A pause for explanation

I would like to offer a very public apology to my friends, especially Kevin. My questions and challenges are not meant to be personal, and I have not intended to embarrass anyone, least of all my friends. If my responses seemed off-putting or even hostile, I believe that to be a product of the privileged nature of the topic at hand, combined with my forceful way of discussing it.

Tracy’s plea to change the subject, even though I trust her, she’s said she trusts me, and I know her to be quite open to discussion on any other topic, shows how deeply embedded the taboo against challenging religious beliefs can run.

My original question was asked to illustrate a point, a point that Kevin was kind enough to help me elaborate (though not through any pre-arrangement between us, I have to state clearly).

Many people feel that God exists. This feeling is deemed off-limits from challenge or discussion (at least), or even elevated to a status equal to or greater than that of logic, rational thought or empirical evidence. I strongly disagree, and my reasons are many. I hope, with time, to elaborate on them. I intend to do so for as long as I live, and in as many ways and forums that I can reach, because it is a goal larger than myself in which I believe.

But people tend to take their feelings… um… personally, which explains why many find it difficult to accept the tentative and subjective nature of the contents of their head. Understandable, yes. But regrettable, as well.

But feelings, and the senses, can be wrong. Sometimes spectacularly so. If I may direct your attention to the simple observation of the solidity of the ground under your feet, and the equally obvious sight of the sun tracking across the sky, morning to night? And yet, the Earth, in fact, moves, rotating and twisting and flying in circles ’round the Sun. And the Earth’s movements are not a relative matter, but can be demonstrated, and predicted, through tools and ways of thought that are new to us (in geological terms).

Other examples are available in so many formats and places. But most of the time they’re presented as puzzles, mind-teasers, games, or entertainment. I guess people dismiss them as trivia to prevent them from acknowledging what is actually being revealed.

But they’re not just simple tricks.

Because our feelings are so easily fooled, we need ways to measure our intuitions and feelings and see if they produce an accurate model of the world in which we live. Those tools are logic, and rational thought, and the scientific method. Logic can be faulty and lead to false conclusions, true. But far less often than your senses, which are fooled myriad times a day. And logic can be corrected by the other, rational, tools.

Beliefs or “faith”, which has no foundation but itself, are incapable of correcting themselves. Someone with a strong “faith” and a somewhat working brain, can re-interpret any new evidence to support their “faith”. In just the blink of an eye, someone who wants to can see the glass as half-ful, or half-empty, and can cause all sorts of feelings to begin cascading in their brains and bodies, to give a simple example. Neither viewpoint changes the glass and the water, however. Reality is what it is.

Feelings and unfounded beliefs are nice, and all. Enjoy them, if it means savoring a delicious meal, or the warmth of friendship, or the beautiful colors of a sunset.

But don’t pollute those things by seeing things that aren’t there, like some imaginary intelligence that no one can see. And don’t pretend that the things you wish were there justify their own existence.

That’s dishonest.

In a slightly different vein

I present to you one of my intellectual heroes, Richard Dawkins, answering a question from a correspondent:

What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic? TONY REYNOLDS, By e-mail

It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What’s the difference?

I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference.

Feel free to click through for the other, equally direct and hopefully thought-provoking questions and answers.

Similarly, through that above-linked article I discovered Atheists for Jesus, which I find fascinating. Note for Tracy… while that site may seem funny to some, I’m still presenting it (semi-)seriously…

Oh, and I would definitely wear one of these t-shirts, though I could probably come up with a snazzier design and font… And would look sexier in it.

Sometimes

Happy Holidays! I’m listening to my cynical Xmas playlist today, and thought I’d do something I almost never do: post a video from YouTube.

Enjoy “Sometimes You Have To Work On Christmas (Sometimes)” from my favorite Seattle band, the awesome Harvey Danger!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdMAkdu1dxM]

Happy Festivus

The following post was written over two years ago. I didn’t post it right away, however. Couldn’t decide if I wanted to share it or not. But after a week of thinking about it, I realized that there really is no reason not to, as an early Christmas present to my co-conspirator. Enjoy.

She was early, but that was because she’d left her running clothes at her boyfriend’s that morning and had to buy new running clothes to go running with me (she claimed).

We were originally going to run in Forest Park, but she said she hadn’t brought her trail running shoes and didn’t want to get her regular running shoes muddy, so we knocked around some ideas and ended up (much to my surprise) deciding on a route in my neighborhood. I was cautious because it seemed so easy to talk her into it… but on a practical note it was fine with me, because then I would be close to home.

We ran, I kept the pace, had a good time, joking and talking the whole time. Got back to my apartment and I was starving, she agreed to get some dinner (she didn’t have the girls that night so didn’t have to hurry back home)… we walked to a place in my ‘hood (a really really good Italian place, in fact one of our first dates over a year ago), split a bottle of wine between the two of us.

Again, like I said before, it was almost BETTER than when we were first dating, before the bad times, before the multiple breakups, before the angry email exchanges… I wasn’t trying to flirt, I was just enjoying myself, and she seemed to, too. We laughed and had a great time, plus had our shared history, were comfortable with each other. I really am getting the best that she has to offer. At one point (later on), I even told her this; let her current boyfriend deal with the demands, the PMS, the fears… I’m happy with just this. Yeah, I’m weird.

So, after telling her about running on the beach, she mentioned that she’s never run on the beach, with the exception of the very end of the Hood-to-Coast. So I said, “Let’s go to the beach RIGHT NOW! You have a car, you don’t have the girls, Seaside is just over an hour away… what’s stopping us?” And beyond her two objections, one, that she had an 8:30 AM meeting the next morning (“We have plenty of time for you to make that!” I declared) and two, that she had to let Mojo (her dog) out… yeah, beyond that, she was up for the idea.

So, we did. By 10:15 PM, we were in Cannon Beach. We got a couple of cups of coffee, then took a six-pack of Fat Tire and a two-thirds full bottle of Sauza Commemorativo I’d brought along on to the beach, sat, and flirted a bit, and laughed, and got really drunk, and confessed that we’re still really attracted to each other, and I realized that no matter what, this night will join all my other really great memories.

She told me, just after I’d brought up the idea of going to the beach and just before she’d given in, “I don’t remember you being this impulsive.” To which I replied, “Yeah, I’ve changed a little… OK, maybe a lot.”

And the bestbestbest part is that I didn’t do anything I have to feel guilty about. Her… maybe a little guilt, but not anything major.

Belief without evidence must be questioned

If it’s OK to dismiss belief in the Easter Bunny as unserious…

…why is it not OK to dismiss belief in God?

Why is one of those considered a taboo to question, and the other is not?

There’s just as much, if not more, evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny than there is for God.

Why is it OK to teach children that it’s OK to believe in something without any evidence or even an unexplained effect… but only as it relates to Bronze Age beliefs?