I Live My Life As if Bigfoot Does Not Exist

Do Bigfoot creatures exist? I don't know, but it strikes me as quite unlikely. It would be cool if they did, but that isn't an adequate basis for believing that they do. And yet, it would not occur to me to claim that I know they don't exist. How could I know that? I could devote my entire life to searching for them and never find one. Even that wouldn't mean that they couldn't exist somewhere. And while I can't be sure that they don't exist, I do view this as the most likely scenario. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet against them being real.

Where does this leave me? It leaves me living my life as if Bigfoot creatures probably don't exist. I do not spend my time and resources searching for them. This does not detract from my enjoyment of a good hike in the woods. And when I'm out there, it doesn't make me oblivious to my surroundings. If I hear a strange noise coming from a different direction than where I'm heading, I may still turn my head. But when I do, I'm not expecting to see a Bigfoot.

When Does the Irrational Belief Become Harmful?

Suppose we have two worlds. World A and B are identical in every way but one. In World B, there is evidence that haunted houses are real. What kind of evidence, you ask? That's a good question! The evidence of haunted houses in World B is such that satisfies most reasonable people. And yes, this includes most scientists. It is possible to find people in World B who doubt the existence of haunted houses. They would be like fringe conspiracy theorists in our world.

If you were to ask most people in World B whether they believe in haunted houses, this would confuse them. From their perspective, belief would be irrelevant. With the kind of evidence available, it wouldn't matter. It would be like asking you if you believed in apples. Wouldn't that be a strange question? You don't believe in apples; you know they are real. 

Some Questions About Aliens Are More Relevant Than Others

Does alien life exist somewhere in the universe? Could be. I have no idea. And to be honest, I don't find this question to be all that interesting. Why? "Alien life" could refer to little more than single-cell organisms on a remote planet. Does sentient life exist somewhere in the universe? That is a more interesting question, but it still only takes us so far. The answer to this question might have little relevance to us.

What we'd like to know is whether sentient alien life has visited our planet from theirs. Has this happened during our lifetimes? If so, does our government know about it and are hiding it from us? Are aliens still visiting? Are any of the abduction stories accurate? If aliens have not visited, are they likely to do so in our lifetimes? These questions seem far more relevant.

Belief in Gods and Other Religious Concepts Has Declined Since 2001

There's a bit of good news to report from a recent Gallup poll. Their strange title gives most of it away: Belief in Five Spiritual Entities Edges Down to New Lows. But what are the five entities?

1. "God" (I'm unsure which one this is supposed to refer to)
2. Angels
3. Heaven (how is this an entity?)
4. Hell (again, how is this an entity?)
5. The Devil

It should not surprise (but may disappoint) you that 74% of their respondents profess belief in some sort of god. Sadly, the United States continues to be an outlier here. Still, this number has dropped quite a bit since 2001. And while only 12% of those surveyed say they don't believe in gods, that number has increased.

Cursed, Possessed, or Haunted: Can Inanimate Objects Be Evil?

Can an inanimate object be evil? A person can be evil. They can behave in ways most of us would label as evil. But what about an inanimate object that has never and will never live? Can that be evil too?

When I was a believing Christian, I would have said "yes." I don't remember anybody telling me that some inanimate objects were evil. I do recall plenty of people acting as if some were. Heavy metal records and Ouija boards were two popular examples. Many Christians seemed to fear these and other objects. Messing with them could lead to demonic possession or worse.

What Does It Mean to Believe in the Paranormal?

"Don't you believe in the paranormal?" The look on her face suggested that she wanted an affirmative response. She wanted me to say that I believed. As tempting as it was to give her what she was seeking, I opted to be honest. Will I ever learn?

I don't know. That depends on what you mean by "the paranormal." That phrase is so broad I don't know what you mean by it. It is almost like asking someone if they agree with politics. What politics? What specific claims made by politicians?

People Still Believe in Psychic Powers Despite the Evidence

As a child, I found myself fascinated with the topic of psychic phenomena. The sort of fortune-teller psychics many people pay to visit today held no interest. My focus was on things like telepathy, telekinesis, and remote viewing. I spent countless hours in our local public library researching the topic. I didn't realize it at the time, but this would be an important introduction to science.

