Atheist Revolution

Absence of Reason in the U.S. Health Care Debate

2009-10-12T05:33:00.002-05:00

Image by jonathantellerelsberg via Flickr

Reason appears to be largely absent from the current debate over health care reform in the U.S., and this is true for both sides: the far right and the center right. In this post, I want to briefly address what I see as the single most obvious sign of reason's absence. There are many others, but I am picking this one because it is so simple I would expect anyone to understand it. What I'm talking about is the chasm between public perceptions of the relative standing of U.S. health care quality and the well publicized facts about how health care in the U.S. compares to that of other nations.

This post was prompted by a simply poll I encountered on Facebook. The question was: "Do you think the United States has the best health care system in the world?" My initial reaction upon reading the question was that it didn't matter what I thought because the facts are quite clear.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. health care system ranks 37th out of 191 countries. (While we were #1 in responsiveness, our score suffered from our lack of universal health care. That is, we would have scored much higher if our health care system wasn't so damned expensive.).
Health care costs in the U.S. far exceed that of any other nation.
Using any of the common statistical indices of health (e.g., life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.), the U.S. falls well below other developed nations.

So, what exactly does it mean to say that we have the best health care system in the world? If one defines "best" as most expensive without regard to quality, then the U.S. would have the best health care system in the world. However, this is not how most of us would define it. By "best," we tend to be interested in outcomes. Here, it is quite clear that the U.S. ranks far lower than most developed countries.

The question of what one thinks about health care is still valid. Perhaps questions like this are intended as indirect measures of irrationality. What are we to make of those who answered "yes" to the Facebook poll? Some may not have taken the question seriously. Among those who did, those answering "yes" would have to be thoroughly misinformed, lying, or some combination of these possibilities.

The reasoned approach would reflect the data. Conclusions would be based on facts rather than opinions. When so much is at stake in this debate, it is sad that idiocy once again prevails.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Joe Wilson: Reality and Civility

2009-09-13T11:36:00.000-05:00

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

If you read yesterday's post about Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) being the idiot of the week, you may assume that I think he should apologize to his peers in Congress, something he is under tremendous pressure to do. However, you would be wrong. I do not believe Rep. Wilson should have to apologize to anyone unless he decides that he wants to do so. I also disagree with those on the left who seem determined to make Wilson's outburst about Obama's race, although I do acknowledge that it fits into the broader critique of Obama that does appear to be race-related.

In parsing Rep. Wilson's outburst and the varied reactions to it, I find two issues worth addressing: civility in political discourse and the interface of reality and politics. Aside from these two areas, I am content to ignore the entire spectacle.

Let's start with the easier of the two issues, the role of reality in politics. As I have argued previously, I believe that U.S. politics desperately needs a dose of reality. Political propaganda is absolutely toxic to democracy, and it should not be tolerated from either party. Rep. Wilson's mistake was that he accused the President of lying when he was not in fact lying. In other words, Wilson was wrong. Loudly and uncivilly wrong to be sure, but it is the wrong part that matters most.

I was disappointed by Obama's bluff that he will "call out" those who spread lies about whatever health care bill emerges from Congress. I do not believe this for a second. He's already shown me that he lacks even a basic willingness to stand for justice against those who tortured in our names. Until he rectifies this, I do not expect him to be a moral actor. But more to the point, the responsibility of calling out those who spread lies, misinformation, and other forms of propaganda is a responsibility we all share. I may not care whether Obama calls anyone out, but I care deeply whether the rest of us do so. When someone spews lies, including those cloaked in religious garb, they must be called out.

The second issue, that of civility in political discourse, is admittedly more complex. The argument from free speech has great appeal even if it seems somewhat naive. Let Rep. Wilson say what he wants, and let his critics respond as they wish. Out of the debate, truth will emerge. The slippery slope claim also holds appeal. By allowing our political discourse to become decreasingly civil, are we not opening the door to the end of meaningful debate? Imagine that what began at the Palin rallies and has now devolved into teabagging, "birthers", and "deathers" continues unabated. Should this continue to bleed into Congress, it is difficult to imagine our fragile democracy surviving.

Of course, the counterarguments are compelling too. Perhaps if we had seen more incivility during the Bush years, we wouldn't be in the mess in which we now find ourselves. Perhaps if the Democratic Party had grown a pair during this time, they'd now be able to lead competently! And doesn't all this whining about incivility make us sound like a bunch of...(gasp)...Christians?

Yeah, I can see both sides of this one quite clearly. So, how to I come down? In the particular case of Rep. Wilson, I am not bothered by the incivility he demonstrated during his outburst. On the other hand, I think we should all ask ourselves about the purpose of political discourse and debate. If we believe that it functions to move us closer to the truth, then I think it is appropriate to expect at least a minimal level of civility. If, however, we no longer care about approaching the truth - if we care more for being heard without regard to how wrong what we have to say might be, then it is indeed bedtime for democracy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

When Our Feelings Mislead Us

2009-08-28T06:57:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Have you ever felt very strongly about something, acted on your feelings, and then turned out to be completely wrong? Yeah, me too. Whether it was that relationship you stayed in longer than you should have out of love or the gadget you bought because it seemed so exciting at the time, I think we can all relate to this experience. Clearly, our feelings, beliefs, and the like can (and often do) lead us astray. Most of us know this and try to take various precautions. For example, one of the things I've learned to do to prevent impulse buys is to force myself to wait a week before buying a big ticket item. But what about those who are not able to distinguish between their feelings and reality?

In a recent post at Cubik's Rube, we encounter those objecting to an atheist ad that reads simply, "You can be good without God." It is easy to imagine that many religious people would disagree with such a statement. It is equally easy to imagine that some opponents of free expression might oppose the right of an atheist group to publicly display such a message. What is not at all easy to understand are those who insist that such a message is offensive.

And yet, we will find the answer to this puzzle in their inability to distinguish feelings from reality. Confronted with such a ad, some Christians claim,

I feel it’s an outright attack on Christianity.

Okay. One can certainly feel this way, but that does not make it so. Here's the thing, religious people, feeling a certain way or believing something does not make it true, real, or accurate. Just as belief does not equal truth, feelings do not equal truth.

The statement above indicates only that the speaker feels a certain way. It has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of what the message of the billboard does or does not contain. If you choose to interpret billboard as an attack on Christianity, you may certainly do so. But your doing so does not change what the billboard actually says; it merely reveals something about you.

