that the air we breathe is composed of particulate matter, and that God exists. Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that merely because the “old scholars” were correct about air that they were correct about the nature of God. In fact, if it were expressed as an Aristotelian syllogism, this is how it’d look:

a. The “old scholars” postulated air consists of minute particles.

b. The “old scholars” were correct in this assertion.

c. The “old scholars” postulated that God exists.

d. God is like air, small and undetectable.

e. Ergo, because the “old scholars” were correct about the nature of air, they are correct about the nature of God.

As any moron with a half-gram of “gray matter” can easily understand, one conclusion does not follow from the other. Furthermore, there’s a chasm of difference between the assertion air is composed of particulate matter, and the postulate, God exists. Why? It’s simple, as the hypothesis air is composed of particulate matter is a scientifically-testable and verifiable question, the hypothesis that God exists, is not. God is not and has never been a scientifically-testable postulate, so these inane attempts from Christian “scientists” who use the principles of empiricism and the scientific method are, at best, laughable. The Catholic Biologist, Michael Behe, in his incorrect attempts to prove that the eye is “irreducibly complex” forgets one simple but obvious point. So what! Simply because an organ is complex doesn’t mean that it was designed by God, but this does prove to be an example of how many Christians with an agenda will bend facts to fit their theories. A true scientist would never dream of doing this. Furthermore, doesn’t the very fact that Christians are attempting to use empiricism to prove God’s existence go against one of the most important tenets of Christianity, that being the concept of faith?

Now let’s examine some of 123’s additional comments in a little more detail. In fact, this one is my favorite, “It’s the very same principle with God, we cannot see him but he does exist (that’s why no one can or has the right to point that God doesn’t exist).” Okay, let me get this straight, we can’t see God but we know he exists … how exactly? To know that something exists, we have to be able to detect it through our senses, if not, then, this is beyond the realm of science. Now, I suppose that 123 will direct me back to the notion of faith or some other extra-sensory ability, but having faith that something exists is entirely different from knowing something exists. Secondly, as yet, there’s not a stitch of evidence to support any claims regarding ESP. As such, this reasoning does not withstand the scrutiny imposed by reason and science. It’s likely that I’ll get some metaphysical notion “that we just feel God’s presence.” Really, what exactly does this feel like? I feel like a ham sandwich… More seriously, how can we reach the conclusion that God exists because I believe or feel that he exists? It’s simple, we can’t but all-too-often we fool ourselves into believing such nonsense. To 123’s last point: allow me to dispel the myth that a true atheist isn’t making the claim that God doesn’t exist, we’re refuting your claim that he does exist. As such, the burden of proof lies with the claimant (Christians). Take for example that I claim “Suzy” owes me one-million dollars. How do you think “Suzy” might reply to my claim? Exactly, she would demand proof, but what if I countered, “Prove that you don’t!” How do you think she could go about proving this negative claim, she couldn’t. So, it doesn’t work when Christians say, “Prove God doesn’t exist,” I don’t have to! Christians have to prove he does exist.

Now another fellow “blogger” had this to say, “This is precisely why I like to keep my opinoins [sic] to myself because I feel regardless of what we all believe, it is our right to believe just that and there is not [sic] point in arguing about it.” Aside from being a run-on sentence, is she suggesting that there isn’t any point in having open-discourse and debate about subjects which are important to us? I couldn’t disagree more, but I’d (with the help of the philosopher, Jamie Whyte) like to dispel another widely-accepted myth; that we have the “right to our opinion.” Before anyone jumps out of their seat, let me explain. Simply because someone holds such and such opinion doesn’t mean ipso facto that it’s correct, nor does it oblige me to agree with or accept it. Furthermore, most people use the “right to their opinion” statement preemptively. In his book, “Crimes Against Logic,” Jamie Whyte points out, “They [debaters] do so just at that point in an argument when they otherwise would be forced to admit error and change their position.” In fact, I find the tired statement that “I have a right to my opinion” is employed simply as an excuse. It’s either an admission that one can no longer adequately defend one’s position, or it’s from the mistaken belief that any one opinion is as good as another. However, based on the principles of empiricism and reason, we know that this simply isn’t the case. Some opinions are clearly and decisively much better than others. Which ones, you ask? Well, clearly it’s those opinions which have been reached after careful examination of available evidence and/or by using and adhering to the principles of reason. Otherwise, I can make anything up. For example, a purple genie dethroned God and is now in charge of the universe. Well, prove me wrong. As you can see, there isn’t any more evidence for God than there is for my purple genie.

I saved the very best for last. In fact, my fellow-blogger, Chris, possesses the reasoning skills of the average kindergartner. I quote, “Has anyone on this website “non believers” ever seek god with there WHOLE heart like he wants you to do????” First of all, one question mark is sufficient. Secondly, God would be capitalized (and I think he meant “their”), but why would I search for anything with an organ that doesn’t possess the capacity to do anything other than to pump blood? Honestly, is this the sort of drivel that now passes for reasoning? Does Chris really think that this inane and completely obtuse statement is going to convince a free-thinking human being to “seek” God? Seriously, however, we all know that it’s impossible for one to think with anything other than a brain, and if we’re willing to accept unsubstantiated and nonsensical claims (like Chris’), then this is likely tells us something about the condition of our brain; or at least our education. What Chris is really saying is this: put aside your logic, forget empirical evidence and just go with it. Poppycock, what a cowardly and dishonest perspective! Why would any person want to be a part of something that lacks any substantial foundation or basis? Why is it so difficult to accept that this is likely it, and that we’re pretty much worm-food after we’ve died? I’ll bet dimes to doughnuts that I’m fairly delicious, and, look on the bright side; I’ll make a lot of worms very happy. That aside, most human beings are very self-centered and selfish, so they can’t imagine not existing at some point, and this is the gist of it all, isn’t it? There’s a great quote from a book called ,”God’s Laughter,” and in it there’s a quote which pertains to the myth regarding Einstein’s supposed conversion to Christianity which I’d like to leave everyone with:

God is, for Einstein, incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. This personal God may be a spiritual comfort for simple souls because one can approach Him, the omnipotent, protective, rewarding, punishing, superior Father, with all one’s worries, wishes, and need for consolation. But nobody who has gained insight into the general structure of nature can consider seriously a humanized Heavenly Father to whom man addresses only his egotistical yearnings – of which the desire for eternal salvation is, in fact, the most selfish (Gerhard Staguhn).

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!