I hoped psychic powers were real, but I didn't assume they were real. I wasn't sure. My goal was to find out whether there was any truth to the claims. What I found in the library helped me achieve this goal.

An Important Part of Freethought: Asking Why

Photo by Ann H from Pexels

For those who value freedom, I can't think of a better question than "why?" Why should I do that? Why should I take your word for it? Why should I believe what you believe, especially when you've offered no evidence to support what you believe? Skepticism and freethought converge at "why?"

I had a bit of a rebellious streak in my youth. I've never been one to go along to get along. I'm sure there were times when I adopted an unpopular position in opposition to authority. I doubt it was a coincidence that I became more outspoken about my atheism while attending a Christian college. If others were going to tell me about their religious beliefs, it seemed fair that I could comment on them.

Belief in Miracles Provides Shaky Foundation for Faith

Image by Mai-Linh Doan via Wikipedia

If there was unambiguous evidence to support the existence of gods, religious believers would have little need for faith or so-called miracles. If gods were in the business of revealing themselves to humanity, which we have to assume they could do if they so desired, worship would look very different than it does today. In place of faith, we might have only the feelings of awe, devotion, and respect with which we are all familiar. While it is conceivable that some would choose to oppose these gods, they would do so with awareness of the risk their actions involved.

I have described a set of circumstances very different from those in which we now find ourselves. There is no evidence for the existence of any gods. This leads religious believers to the refuge of faith, a refuge they have managed to mold into a virtue. And one of the beams supporting the structure of their faith is they belief in miracles.

The Day a Former President Visited Your Home

You are home from work and unwinding in front of the TV, knocking back awful-tasting Budweiser like a "real American." A knock on the door interrupts you. You aren't expecting anybody and are the only one home yet. At least whoever it is didn't knock when you were in the middle of dinner. You open the door and feel your jaw drop open in shock at what you see before you. Former President Obama is standing on your porch, flanked by two Secret Service agents. Over his shoulder, you see a couple of vehicles that appear to contain even more well-armed agents.

"I'm sorry to bother you, but I wanted to be sure to catch you before dinner," he says. "I'll get what I'm here for and be out of your way." Now aware of the dumbfounded expression on your face, you stammer, "What are you here for?" The former president flashes the smile you remember and exclaims, "I'm here for your guns, of course!" Now you struggle to get the words out, "But...but..." He interrupts, "How long did you think it would take me to visit every home in America to take your guns away? I'm not Santa Claus, you know!"

What Would Scientific Analysis of Holy Water Tell Us About Religious Belief?

It is difficult to imagine many substances that play a more important role in sustaining life than water. We need quite a lot of it to survive, and the same is true for most of what we eat. We recognize that not all water is the same. Some is safe to drink, some may be fine for bathing but would not be safe to drink, and some requires treatment before we would want to use it for much of anything. Even though we can no longer count on the availability of safe drinking water in some parts of the United States, most of us believe that this is something we should be able to count on.

I think we are all aware that water can be tested and analyzed. Anyone who has ever owned a swimming pool, hot tub, or fish tank has likely tested the pH balance of their water. This is a very rudimentary sort of analysis, but it is still quite useful. I recall receiving the gift of a microscope as a child and being fascinated by examining samples of pond water I collected. Once again, this was a very primitive sort of analysis conducted by someone who had little idea what he was looking for. When we think about the more complex analyses, we imagine scientists in labs doing important things like analyzing water samples for pollution or even assessing the safety of our drinking water. Most of us value this work and the expertise of those who do it. We recognize that our health often depends on it.

In this post, I'd like us to consider the topic of so-called holy water. I'd like us to ask ourselves whether it would be distinguishable from regular water if subjected to the most rigorous scientific analyses that might be performed on water samples. And finally, I'd like us to ask ourselves what this might mean for a variety of religious claims and those who believe them.