I feel like the language of it is inflammatory.

Yes, I believe you when you say that you feel this way. But the fact that you feel this way does not mean that the language is in fact inflammatory. It merely means that you are interpreting it this way.

Most educated adults understand how this works, and this includes most religious adults. Unfortunately, many of them seem all too willing to forget or willfully disregard it in matters of their preferred religion.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Skepticism Can Save You Money

2009-05-16T14:37:00.000-05:00

Image by onebutan-iphone via Flickr

Most parents, including even the most devout Christian parents, teach their children at least one important and accurate lesson about skepticism: Do not believe everything you see on TV. Imagine a child watching a commercial and then asking the parent for the item in the commercial. The parent has a friend who recently bought one for his or her child and reported that the product did not perform as advertised and broke way too soon. The parent is not about to waste money on something he or she believes to be such a poor product, and so he or she explains this to the child. "I know it looks cool in the ad, but it doesn't really do that and brakes easily." In other words, it is important to be skeptical of claims made by those selling something.

Unfortunately, this lesson is not learned well, or at least not retained, by everyone. How many of you have found yourself tempted to by a ShamWow (and not just because their prostitute assaulting spokesman is fighting Scientology)? If you count yourself among those who have been tempted, check out this video posted by Stupid Evil Bastard.

Knowing something about Consumer Reports, how they work, and how they are not ad-supported, I have to say that I am far less likely to ever purchase a ShamWow after seeing this video. How about you?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Skeptical Attitude in Atheism

2009-03-17T06:39:00.000-05:00

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

This is the second post in a multi-part series. The first part was "The Skeptical Attitude in Science." If I was pushed to give only one reason why I am an atheist, the reason I would give would indeed reflect the skeptical attitude: There is insufficient evidence to support the theistic claim that god(s) exist. Believing such an extraordinary claim without sufficient evidence would be undeniably irrational. Thus, reasoned skepticism leads - at least in my case - to atheism.

As we saw in the first post, not all scientists are atheists. Some utilize compartmentalization so as not to apply skepticism to matters of religion. Others are willing to set aside their scientific training completely by doing something scientists are taught never to do. They begin by accepting the conclusion that god(s) must exist and then work backward to piece their case together. Of course, it would be erroneous to consider such a process scientific at all. Such an individual is no longer engaged in science but apologetics.

For the scientist and non-scientist alike, I believe that one who applies the skeptical attitude to matters of religion will likely end up arriving at the atheist position (i.e., no longer accepting the theistic belief claim). For atheists, there is no reason not to apply the skeptical attitude to matters of religion too. After all, it has proven so useful in every other application that it makes sense to evaluate religious claims in the same manner. The Christian bible claims that the earth is 6,000 years old. Science has conclusively proven otherwise. The biblical claim is rejected.

Please do not misunderstand what I referred to above as "the atheist position." Atheism is not a rejection of gods, a worldview of any sort, or a worship of science or humanity. It is nothing more than the realization that one does not accept the theistic claim that god(s) exist. That is all I mean here by "atheist position."

While atheism may be a logical result of applying the skeptical attitude to matters of religion, this by no means that atheists are necessarily willing to - or even particularly skilled at - applying skepticism in other spheres of life. Being an atheist may prevent one from being irrational in matters of religion, but it is certainly no assurance that one will not fall into irrationality in all sorts of other domains.

I have known more than a couple atheists who believed in ghosts at the same time they regarded theists as silly for believing in gods. I know atheists who buy all sorts of vitamin supplements making fantastic claims without a shred of support. I know atheists who routinely fail to critically evaluate claims made by their favorite Fox "News" personality. Skepticism may bring many to atheism, but atheism is certainly no guarantee of effective skepticism.

In the next post in this series, I will address some domains where the skeptical attitude is desperately needed but often overlooked.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Skeptical Attitude in Science

2009-03-11T05:26:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

An attitude of skepticism is essential to the scientific endeavor. In addition, most atheists will tell you that the skeptical attitude can and should be applied to religious belief. Simply put, skepticism allows us to guard against believing absurdities which, although they might make us feel better temporarily, tend to have negative effects on individuals and societies. Many religious believers effectively utilize skepticism in other spheres of their life; they just refuse to do so when it comes to their religion. We atheists know that this is a mistake, but we sometimes make the mistake of framing skepticism too narrowly, emphasizing its application to religious claims so much that we may miss other important applications. In this series, I plan to explore the skeptical attitude in science, atheism, and some other important spheres which tend to be neglected even by atheists.

Briefly, the skeptical attitude refers to the stance of withholding acceptance of various claims until one has evaluated the available evidence in support of such claims. The more stupendous the claim, the greater the necessary evidence must be. So when someone claims that Omega-3 fatty acids in the form of fish oil supplements increase good cholesterol, for example, we are intrigued but we do not accept the claim without good evidence.

The skeptical attitude pervades science and is applied to scientific claims as well. Scientists are are skeptical of their colleagues' claims and even their own research findings. This is the point of replication and convergence in science. Results must be obtained again and again before too much is made of them. Independent labs must obtain similar results, and differing methodologies must converge before even seemingly trivial findings are trusted. This is a big part of what scientists mean when they refer to science as a "self-correcting process."

Some scientists compartmentalize their skepticism deliberately. They view it as an important part of the scientific enterprise but do not allow it to impact other spheres of their lives, such as the religious sphere. The reasons for this decision are largely psychological, and I do not intend to address them here. My point is simply that such compartmentalization is possible and actually rather common.

Other scientists, and I am proud to count myself among them, see little point in such compartmentalization. We apply the skeptical attitude to most or all spheres of live. In short, we see no reason to grant religious claims an exemption from the requirement for evidence.

The next post in this series will focus on the skeptical attitude in atheism.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Friendly Atheist's Blankets of Christ Dilemma

2009-01-23T04:55:00.000-06:00

Image by vjack via FlickrFriendly Atheist is one of the many atheist blogs I read regularly. I have tons of respect for Hemant, even though I don't agree with everything he says. Hell, I probably enjoy reading his blog so much because I don't agree with everything he says! In a recent post, he asks an excellent and thought-provoking question for readers to ponder. I immediately realized that my response would be too long for a comment, so I'm responding in this post.

