Is Paranormal Investigation Scientific?

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "Is paranormal investigation scientific?". View this article, my other content, and please subscribe to my page!

New Widget: "Recommended Reading"

Some readers have asked me which books on the topics of religion, philosophy, and critical thinking that I would recommend to others, so I've added a widget on the right-hand side of my page. Enjoy.

Responding to "People will never change their minds"

I have commented on this topic in various posts here and there, but I do not believe that I've devoted an entire post to this topic. "People will never change their minds" is a phrase I hear quite often that might be the number one reason for apathy*, but this sentiment is profoundly mistaken. While it is the case that some people will not change positions, this is not the case for everyone. Even if it is the case, which it is not, that all people will never change positions on issues, this still does not take away the need for activism whether it be supporting and attending local atheist groups, having conversations with people, or whatever a person feels is important and effective.

Many people have had dramatic cognitive shifts from being an evangelical minister who traveled to countries in order to convert people to leaders of atheist organizations. While everyone may not necessarily make these cognitive shifts, this does not mean that being an 'activist atheist' is a waste of time. It is quite possible that the positions of many can be 'moderated' in a sense of literalistic young-earth creationism to something else such as a theistic evolutionist. Perhaps some may understand that some of their positions relating to their religious belief, such as abstinence-only education or opposition to homosexual rights, are faulty.

Much of the disappointment atheists might face stems from the fact that people will often not have an overnight cognitive shift or walk away from one conversation realizing that certain arguments are faulty. This, though, should not deter atheists. Many former religious believers, I would wager, would say that their 'de-conversion' was a slow and gradual process that stemmed from some challenges to their beliefs whether they be from their own reflections or from others.

Many religious people simply haven't heard and/or considered arguments against their positions. As an activist atheist, you're bound to meet many religious persons like this. For example, about a week ago, I met a theist who told me that not believing in God is worse than murder. After a conversation that followed this statement, the theist mentioned that she never heard or considered much of what I said and hopefully will think twice before uttering phrases that she never really considered, but rather are more of reflexes in what even some religious people would call an 'immature faith.'

Having discussions with theists about perhaps any matter, when the theist knows you are an atheist, can leave a positive impression and counter the myth of atheists being horrible people. If some theists resist talking to atheists because of a stereotype they have and later realize that their stereotype is false, they may be more open to considering what the atheist has to say about religion. Several former co-workers of mine admitted that they hated me because they knew I was an atheist, but after talking to me, their impression was falsified and they realized that I was a good person.

Discussion can plant the 'seeds of critical thinking' and challenge many of the assumptions theists have such as faith is an admirable thing, inability to disprove God means that belief is justified, since we can't know God exists it is better to believe just in case, etc. These common assumptions are horrendous arguments and some of the most common I hear from theists, but these points are non-starters that must be countered. If, after argumentation, these assumptions are questioned, they may not be used by theists anymore.

Being 'out there' gives available resources for theists to read just in case they actually want to consider objections to their beliefs. While a face-to-face conversation may be threatening or simply 'not for' someone, this same person can simply visit online websites and hopefully feel less threatened. I have met some theists who admitted that do not want to have face-to-face discussions because they feel that they do not have the expertise to do so, would get angry, etc. If face-to-face is out of the question, online resources are available.

The excuse of "people will never change their minds" is not a good one. While it may be the case that some people will never change a certain position, this does not justify inaction or entail that atheists' efforts are a waste of time. While a one-on-one discussion might not be very fruitful with some people, discussions with 'audiences' can be very productive and might 'do some good' for onlookers who have not considered some objections, heard some arguments, etc.

I'm not sure if atheists actually believe that either all people will never change their minds or debating religion is a waste of time. Perhaps this is an excuse that some people make for not debating religion or really doing anything. If debates 'aren't your thing,' this does not stop a person from supporting/attending local atheist organizations or posting online under a pseudonym. Coming out can tremendously help the 'atheist movement,' so those who are able to should do so. If some people can't (and I understand this), anonymous support is always welcome.

For more discussion on a related topic, please read Greta Christina's "Resistance is not Futile: Why Arguing Religion is Not a Waste of Time" outline.

* When I talk about apathy in this post, I'm talking about atheists who think that my work is a complete waste of time, there is no reason for activism because my efforts won't actually accomplish anything, etc. Atheists have told me that they aren't activists because they believe that people won't change their minds. I'm not talking about atheists who don't contribute a significant amount of time to 'the movement,' but still do something to help whether it be merely coming out, having conversations when they are called for, etc. Everyone can do his/her part in one way or another.

Do near-death experiences demonstrate God or an afterlife?