Suggestibility in Religious Belief: They Believe What They Were Told

For the purpose of this post, let's assume that university researchers with a bit of grant money to cover their expenses were to conduct an experiment to examine the role of suggestibility in what people believe. There is a large lake in the area surrounded by woods, and three well-developed camp facilities spread around the lake. The researchers post ads for a week-long summer camp for middle-school aged boys and randomly assign those who respond to one of three camps (the camps are far enough apart from each other than it would be difficult for the boys in one camp to reach one of the others without being detected).

The variable of interest (i.e., the dependent variable) is what the boys will report having observed, if anything, at the end of their stay. The experimental variable the researchers are manipulating (i.e., the independent variable) is a fun one. The boys in camps A and B are told credible (but fabricated) stories of a large creature inhabiting the woods and shown artists' sketches of what the creature looks like. They are told that the creature has been here for some time and that many have observed it. The descriptions of the creature and the corresponding sketches vary greatly between camps A and B. Neither creature resembles any popular creature depictions (e.g., Bigfoot) so that both are unique. For our purposes, the key thing to remember is that the descriptions are different enough that one creature could not possibly be confused with the other. As for camp C, they are told no stories and shown no sketches. The boys at camp C are what researchers would call a control group.

How Can Evidence Matter So Much to Some and So Little to Others?

When you ask atheists why they do not believe in gods, you hear different answers. Still, I think that most atheists will eventually say something about the lack of evidence for the existence of gods. Evidence is important to many atheists, as it should be. But there is a problem when we claim that there is insufficient evidence for gods (or no evidence whatsoever) and expect this to be persuasive to religious believers. Statements like this are bound to puzzle religious believers because they see evidence of their preferred gods everywhere, though I can't help but find it interesting that they never see evidence for any of the other gods people have worshipped. Why, it is almost as if they are afflicted with confirmation bias!

New Age Beliefs Among Atheists: Religion Is Just One Of the Hydra's Heads

I suspect that most of you are aware that many people believe in things like Tarot cards, astrology, crystals, psychics, homeopathy, the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects, reincarnation, etc. You are probably also aware that many nonreligious people believe these things too. Is "New Age beliefs" the best way to collectively refer to these things? Should they be separated out from more traditional religious beliefs like faith healing, demonic possession and exorcism, the power of prayer, heaven and hell, etc.? I mean, there's no more evidence to support any of the New Age beliefs than there is to support the old school religious beliefs. Do we have a label that encompasses both? "Woo" comes to mind as a candidate that could include both (and more), but I am having trouble coming up with another.

I've never been a fan of the commonly heard argument that humans need to believe things that aren't true. Of course, the evidence that many atheists believe in ghosts or hold various New Age beliefs does seem consistent with such a claim. I've known atheists who are quick to explain that they do not believe in gods due to the lack of evidence for their existence but do believe in other forms of woo. The lack of evidence there either doesn't bother them or they've managed to persuade themselves that there really is evidence to support this stuff. In that way, they don't see any inconsistency. There is no evidence for gods, but there is evidence for astrology, etc.

Sasquatch Skepticism: The Atheist Revolution Bigfoot Collection

You might not know it by looking at me, but I am obsessed with Bigfoot. There, I said it. Upon hearing such an odd confession, you might conclude that I believe Bigfoot creatures are real. You would be wrong to do so, however. I do not believe Bigfoot creatures are real in much the same way I do not believe that gods are real (see Why I Am an Atheist). When I say I am obsessed with Bigfoot, I mean that I find the topic of Bigfoot fascinating and cannot seem to get enough of it.

Desperately Repackaging Failed Theories to Justify Bigfoot and Gods

In the context of politics and the news media, you are undoubtedly familiar with the concept of a "trial balloon." The politician releases a statement to test public reactions to an idea. If the reactions are sufficiently negative, we never hear about the idea again (at least not until the politician is elected). If the reactions are sufficiently positive, the idea likely comes back as something the politician actively promotes. Something similar happens among bloggers. In fact, my own use of Twitter sometimes reminds me of this. I might tweet a partly formed idea to see how others react. If it is received favorably, I might write a post about it. If it falls flat, I might be less inclined to do so.