Framed as an ethical dilemma, Friendly Atheist presents us with the following:

Let’s say atheists begin a similar kind of store… called “Blankets of Christ” (or whatever). The blankets are blessed by ordained ministers (Humanist ones, of course, though we wouldn’t mention that) and sold for profit. Anyone who buys the blankets, thinking they are getting closer to God, are thrilled. They have no idea there’s nothing holy about them. Money begins to roll in.

But.

All profits are donated to a good charity.

Would you support the Blankets for Christ store?

Anything which qualifies as an ethical dilemma cannot have an easy answer, and I believe that there are indeed two valid but opposing responses to this question. On one hand, we might say "absolutely not" on the grounds that this would be untruthful, manipulative, or that it would perpetuate religious belief by reinforcing it (i.e., spreading the myth that objects which have been blessed are in any way different from those which have not). On the other hand, we might say "sure" on the grounds that money would be raised for a worthy charity, that Christians buy this sort of crap all the time anyway, etc.

Those who say "no" might regard those who say "yes" at dishonest. Those who say "yes" might consider those who say "no" naive. Both would have valid points, and I believe that this does indeed qualify as a dilemma.

In considering how I would respond, I'd try to boil the issue down to the core issue: how would I balance the benefit of supporting a worthy charity with the cost of feeding religious delusion. For me at least, this would be the critical test. I am not swayed by the arguments pertaining to honesty and manipulation because this is how all advertising works. That is, advertising is based on the goal of convincing people that they need something which they do not really need. On the other side, I am not particularly swayed by the argument that Christians already fall prey to this sort of thing. This seems like an argument that could be used to justify all manner of idiocy.

In order to resolve the dilemma, I would weigh the benefit to the charity with the cost of contributing to the religious delusion. Because I believe that the costs associated with contributing to religious delusion are quite high, I would lean in the direction of answering "no." However, I would recognize that such a response would become less likely as the benefit to the charity increased. I can imagine a threshold where the benefit to the charity could be so great that it would be worth answering "yes." And this is precisely what makes this such an intriguing question.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

On The Logical Impossibility Of God

2008-11-21T06:33:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaI was rereading a portion of George Smith's excellent Atheism: The case against God recently and found a part I'd like to summarize for the reader. It deals with a core aspect of what many atheists (this one included) believe, namely that the god of the major monotheistic religions is logically impossible.

In a nutshell, he suggests that "...the entire notion of a supernatural being is incomprehensible" because nothing can exist apart from that which exists naturally.

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific - but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities. A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature - which amounts to existing without any nature at all (p. 41).

The theist who is not ready to concede defeat has one obvious place of retreat. He or she will claim that his or her god is unknowable. Of course! Theists make this claim all the time. Their god is not merely unknown in the present time but unknowable in principle. The human mind simply cannot comprehend their god.

As Smith suggests, this shifts the discussion away from metaphysics and back to epistemology. However, before making this shift, it is important to understand that the theist is now admitting that his or her god (and any other supernatural entity) is beyond comprehension of the human mind. Is this really what theists believe? Perhaps it gets them around the many metaphysical problems with their god, but it may well come back to haunt them.

How might the concession that their god is unknowable haunt the theist? Consider the following dialogue which Smith provides:

Theist: "I believe in god."
Atheist: "What is 'god'?"
Theist: "I don't know."
Atheist: "But what is it that you believe in?"
Theist: "I don't know that either."

The hole into which the theist has dug himself/herself should now be apparent. The theistic belief claim (i.e., god exists) has been effectively neutered and is now thoroughly void of meaning.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Arguments For The Existence Of God

2008-11-14T05:36:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaSome religious believers have no problem whatsoever with admitting that there is no evidence to support their belief. They perceive their faith as virtuous and recognize that it is precisely the absence of evidence that permits faith in the first place. Other believers accept that evidence would strengthen their case dramatically and are not eager to appear irrational. Such believers are convinced, however, that there are solid arguments and compelling evidence for the existence of their god. They use reason and experience to make their case. Theirs is a case we should understand.

From what I have been able to gather, there are roughly six categories of arguments for the existence of the Christian-Jewish-Muslim god. They are as follows:

Ontology (denying god's existence is logically contradictory)
Cosmology (god as first-cause or "unmoved mover")
Design (god as designer)
Consciousness (the emergence of human consciousness requires a god)
Moral (god as required source of human morality)
Revelation (spiritual experience, revelation, and miracles show us that god exists)

Did I miss anything? If you think you have an argument - or have encountered an argument - for the existence of the Christian-Jewish-Muslim god that does not fit into any of these categories, please let me know.

In upcoming posts, I'd like to look at some of these arguments in greater detail and have some discussion around them. I bet we could even get some good cross-blog dialogue going. At this point, I just want to make sure I'm not leaving anything out.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Proof of Atheism

2008-09-24T05:27:00.001-05:00

Image by morgantj via Flickr Most atheists are well aware that the burden of proof on the god question rests with the theist. Still, I have seen more than a few atheists get sucked into the trap of a theist asking for proof of atheism. In this post, I will suggest that there are at least two reasons for not seriously entertaining requests for such proof.

Burden of Proof

Anyone who has taken even an introductory course in philosophy will tell you that the burden of proof always rests with the side making the claim. The theist claims that there is some sort of god; the atheist does not accept this claim. The burden of proof belongs to the theist. If you want us to believe that your god(s) exist, make your case.

Educated believers generally accept this burden but attempt to sidestep it through faith. Since they realize that there is insufficient evidence to support their god claim, they resort to faith. Some even try to turn faith (i.e., the acceptance of a claim without sufficient evidence) into a virtue.

Less educated believers may actually ask atheists to prove that no gods exist. In such cases, it may be necessary to teach them about the burden of proof and use examples with which they can relate. With patience, it is often possible to show them that their request was misplaced.

The Role of Proof in Evaluating Religious Claims

In addition to helping the theist understand their burden of proof, it is often helpful to consider that "proof" might not even be the correct standard here. I would argue that the problem with believing that some god(s) exists is not that the existence of such a being or beings cannot be proven; the problem is that there is insufficient evidence to justify the belief.

Not all atheists will agree with this, so let me be very clear about what I am saying here. I can accept the idea that someone could believe something without having absolute proof in the object of one's belief. As long as the evidence adequately justifies the claim, it need not rise to the level of total proof in all cases. Clearly, this means that the nature of the evidence needed will vary with the type of claim being made.