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "Do near-death experiences demonstrate God or an afterlife?". View this article, my other content, and please subscribe to my page!

NEPA Freethought Society challenges religious to formal debate

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "NEPA Freethought Society challenges religious to formal debate." View this article, my other content, and please subscribe to my page!

NEPA Freethought Society "Super Meetup" - August 27

The NEPA Freethought Society is hosting a spectacular meetup this month. All are welcome to attend provided that people don't come to preach, proselyte, or provoke. Non-members and religious persons are also welcome to attend. If you are not a member yet, this would be a great chance for you to learn what we are about, socialize, and have some fun.

We're going to have a very large all-you-can-eat dinner buffet, a PhD philosopher as a special guest speaker, and a movie showing at our next meetup on August 27 for the very low price of twelve dollars (or free for dues-paying members). Our special guest speaker will be giving a presentation titled "Why Arguments for God fail," will be answering questions, and will be joining us for the food and movie.

This meetup will be taking place at a private residence in Wilkes-Barre. Directions and a cell phone number will be provided after you sign up and will be e-mailed before the event.

The buffet includes baked chicken, shrimp scampi, meatball parm subs, pizza, cajun rice, corn on the cob, salad, hot rolls, desserts, beer, soda, and iced tea. Yum!

RSVPs close at 3:00PM on August 26. Hope to see you on August 27! At the time of posting this, twelve people are signed up to attend. If you are unable to attend this meeting for some reason, check out our calender on our meetup site for future meetups. We typically meet on the second Friday of every month at 7PM and the last Saturday at 3PM.

Silent Witness Peacekeepers Alliance: A response to anti-gay protesters

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Silent Witness Peacekeepers Alliance: A Response to anti-gay protesters." View the article and more on my page and please click the subscribe button on my page to get timely notifications!

Does prayer have science on its side?

I recently published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Does prayer have science on its side?" Enjoy the article, view others here, and please click to subscribe to my page.

Dealing with Anti-Gay Protesters at NEPA Pridefest

Image Credit: silentwitnesspa.org

This weekend, members of the NEPA Freethought Society, a local community group of non-theists, attended NEPA Pridefest in order to show solidarity with the gay community, have fun, socialize, and most importantly engage the anti-gay protesters who were bound to show their faces. Instead of ignoring the protesters, like others do at these events, I felt it necessary to engage the protesters in order to mainly distract them from interfering with the event and the event-goers and quiet their voices. I find the tactic of engagement far more beneficial than ignoring. Despite this, we worked alongside with and respected the authority of the Silent Witness Peacekeepers at the event who escorted people into the event, maintained peace, and did not engage with the protesters.

Before NEPA Pridefest, I discovered that many anti-gay protesters attend these events in order to provoke people and file lawsuits if someone was violent toward the protesters. Before Pridefest, I attended an express orientation given by the Peacekeepers in order to learn what their role was, more about the protesters, and how to handle the protesters. One of the main parts of their code of conduct, though, was not to talk to the protesters, so I could not be a Peacekeeper at this event. Regardless, I respected the authority of the Peacekeepers at this event and worked side-by-side with them.

When the protesters -- a group of teens and young children, a relatively quiet adult male, and two very vocal adult males with a sound system and some sort of horn -- arrived, NEPA Freethought Society members observed them and asked the leader of the Peacekeepers if we could engage them, but we were told to wait and see what happens (and we respected that). The two vocal adult males with the sound system were saying all sorts of nasty things about homosexuals and, among many other phrases, was preaching and saying that we [everyone at Pridefest], in our pride, are elevating ourselves about God, rejecting God's truth, celebrating sin, turning people away from God, etc. After about five to ten minutes of this, both of their sound systems failed and the vocal males approached the NEPA Freethought members including myself and wanted to chat. The leader of the Peacekeepers gave us the nod.

One of the most interesting discussions I had with one of the protesters was regarding the problem of evil. He gave most of the usual responses and some really bad infrequently mentioned responses. I argued that one can not properly reconcile an omni-god with the current state of the universe and mostly focused on natural evil. When I told him that the world would be a better place without natural disasters, his defense was surprisingly that I can't know that because I am a finite being and do not know more than God, perhaps God has reasons for this. This defense mainly fails because an omni-god, if he exists, is all-powerful and could accomplish these reasons without natural disasters. He also argued that God has the authority to take life away and him doing so is always just. This defense also fails mainly because this doesn't give a reason for natural disasters and even if this were true, people need not be devastated by natural disasters.