While flipping channels recently, I came across a bizarre example of something I really hope was a trial balloon but probably wasn't. Here's the short version:

Bigfoot creatures are living all over the U.S., and our government has known about this for some time. Since we haven't been able to obtain conclusive proof of their existence in the way that would satisfy the skeptics, this may be because they are supernatural creatures or extra-terrestrial beings. But since we realize many people may not be ready to consider these possibilities, we will promote an equally absurd theory masked in the sort of pseudoscience that would make Deepak Chopra proud: Bigfoot creatures are so good at hiding because they have mastered quantum mechanics to gain the power of invisibility.

Personal Experience Myth: If You Haven't Done X, You Can't Talk About X

One of the most common challenges heard by members of the helping profession who treat people for substance-related problems is those who have not personally experienced these problems having nothing of value to offer.

Have you ever been an alcoholic? If not, you cannot understand what I am going through and will never be able to help me.

But is it really true that a well-trained helping professional is powerless to treat any problem they have not personally experienced? Of course not! While one's own experience with a problem may offer some benefits, most of these benefits would happen through the enhanced empathy a professional with similar experiences might have for their client. Fortunately, most helping professionals have developed effective empathy despite not having personally experienced every problem for which they provide treatment.

We Enjoy Horror Movies More Because of the Skeptic

If we were to watch a fictional depiction of a die-hard Bigfoot believer heading into the woods and running across something he interpreted as evidence of such a creature, we'd be unlikely to be very impressed. That is what we'd expect, and it doesn't involve any real suspense or surprises. Similarly, watching ghost hunters find something they interpret as evidence of paranormal activity only takes us so far. That's what they do, after all. What we need to make our fictional stories much more compelling is a skeptic. Specifically, we need to see a skeptic changing their mind.

When it comes to horror movies, I think it is pretty clear that the skeptic plays an essential role. There's a good reason why we see skeptics in so many horror flicks: they make the story far more interesting than it would otherwise be. It is one thing for someone who is already predisposed to believe certain things to encounter something that confirms their beliefs; it is entirely different when someone who is thoroughly skeptical in the beginning encounters something powerful enough to change their mind. Horror writers recognize this, and that's why horror appears to be the one genre of film that goes out of its way to feature skeptics.

Do Gods, Aliens, and Assorted Woo Serve Similar Functions?

Suppose there really is intelligent alien life out there in the vast universe somewhere. The possibility doesn't seem that far-fetched. Perhaps there are even a few alien species sufficiently advanced that they are capable of traveling through space. It seems fair to describe a species that advanced as being intelligent in ways we can only imagine. They would have to be so far beyond us that I can't help wondering why they would ever mess with Earth.

The people claim to have been abducted (and probed) by aliens are routinely characterized as gullible, suggestible, and insufficiently skeptical. I wonder if "narcissistic" shouldn't be added to the list of adjectives. What makes them think they are so special that alien visitors would come all the way here to insert things into their bodies? Wouldn't an alien species capable of getting here have better things to do? Would such a species be able to tell from afar that we weren't worth their time?

What Can Bigfoot Apologetics Teach Us About Religious Belief?

It is important to recognize that someone can be interested in a subject without believing the central theory (or even any of the theories) involved in that subject. For example, plenty of atheists are interested in various religions as an object of study and not because they believe in gods. Many different mythologies, including both religious and secular forms, are interesting. Being interested in one or more of them does not require one to believe in anything they suggest. I am a good example of this because I find Bigfoot mythology to be fascinating even though I do not believe the Bigfoot mythology. As cool as I think it would be to discover that Bigfoot creatures exist, I recognize that being cool isn't evidence of anything.

I have written previously about some of the Bigfoot-related TV shows I have seen and how they seem to keep upping the ante to suggest stranger theories. It hit me the other night while watching another one that this is little more than Bigfoot apologetics. If Bigfoot creatures are real, a whole lot of things should be true that aren't true. For example, we should have found a dead one by now. One could easily build a long list of other things that should have happened that haven't. But since the Bigfoot believers are determined to continue believing in spite of the lack of evidence, they need to explain away the lack of evidence. Over time, this has led to increasingly bizarre theories.