If I claim that I regularly walk to my mailbox to get the mail without wearing shoes, you may just take my word for it and require minimal evidence. On the other hand, you are right to ask for considerable evidence to support my claim that a supernatural being punishes sinners with hurricanes while rewarding homophobia with Republican votes.

The bottom line is that atheists need not entertain requests for proof of atheism from believers. It is they who have the burden of proof, and if not proof, then sufficient evidence to justify their claims. That they they have been unable to come close to meeting such a burden is all the "proof" atheism needs.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Promoting Reason and Critical Thinking

2008-09-04T05:23:00.000-05:00

It has been awhile since I posted the first plank of the emerging Atheist Revolution platform: ending anti-atheist bigotry. But this is something with which I want to take my time and devote some real thought, so I am okay with my slowness. What else do I really want to see bad enough that I am willing to work toward it? It is time to unveil the second part of the platform: promoting the application of reason and critical thinking. Admittedly, this is a big one with many components. I also happen to view it as an essential part of what I want to do here.

Reason, Critical Thinking, and Atheism

For many of us, atheism is the natural outcome of the application of reason to all spheres of one's life. Like many of you, I started by learning how to apply reason in very focused matters (e.g., certain academic courses that required it). I discovered the utility and even beauty in these methods. Eventually, I would apply them to matters of religion. Like most atheists, I found this to be an extremely revealing endeavor.

Not everyone who gains reasoning skills and critical thinking ability is going to end up as an atheist. You know what? I'm perfectly fine with this. Many believers maintain their religious faith by exempting certain spheres of their life or worldview from critical thought. While not ideal, this is far better than never acquiring these skills at all. I suppose what I am trying to say is that reasoning and critical thinking are valuable in their own right and not diminished if they do not lead to atheism in every case.

I think I would have more in common with a Christian capable of reasoned and critical analysis than an atheist who had never gained these abilities. Sure, it might bug me from time-to-time that the Christian was unwilling to shine the light of reason on his or her faith, but I believe I could tolerate this far easier than the atheist with poorly developed reasoning or critical thinking skills.

The Necessity of Reason and Critical Thinking in Politics

The application of reason and the ability to think critically are central to science and other academic pursuits but are also necessarily for the effective application of such fields through politics. This is why Sciencedebate 2008 is so important. We do not need to demand that our President is a scientist; we simply need one who is both able and willing to bring reason and critical thinking to bear in making decisions.

We have seen the dismal failure of "cowboy diplomacy" when leaders are praised for using gut feelings instead of reasoned analysis. We have learned that making decisions based on ideology can be dangerous when it leads one to ignore facts which are inconsistent with one's ideology. We have also seen again and again, that policies made without the benefit of science tend to waste tax dollars on ineffective and sometimes harmful programs (e.g., abstinence-only sex "education").

I am desperate to see reason return to politics. Just imagine what would happen if leaders made policy decisions on the basis of data rather than wanting to appear tough, a desire to pander to certain segments of voters, or other methods of political manipulation! And for the record, let me be clear that both political parties are guilty on these accounts.

What Can We Do?

I know this is not going to be easy, but we need to work on changing a culture which celebrates ignorance, acting on hunches, and intuition. Instead of debasing intellectuals to bring them down to our level, we need to aspire to raise ourselves to their level. By celebrating the C student, we may protect our self-esteem, but this comes at a price.

I am sure you will have many more ideas on how best to accomplish this, and I hope to develop more too. In the meantime, I'll offer the following thoughts for now:

Supporting secular public education is critical, for this is where our children are first exposed to reason and critical thinking.
As important as public education is, it will matter little if educational achievement continues to be undervalued. We must find creative ways to reward this type of accomplishment.
When the media presents anti-intellectualism uncritically, we must be there to label it what it is and calmly explain how this trend hurts all of us.
The politicians who wallow in anti-intellectualism and who disparage reason and critical thinking do so because we have allowed them to get away with it. It is time to send a clear and consistent message that we are not interested in being represented by the average students when the future of our nation is at stake.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

National Day of Reason May 1

2008-04-29T05:33:00.000-05:00

May 1, 2008, is the National Day of Reason. It is a good day for nonbelievers to celebrate our membership in the reality-based community. However, the day is really about reaching out to others through active involvement in one's community. That is, actually doing something to make a difference.

According to a press release from Atheist Alliance International:

The mission and purpose of the National Day of Reason is to inspire the secular community to be visible and actively involved in community projects. Atheists make a point of showing how only human endeavors can help improve the lives of fellow citizens, not only on the National Day of Reason but each and every day. Atheists' actions echo the 19th Century Great Agnostic, Robert Ingersoll, in his famous quote, "Hands that help are better than lips that pray."

To observe the National Day of Reason, the Atheist Alliance International will host blood drives in many communities. The Friendly Atheist also suggests that making a donation to one's favorite secular organization is a great way to observe the day. This will be particularly appealing for those of us who will be stuck at work all day.

Unlike the National Day of Prayer (or as I like to call it, "the National Day of Doing Nothing") which will be held the same day, volunteers for the National Day of Reason are not required to sign a faith statement certifying that they are extremists (see Friendly Atheist).

Tags: National Day of Reason, reason, prayer, National Day of Prayer, atheist, reality-based community, Atheist Alliance International, blood drive, secular, faith

Christians Rely on Ex Post Facto Arguments

2008-02-25T07:04:00.000-06:00

Nathan at Very Special Monkeys has an interesting post on the subject of "rational Christianity" and why it is inherently flawed. The crux of his argument centers on the nature of ex post facto discourse and how Christians are often guilty of using it to defend their beliefs. I thought this was worth highlighting here since it is likely to be a concept with which many people are unfamiliar.

Briefly, an ex post facto argument is a logically flawed claim in which claimant begins by assuming that an unsupported claim is true and then reasons backward from the claim in order to support it. Students of logic will immediately recognize the problems with such an approach. Instead of offering premises which lead to a conclusion, the ex post facto claim begins with the conclusion, assumes it to be true without having demonstrated it as such, and then attempts to manufacture support for the conclusion. The merit, falsifiability or, or veracity of the conclusion is never questioned.