Another interesting discussion was about Biblical prophecy and "the law of compound probability." One of the protesters said that so many prophecies in the Bible have come true and this is why we know God exists; the chances of all of these prophecies coming true is really slim, therefore the Bible must be inspired by God. This argument mainly fails because he is cherry-picking the Bible (there are many predictions that did not some true), the person is liberally interpreting [vague] passages, and many of the 'prophecies' are not prophecies. Regardless, even if propechies came true that were prophecies and they were not self-fulfilling, this doesn't demonstrate that the moral teachings in the Bible are true or even that a specific god exists.

In what might have been about an hour and a half, standing in pouring rain and going back and forth with the anti-gay protesters, NEPA Freethought Society members effectively distracted the protesters, quieted them, and had an interesting discussion. It was obvious that their positions would not change and we did not expect this, but we had fun discussing and accomplished our goals. Eventually, and unfortunately, the leader of the Peacekeepers asked me and the other NEPA Freethought Society members to withdraw from the conversation because she believed that we were drawing crowds, keeping the protesters there among other reasons. After we left the protesters, they were 'back at it;' they continued to harass people, be very loud, and even started following people as they left Pridefest. Once again, people were angered and the protesters were undeterred by people who were engaging them.

It is obvious that I disagree with the tactics of the Silent Witness Peacekeepers, but I respected their authority there and believed they did a great job. Peacekeepers escorted people into the festival with their big umbrellas, encouraged passer-bys not to get violent, distracted peoples' attention away from the protesters (at least somewhat), and served as a security team of sorts. Both the NEPA Freethought Society and the Silent Witness Peacekeepers effectively dealt with the protesters. Just because I preferred engaging the protesters does not mean that their tactics were 'wrong' and just because Peacekeepers did not prefer engagement does not mean that the NEPA Freethought Society's tactics were 'wrong.' Here, we see multiple ways to effectively accomplish a goal and both sides do not have to be at odds.

The Peacekeepers have more experience than NEPA Freethought Society members in 'working' events like this (we've never, to my knowledge, dealt with anti-gay protesters), but our members have lots of experience as far as debate/argumentation is concerned. We could have went back and forth with the protesters for hours, but we were asked to withdraw from the conversation. Working together with the Peacekeepers and offering what the other group does not have to offer, we were effective as a team. Some people, in previous discussions, unfortunately, 'don't get it' and think that people who disagree can not get along, but this was far from the case in this situation.

I also had some other major disagreements with the Silent Witness Peacekeepers. Their website, for example, says that confronting the protesters is "clearly useless" and that the protesters are "impervious to logic." During the express training, this sentiment was echoed along with the common sentiment of "those who do not have a position based on logic are immune to it." While this might be the case with some people, it certainly is not with all. Many former evangelical ministers and 'hardcore fundamentalists' are now activist atheists who have performed a 'cognitive 180.' One conversation probably won't change someone's positions (and this is never a goal of mine, for it is very niave), but a conversation may plant the 'critical thinking seeds' and might embark someone on the journey to reason.

The 'audience,' too, can always greatly benefit from the conversations with protesters (there were multiple Silent Witnesses recording the exchanges for everyone's safety). Perhaps it was the case that those recording never heard responses that I had given to the protesters and may, in the future, use my responses or further research. My discussion was not only limited to discussion about homosexuality; I talked a great deal about God and morality. The other obvious benefits of confronting the protesters, as I mentioned, were distracting them and quieting them.

The Peacekeepers were happy with the NEPA Freethought Society members and thought that we handled the protesters really well. None of us got angry, threatened the protesters, levied personal attacks, or raised our voices. Passer-bys, security, and the Peacekeepers gave us kind compliments. It was great to work with the Silent Witness Peacekeepers...and although we disagreed in the matter of tactics, we were effective as a team and hopefully made the Pridefest a better place for all who attended.

God, Rape, and the Problem of Evil

This comic is from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. I hope the last two panels were sarcastic!

The problem of evil, reconciling belief in God with natural and moral evil, is probably one of the most obvious and considered objections to belief in an omni-god. Theists typically believe in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god [omni-god] and they hold this belief in the face of great natural evil (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc that have nothing to do with human action, but rather are the results of natural laws) and moral evil (humans murdering, raping, etc). I've commented on this topic in various other posts, but would like to write another more updated post.

Some atheists like myself contend that the universe would not look like it does if it were created by an omni-god and such a being, if it were all loving, should have created humans with the desire to commit horrible actions (or at least should step in and stop it) and also should have created the universe in such a matter that did not guarantee natural disasters. It is awkward that God is held to a lesser standard than humans are, but he should be held to a higher standard. Since God does not stop gross moral evil, this should be good reason to assume that God does not exist.