When Christians attempt to use reason to support their claims, they do so in an ex post facto manner. They start by accepting the conclusion that their god exists and then try develop what appear to be reasoned arguments to support this conclusion. This violates the most rudimentary principles of logic, insuring that the result will be irrational. They are claiming to support the claim that their god exists, but this claim is never actually up for debate; it is the core presupposition from which the argument begins.

Another striking and extremely common example of ex post facto reasoning can be observed whenever a Christian commits a heinous criminal act (e.g., pastors molesting children). The unsupported conclusion is something like, "Christians don't do bad things." From this point, you hear them work backward to deny that the perpetrator was a "real Christian." What is never questioned is the claim that Christians don't do bad things.

As Nathan points out, ex post facto arguments should not be accepted. They are irrational on their face and should be identified as such. Beginning with the assumption that some god exists without first proving it is a logical fallacy.

Tags: reason, ex post facto, Christianity, religion, logic, belief, fallacy

No Ghosts, No Gods

2008-01-23T05:53:00.000-06:00

I wanted to try something different in the post, so I have constructed some dialogue between three people discussing the existence of ghosts. What follows is based on actual conversations I have had, however, I have taken some license with it by collapsing multiple conversations along these lines into a single one.

A: What about you? How many ghosts have you seen?
B: I've seen four ghosts in my lifetime, each at a different time and in a different place.
Z: None of us have ever seen a ghost because ghosts don't exist.

A: How do you know what we've seen? Were you there?
Z: I don't claim to know what you saw. I have no idea what you saw, but I know it wasn't a ghost because ghosts don't exist.

A: How do you know they don't exist? You said you've never seen one. We have, and we know what we saw?
Z: I can be fairly confident that they do not exist because there has never been a single instance where evidence of a so-called ghost has been confirmed to the degree necessary for such an unusual phenomenon, and...
A: But you can't prove they don't exist!
Z: Let me finish. I am saying that ghosts do not exist because there has never been a single case where sufficient evidence was presented to support the extraordinary claim that ghosts are real. No conclusive video evidence, no instances of multiple observations made by reliable sources of the same sighting at the same time, etc. What I am saying is that we need impressive evidence to verify such a claim, and we have none. I certainly believe that many people think they have seen ghosts, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that ghosts probably exist.

B: But like he said, you can't prove that ghosts don't exist.
Z: I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "proof" in this context. You could argue that I can't prove that monsters don't live under your bed, but we both know they don't. To verify a knowledge claim, we examine the evidence supporting such a claim. We expect to find evidence in proportion to the likelihood of the claim being true, so we might not require much evidence for a rather ordinary or trivial claim. But for something like a colony of monsters living under your bed, we would require considerable evidence.

A: But this is different. I have evidence that ghosts exists because I saw one.
Z: Again, I believe that you think you saw a ghost. You might have even seen something that was not purely a product of your own mind. However, this is not the sort of evidence we need to verify the claim that ghosts exist.

The situation with gods is not much different, but there is at least one important difference that must be acknowledged if we are talking about the Christian god. At no point did the conversation above veer into the notion that ghosts have logically contradictory characteristics. Any discussion of the god in which Christians claim to believe is likely to include this important topic. The absence of evidence to support the existence of this god is undeniably important but so is the logical incoherence entailed by several of the characteristics this god is supposed to have.

Tags: ghosts, god, religion, evidence, proof, knowledge, Christian

Suspending Disbelief

2007-10-16T05:42:00.000-05:00

I am a fan of horror films, especially those with ghosts and other supernatural forces. When I explain this to Christians, it is fairly common for me to get a reaction along the lines of, "But how can you enjoy such films if you don't believe in demons, devils, ghosts, etc.?" It is as if the believer thinks that I must watch the film criticizing every supernatural aspect. I suppose if I were to watch such films this way, it probably would limit my enjoyment of them. However, I have no trouble temporarily suspending disbelief for a good scare.

Atheists are perfectly capable of suspending disbelief in instances like this. I have little difficulty turning off the rational part of my mind to heighten my experience of watching a good horror film. It is not that different from turning off the lights beforehand.

Where atheists and believers part ways is that I reactivate that part of my mind after the movie is over and actually use it. In fairness to the believer, he or she does the same in most contexts save that of religion. The believer seems to engage religion as I might a horror film, with the rational part of the mind muted.

Christians are fond of claiming that they cannot understand how we atheists could possibly enjoy life. They perceive us as coldly intellectual, blind to their "truth" by our need for evidence, and incapable of experiencing awe in the face of beauty. They think that a world stripped of mystery through the application of science is somehow less inspiring. Such misconceptions are unfortunate, and I am saddened by the thought of anyone thinking that the experience of awe, inspiration, or joy has anything at all to do with nonexistent supernatural entities. We atheists embrace of reality over delusion and find that our appreciation for the beauty of nature is enhanced.

We are perfectly capable of suspending disbelief, but we recognize that doing so in real life (especially when faced with complex decisions) would be a mistake. When the movie is over, we return to reason. I can't help feeling sorry for the Christian who does not do this, preferring to dwell in a fantasy world where imaginary forces of good and evil are in constant battle.

Tags: belief, religion, horror, disbelief, Christianity, atheist, atheism, film

Belief Does Not Equal Truth!

2007-08-22T05:45:00.002-05:00

Image by foreverdigital via Flickr

While catching up on what is happening around the atheist blogosphere, I ran across a post at Religion *is* a Problem that absolutely requires a rant. In fact, I think I may have just identified my #1 pet peeve (at least for today) about religious believers.

The story, originally posted by Ocellated but unfortunately no longer available, concerns Bill Nye being booed by Christians for highlighting an incompatibility between reality and their bible. As quoted by Ocellated:

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

What? So science should not be discussed when it conflicts with your irrational beliefs? Really? Which bothers you more - that you were the last to learn that your bible is filled with claims which have been dispelled by science or that some uppity scientist had the nerve to say so?

Science has advanced considerably since your bible was written. If you've had even minimal education, I'd expect that you'd realize that none of the modern conveniences which you enjoy were around in biblical times. None of these things were possible with the level of ignorance that ruled that time. Does this mean you should give up your car, your refrigerator, and modern medical care for your children because these things are based on the same science that dispels much of your old book?

Would it disappoint you if one of your children grew up and discovered the cure for cancer? No? You realize that this would be accomplished by medical science and that medical science is built on the same foundational sciences which contradict much of your bible?

When you protest "We believe in a god" and then leave the room with your children, what are you hoping to accomplish? Do you want to make sure your children are deprived of a modern education so they'll grow up in ignorance like you? This sounds an awful lot like child abuse (or at least willful neglect) to me. Don't you want your children to be better off than you are? Don't you want them to know more about how the world works than you do or than the authors of your bible did?

As Religion *is* a Problem notes, this would be somewhat funny if it wasn't so terribly sad.

That people can still deny this easily understood and intuitive scientific fact by relying on their holy text should give us pause considering some of the other, less benign, things that are written in it. For instance, things about the roles of women, the value of certain races, and the end of the world.

Agreed, but I think the real kick in the nuts is the idea that the woman who said "We believe in a god" before leaving with her kids probably thinks that her theistic belief is equally valid as the scientific findings which apparently upset her. This is my main pet peeve - the confusion of personal belief with truth and the unfortunately common tendency to elevate personal beliefs to the level of empirical reality.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: Bill Nye, science, religion, ignorance, bible, Christianity, Christian, child abuse

What Politics Needs is a Healthy Dose of Reason

2007-06-30T06:29:00.000-05:00

Of all the comments I receive on this blog, the ones that distresses me the most are those in which the commenter reveals that he/she considers politics unimportant, chooses not to follow politics, or simply does not participate in the political process. As both an American and an atheist, I believe that I have a moral duty to be an active and informed participant in politics. As Al Gore argues in The Assault on Reason, the success of the American democracy depends on an informed electorate with an investment in the political process. I agree, and I have attempted to be an informed participant since my 18th birthday.

As an atheist, I believe that I have a responsibility to work toward preserving the separation of church and state that characterizes America's secular democracy. Since atheists happen to be a despised minority, I also think that it is critical to increase our voice throughout society and our visibility in the political arena. To conclude that politics is somehow unimportant or irrelevant represents an abrogation of these duties.

Naturally, the central question often revolves around what we can do to contribute to the political system besides the obvious but still often neglected act of casting our votes for candidates who support reality-based policies. One of the things that I have been doing with increasing frequency is communicating (letters, calls, e-mails) with my elected officials. I thank them when they support worthwhile causes, urge them to take action on important issues, and express disapproval when they put religion or some other nonsense above human welfare.

I have heard some complain that it is difficult to follow how their elected officials are actually voting, but this need not be the case. As Hemant reminds us at The Friendly Atheist, information about how your elected officials vote is readily available on the Internet and even organized for you by the Secular Coalition for America. Couldn't be much easier, could it?

Al Gore envisions a form of rational politics where the citizenry are invested and learn to hold politicians and the media accountable for their attempts to mislead us. I want this vision to become a reality. I want to be part of the solution.

Tags: Al Gore, The Assault on Reason, Secular Coalition for America, reason, politics, America, atheist, atheism, religion, democracy, Congress

Christians Are Not Stupid, But They Are Irrational

2007-06-01T08:10:00.000-05:00

I bookmarked a post at Debunking Christianity awhile back so that I would remember to comment on it. Amazing how time flies and I am only just now getting around to it. The post in question grabbed my attention from the title, "Christians Are Not Stupid or Irrational." Blogger Lee Randolph indicated that he wrote the post to show that the common claim that atheists view Christians as stupid and/or irrational is false.

In fairness to Mr. Randolph, his initial statement contains something of a disclaimer: "This is easily shown to be false, at least for the members of DC." What I mean by containing a disclaimer is that Randolph implicitly acknowledges that some atheists may view Christians as stupid and/or irrational but that members of his blog team do not. Fair enough.

Intelligence

Are there intelligent Christians out there? Absolutely. Setting aside the reality that there is no consensus on what intelligence means and how (or if) it can be measured, any reasonably accepted way of assessing intelligence will produce many intelligent Christians.

Is the belief that most Christians are stupid commonly held by atheists? I am not sure. I have not seen any data on this question. If we equate "stupid" with "less intelligent," then I would be surprised to find many atheists who would make such a claim. The relationship between education and theistic belief applies to group averages and not to individuals. I think most atheists understand this. That is, a correlation between level of education and theistic belief tells us nothing about the cognitive abilities of any particular theist.

Rationality

Where I depart in my thinking from Randolph is on the claim of irrationality. Christians are, by definition, irrational with regard to their religious beliefs. If faith is the basis for holding religious beliefs (and it almost certainly is), then the inherently irrational nature of faith applies to such beliefs. Randolph may be correct that atheists and theists accept different standards of evidence, but this does not mean that faith is in any way equal to reason as a method for assessing the veracity of knowledge claims.

Of course, it must be acknowledged that just because Christians are irrational with regard to their religious beliefs does not in any way imply that they are necessarily less rational than atheists in any other domain. This may seem like a minor point, but it is actually an important one. By dismissing Christians as completely irrational human beings, we are guilty of the same intolerance with which we accuse them. Their religious beliefs are irrational; nothing else about them need be.

What I am saying here is that the statement that Christians are irrational is accurate and that many atheists do in fact believe this. I do not agree that this is a myth. Note that many Christians also recognize that the basis of their religious beliefs (i.e., faith) is irrational. The difference is that they may see no problem with this irrationality.

Tags: religion, atheist, atheism, Christianity, Christian, belief, intelligence, faith, reason, rationality

Something From Nothing: Reason or Faith?

2007-05-14T15:54:00.000-05:00

Since moving to the new comment policy, I've been getting more e-mails from readers. Even though I am constantly behind in my e-mail correspondence and something is seriously wrong with my Outlook, this is probably a positive sign that the comment policy is having an impact. I received an e-mail recently from a Christian reader, and my initial hasty response was not satisfactory to the reader. I thought I'd elaborate here and invite your input as well.

At the end of a longer and impressively polite e-mail, a Christian reader sent the following question:

When it comes to creation, how is the belief that something came from nothing more logical than the idea that something came from something (or someone)?

For some reason, I misinterpreted this as the common challenge we atheists frequently hear from Christians. I responded as follows:

It appears that you are hinting at one form of the Cosmological Argument (i.e., the idea that there must be a first cause to explain how everything came into existence). There are many atheist responses to this ancient line of argument which can be found in any decent philosophy text. The brief version is that anyone making this argument gets stuck once they posit a god. If there must be a god because all entities require a first cause, then what caused god? I have never met an atheist who believed that something came from nothing. The common view tends to be that there has always been something (e.g., matter, energy, etc.). See also here.