When considering moral responsibility a person has or may have, several factors are important to think about including time, money, influence, power, age, and knowledge. The poor college student in America, for example, can't be expected to give a significant portion of his/her income to charity, but one should expect people who are financially comfortable and stable to donate. The reason for this should be quite evident. Similarly, a person who sees a drowning baby, as the famous example from Peter Singer suggests, should be expected to save the baby if he/she has the ability to do so even if there is slight inconvenience such as being late for work or ruining a pair of shoes.

I would wager (and hopefully every reader here agrees) that if someone witnessed rape occurring and was able to stop the rape (assume that the person had a means of subduing the rapist and would not be harmed in the process, for example), this person should be obligated to do so. I mention rape here because it is typically referred to as one of the most heinous violations of a person imaginable, so if one were able to stop rape from happening, one should be obligated to do so. Mentioning other examples may make my argument much weaker.

If we knew that a person was able to stop a rape and would not be harmed in the process, yet he/she did not stop the rape, we would rightly be filled with rage and disgust. Suppose this person appears before a group of people to defend the reasons for not stopping the rape and offered the following defenses such as "Rape might inspire the victim to do great things in life," "Without rape, people would not be compassionate," "This life is really short. An afterlife will make up for all of this horror," and "If I stop the rapist, it interferes with his free will." Some of these defenses, hopefully all of you would reason, are absurd and unacceptable for humans to give. For some reason, though, theists offer these defenses for God, somehow absolving him of responsibility while God ought to have more moral responsibility than humans have. Let's explore some of the possible defenses that humans might give for not stopping rape and compare them with those theists give for God.

Rape might inspire the victim to do great things in life.

Some theists, when faced with instances of moral evil such as rape, basically argue that 'every cloud has a silver lining' and that good can come from horrible situations (such as rape). If they don't think that good can come from rape, this argument simply does not work for them (thus this is no defense for God), but it is typically the case that all situations are considered. A theological view (or a-theological view) like this is utterly sickening. If it is the case that horrible actions might inspire victims to do great things in life, why should we bother helping anyone at all? Who can know what disasters might lead to great things? Should we interfere with others' situations? Can a person possibly believe that we should help other people in times of need and, at the same time, believe that disastrous events can bring about good results? Where should we draw the line? Which situations should we 'interfere' with?

To be more charitable, perhaps, some theists might only use this defense for situations which appeared to be random or someone was not able to prevent. Perhaps that occurrence of rape was not able to be prevented. Perhaps nothing could have been done about that tsunami. This still, though, does not get God off the hook simply because he could have designed the universe in a different manner (he is all-powerful) or could have this supposed good come about in different ways (he is all-powerful) without people suffering gross harm and even death. While mentioning death, one has to realize that good can't possibly come about for a dead person and even if good were to come about after someone had died, this good still could have come about in a different manner.

While it is the case that good can come from horrible situations (a rape victim might be inspired to, for instance, tell a story and educate others), horrible situations need not happen for this good to be had (God or not). People who weren't raped, for example, are educating others. One would also expect more good to come about by people not being raped; rape surely deprives many of an otherwise 'normal life' by scarring people.

If we wouldn't accept this defense from a person who is not an omni-god, why should we accept this defense for an omni-god? Again, God has the ability to stop rape (and every other instance of natural and moral evil), but he does not.

People would not be compassionate if it were not for rape.

This defense is quite repugnant. Why would this be the case? If there were no rape (or even no moral or natural evil), I would not suddenly lack compassion. I would still recognize that other human beings have needs and wants like me and would not suddenly turn into an individual with no compassion. I don't need people getting raped in order to have compassion. If rape (or other natural or moral evils) is/are really the reason/s that people are compassionate [and this is part of God's plan], God could have designed the universe in a different manner so that this were not the case (he is all-powerful).

If the rapist were stopped, that would interfere with his free will.

For purposes of this discussion, let's just assume free will exists for the sake of this argument. For my arguments against it, please read my paper on free will, determinism, and fatalism in which I argue, among other things, that free will is incompatible with an omniscient being. The first response to this that comes to mind is "What about the free will of the rapist?" for obvious reasons. Why should the free will of the rapist be more important than the rape victim? Further, why would God 'infuse' the desire to rape into humans or design humans in such a manner that they would desire rape? At this point, a person might say that without desires to rape, people might lose other desires, but this does not work because God is all-powerful.

Theists may also try to offer other reasons for God not preventing evil.

If God revealed himself by stopping evil, people would be forced to believe in God, this would take away the free will of humans to choose to worship God, and people would behave radically different because they know God existed.