The reader then politely pointed out that I had not really answered his question. He's right. I was so used to the standard question that I reflexively responded as if that had been his query. He clarified, and now I think I understand the question.

I suppose my question stems more from the reliance upon logic which I interpret from your writing. If it is illogical to believe in a god who has always existed, I suppose I’m confused why it’s more logical to believe in energy and matter that has always existed. In my mind, it seems that both are radical statements of faith, not science or logic.

If I am reading this correctly, the question is: How is it more logical/rational/scientific to believe that something (e.g., matter and energy) has always existed than it is to believe in a god that has always existed? I encourage my readers to take a stab at this one in the comments.

For me, the obvious starting point is to highlight the difference between natural and supernatural. Logic/reason/science deal with the natural world only. In fact, the very definition of supernatural is such that it precludes the application of logic/reason/science. Thus, the short answer to your question is that it is more logical/rational/scientific to believe that matter and energy have always existed than it is to believe in a god that has always existed because most conceptions of gods (including the Christian god) necessarily exclude logic/reason/science.

Although we could stop here and consider the matter resolved, I'll also encourage you to look at the world as it presently exists. It is more logical/rational/scientific to believe that matter and energy currently exist as compared with any sort of gods because their existence is empirically verifiable. That is, we have evidence that matter and energy currently exist. We have no evidence of any sort of supernatural entities, and this is precisely why religion is wedded to faith. As we go back in time just a few centuries, the situation does not change at all. We have ample evidence of the natural world and no evidence of the supernatural world. As we continue to go back in time, I see no reason to expect this situation to somehow reverse.

Lest I be accused of talking around what is most likely to central issue for you, let me be more direct. The origins of our universe remain mysterious. While science has made considerable progress in explaining how universes may come into being, it is unlikely that we will ever know with certainty exactly how our universe came into being. We weren't around to watch it happen. But to attempt to insert some sort of god into this equation has absolutely nothing to do with logic, reason, or science. It is the stuff of myth, an anthropomorphization of natural processes designed to fulfill our desires whatever the cost. And unfortunately, the cost has been tremendous.

For more on this topic, see:

Tags: religion, Christianity, philosophy, atheist, atheism, science, faith

Miracle Weight Loss or Absence of Critical Thinking?

2007-03-31T15:05:00.000-05:00

I found a fascinating example of how kind the media tends to be toward religious nonsense and suggest that this may be one of many factors which help keep people trapped in irrational belief. The content of this story, an obese pastor who found that the only way to lose weight was by changing his behavior, is only somewhat interesting. However, the way the account is infuriating to this atheist.

According to this story from The Beacon News, pastor Robby Dawkins lost 200 pounds. He once weighed 425 pounds, and "the faithful man of God who firmly believes he has witnessed numerous miracles could not understand why his own prayers for weight loss went unanswered." Indeed, how could his god fail to answer his prayers? Never mind the millions of prayers from starving children which go unanswered every day - this "man of God" takes priority!

But the good pastor seems to have come to his senses, at least partially. "I realized that God wasn't going to do it," Dawkins said. "This was a discipline issue that I needed to learn myself." Really? You mean he's just like everyone else? After spending his career claiming that prayer could heal and making absurd claims about how "Cancer and other diseases have disappeared because of faith in God," the pastor oriented himself to reality. He lost weight through the same combination of diet and exercise that physicians have been recommending to everyone else.

Just how does the article's author address the pastor's success through behavior change? "In a sense, Dawkins has experienced his own miracle." What? Weight loss through diet and exercise is miraculous? In what way? Just because something is difficult does not make doing it any sort of miracle. I see no evidence of supernatural intervention here.

Tags: atheism, atheist, religion, prayer, weight loss, miracle

There is a Reason Why Miracles Require Faith

2006-12-27T05:32:00.000-06:00

The title of this article in The Arizona Republic, "Belief in miracles is a matter of faith," is quite fitting. Common sense would lead one to believe that a miracle (i.e., an unambiguous violation of natural laws by a supernatural agent) would serve as evidence of supernatural activity which would bolster one's faith. Rabbi Bonnie Kopell believes that this is a mistake and that people should not view miracles as a test of supernatural power. She argues that it is inappropriate to lose faith in the absence of miracles adding, "The miracle is that more doesn't go wrong."

Just what is the relationship between miracles and faith? Faith appears to be a necessary condition of experiencing miracles. Rather than miracles providing evidence of faith, faith itself prompts one to interpret experiences as miraculous. Starts to sound an awful lot like people simply seeing what they want to see, doesn't it?

Sabahudin Ceman, imam for the Islamic Center of North Phoenix, says that persons of faith see miracles in tragedy as well as positive experiences. By his reasoning, one might perceive that one's survival of a tragedy that killed countless others was a miracle. What natural laws are violated here? Since when did luck or coincidence start to count as miraculous?

The problem is that theists tend to attribute any unexplained phenomena to their various gods. The inability of science to explain a given phenomenon in no way implies that anything miraculous has occurred. That electricity must have seemed miraculous at one point in time demonstrates this point rather clearly.

Curtis Dickman, a neurosurgeon with Barrow Neurological Institute, evidently believes in "divine guidance." The authors of this article appear to think that this is noteworthy, however, what is noteworthy is the pure idiocy with which he argues for his position. We are told that he believes in miracles. What is his evidence? "He has seen a boy whose head was nearly severed brought back to life. He has seen a sheriff's deputy shot in the head return from the brink of death." How do either of these incidents have anything to do with a supernatural entity suspending natural laws? These incidents are simply uncommon occurrences.

Suppose you win the lottery. Would that be a miracle? "Yes," answers the Christian a little too eagerly. Now suppose that a neighbor of yours you do not particularly like were to win the lottery instead of you. Would that be a miracle? You do realize that someone is going to win, right? So what does any of this have to do with miracles? Just because something is uncommon does not make it miraculous.

Fortunately, the atheist position is represented in this article too. "Spectacular claims require spectacular proof." Yep. To this effective statement, I would simply add what I have already said: simply because something is uncommon or cannot currently be explained does not make it a miracle.

Tags: atheist, religion, miracle, science, faith

Misplacing Faith

2006-09-13T05:33:00.000-05:00

Faith refers to a particular kind of belief in which the nature of the belief is such that it lacks evidence. To say that I have faith that my car will start tomorrow morning is misleading because I need no faith to hold such a belief. I have evidence to support such a prediction (i.e., considerable experience with my car starting previously). Similarly, if I tell you that the ball I am about to throw in the air will fall to the ground, you'd be correct to point out that this is not faith at all. Faith refers to a belief which is held in the absence of evidence.

Suppose I show you an ordinary coin and tell you that I have faith that I can flip this coin 20 consecutive times and that it will land on "heads" every single one of the 20 flips. If we assume that this is not a trick coin, we could say that my belief requires faith. When the first of my flips comes up "tails," it is clear that my claim is wrong. If I were to deny this reality and persist in my faith regarding coin flipping, you would rightly regard me as delusional.

Now consider religious faith. Most faith-based claims made by religion are those that by their very nature can never be empirically tested. They cannot be shown to be true or false. However, there are exceptions. Recall the "prophets" who said that the world would end at the start of 2000. When the world did not end as they predicted, many of their followers remained. But how is this different from my coin-flip example?

It is different because the bulk of religious faith is designed so that its claims can never be tested. As science has exposed the falsehood of many religious claims, believers have retreated into their shell of artificial reality and are far less likely to offer testable claims. Believers have decided that the continued existence of their beliefs is more important than having an accurate view of reality. Thus, they have erected a system in which it is almost impossible for them to discover that their faith has been misplaced all along.

Tags: faith, faith-based, religion, belief

No Thinking Allowed

2006-08-16T05:32:00.000-05:00

Ever have one of those days where you look at the news and feel like you are being bombarded by example after example of religiously-motivated stupidity? I'm having one of those days.

The Middle East is receiving great attention because of the violence and the important role of religion in this violence. However, we cannot restrict our focus on the harmful effects of religion only to the most extreme examples of violence. To do so would be misleading and would allow people to continue believing that their everyday religion causes no problems.

I just opened my RSS aggregator, and within 5 minutes, I was confronted with Christian extremists seeking to hide evidence of evolution, ignore medical evidence for the efficacy of emergency contraception, discriminate against non-Christians, ignore the U.S. Constitution on church-state matters, and the list could go on and on.

Sometimes it is difficult to imagine that this isn't simply a bad dream. I live in a country where an overwhelming majority of the people believe in the existence of something for which there is not a trace of evidence. In fact, those of us who employ reason and critical thinking in order to evaluate and select our beliefs are the most hated minority group! I live in a country where 1 in 3 people reject evolution. Never mind the scientific evidence. I live in a country where the President's policies are driven by a particularly scary brand of Christian extremism. He has been open about this all along and yet is allowed to remain in office.

As hard as it is, I know I have to remain optimistic that reason will triumph over faith. I know I must recognize that this will not happen by itself and that I must accept responsibility to help bring about this shift.

Tags: atheist, atheism, Christianity, Christian, Christian extremism, religion, politics, church and state, faith

On the Nature of Truth

2005-08-24T12:53:00.000-05:00

For most Christians, it appears that "truth" ultimately boils down to what they believe. They are confident in their beliefs because of what is written in their bible. They are confident that what is written in their bible is true because they believe it is the word of god. For these Christians, belief/faith is taken as evidence of truth.

There is one and only one truth - the one reflected in external, objective reality. Did Karl Rove leak information about a CIA operative to the press? There is only one correct answer, and the correct answer corresponds to what actually happened in order to be called true. The measure of truth is simply correspondence with objective reality (i.e., what actually happened). While there may be multiple interpretations of this truth, only one can be true. Similarly, it is meaningless to talk about subjective or experiential truths. If I ate cereal for breakfast yesterday but strongly believe that I ate eggs instead, I am mistaken. The truth is that I ate cereal, and no amount of belief that I ate eggs can change that. To say that my experiential truth of having eaten eggs is somehow valid is absurd. It may be relevant, but it cannot be called truth.

John never believed in ghosts until he encountered one during a stay at an old hotel. The visceral experience he had during this encounter has convinced him of the existence of a spirit world. "I know it is true because I experienced it for myself." This is the old truth-through-revelation claim that is central to religion. But John's experience does not determine what it true because reality is independent of John and the manner in which he interprets his experience. Maybe John is mentally ill. Maybe John was feverish, under tremendous stress, or simply mistaken. Can his experience be confirmed, verified, replicated, etc.? If not, this cannot be considered anything more than John's interpretation of an event.

Sarah believes that the bible is the literal word of god and should be read from this perspective. She believes that the world is approximately 6,000 years old because of what Genesis says. Moreover, she does not consider this to be a belief at all but pure truth. Volumes of scientific evidence have accumulated that paint a very different picture of the age of the earth. In fact, the scientific community has reached consensus about this. "They are wrong," Sarah insists. She knows "the truth," and her "truth" is not going to yield to contradictory evidence. Again, what Sarah calls truth is based on her belief system and has no correspondence to reality. The fact that she can find others who profess the same belief has no bearing on its veracity. Worse, her continued insistence that her belief is correct in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the very definition of delusion.

Tagged as: critical thinking

Pragmatism

2005-06-18T07:58:00.000-05:00

Although the philosophy of pragmatism is a bit more complicated than this, the stance of the pragmatic can be boiled down to: decisions or policies should be based on their likely outcomes.

Let's take the death penalty as an example. If we can set aside the morality/immorality for a second, does the death penalty deter crime? No. We have decades of solid research demonstrating that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent on crime. We keep it to provide the masses with retribution and so that conservative politicians can appear "tough on crime."

How about the abstinence approach to sex education peddled by Christian extremists? Again, the evidence is clear that this does not work. Why not abandon it? Because the Christians don't care whether it works or not as long as it fits with their shared delusion.

Another great example are the DARE programs that claim to deter teen drug use. They don't. Well designed studies have documented that these programs are ineffective. Again, they are kept for appearances.

What is wrong with people? Clearly, human nature is deeply flawed. Why is it not "common sense" to base decisions and public policy on demonstrable evidence of efficacy? I blame religion. It did not create this problem, but there can be no question that it maintains it.