If God were to intervene to stop evil, he could make it such that his presence would be unknown and people would not view the intervention as some indisputable evidence of God (he is all-knowing and all-powerful). Besides that, many people actually do believe that God intervenes to stop evil and they point to examples of such...and many don't believe this. Some theists believe that if God revealed himself, everyone would be 'forced' to believe that God exists, but this also is not the case [there were also many non-believers in Biblical times in which miracles were supposedly the order of the day!]. In a previous post, I argue that we can't justifiably go from 'this is a miracle' [even if it really is] to 'the Christian god exists.' Why pick the Christian god and why go from 'I can't explain this' to 'the Christian god exists?'

The common thought process behind the 'people would behave radically different' defense is that if God revealed himself, everyone would never do evil...and that is a bad thing (for whatever reason), but that is false because many who now claim to 'know' God exists (whether today or in earlier times) are not immaculate individuals. Even if everyone believed that God existed does not entail that everyone would act in an immaculate fashion (many would rebel, not act differently, etc).

God has his own plan that we are unaware of/God is mysterious.

This defense is quite an awkward one because, to return back to my previous theme, we would never accept this defense from a human. Anyway, how can we know that God has some plan that we are unaware of...if we are unaware of what that is? Why must this plan include creating humans who have desires to rape or creating a universe with tremendous natural disasters? If this is the best plan from an omni-god, it is quite a bad one.

We just can't detect the reason that God has for permitting evil because we have a limited understanding. Just because you can't think of or detect the reason does not entail that there is no reason. We just can't understand God.

If there really may be a reason for allowing evil that we might be unaware of, if all other reasons are really bad ones, it seems that this should entail total moral skepticism in which we can't make any moral judgments. For all we know, there may have been some good reason for that person to be raped...or thousands of children who died this year from malaria. If such a good reason exists, can we really ascribe 'evil' to such happenings? We would then have to apply this to other areas of life saying that for all we know, the recent murderer in Norway might have had a good reason for what he did that we just can't detect. This position is untenable, yet this seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of this theistic line of reasoning.

***

We have very good reason to suggest that an omni-god does not exist because the world is not designed in such a manner that one would expect from an omni-god. Theistic defenses offer no good reasons for why God would create a universe with so much natural and moral evil. It is important to note, here, that the atheist is not arguing or expecting a perfect universe, but rather is simply noting that the universe as we see it -- in which natural laws supposedly created by God guarantee that, at the very least, massive natural disasters will occur and indiscriminately kill people -- is not compatible with the idea of an omni-god.

If we would not accept defenses from humans like "I'm mysterious," "There might be some good reason as to why I didn't stop the rape from happening that you just can't understand," "The rape might lead this person to do great things," etc, why should we accept these defenses when theists try to save God from responsibility? God, if he exists, as I noted, is able to prevent any evil he wills to prevent (he is all-powerful) and would not be bothered or harmed by doing so, but yet he does not. We hold humans who have a high capacity to stop 'evils' to a higher standard than those who do not, so why not hold a supposed being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving to the highest standard possible?

As always, I welcome comments from those who agree and disagree with me. Please do so below. I would especially love to hear theists explain how they can believe in an omni-god in the presence of natural and moral evil. God, if he exists, is obviously different than humans and I am not claiming that they are same. I am not arguing from analogy here, but rather am saying that God should be placed at a higher standard than humans throughout this post.

Disagreement, not Disrespect: Attacking Beliefs, not Persons

During many discussions about 'hot-button issues,' no matter what the specific topic is, people often feel that disagreement and scrutiny of arguments is a 'confrontation' and people are being attacked. This, I feel, is one of the greatest misconceptions I believe people have had in the many discussions I participated in during the last two years. In this post, I will argue that people should not interpret disagreement and critiquing of arguments as a sign of disrespect toward a person. I will also explore the psychology behind belief including why people hold beliefs and interpret disagreement as an attack on a person's character.

When an argument is being discussed in a respectful manner, one party generally advocates a particular position and a person who does not hold the same belief offers counter-arguments and reasons why the claim being made is faulty. Consider, for instance, a proposition that an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god exists. A person may state that this belief is problematic because of [the frequency of] natural disasters in the universe, no good reason such a being would sit by idly and allow gross moral evil to occur, etc [View my problem of evil posts here]. At this point, the discussion can go many ways. In a civil and reasonable discussion, the person who claims that an omni-god exists would answer the counter-arguments, show why the counter-arguments fail, and he/she may raise some new points. The discussion will go back and forth until the parties end the discussion for whatever reason.

The above example was a general sketch of a civil discussion, but instead of this, the original claimant (or really any party) can see disagreement as some sort of attack or might believe that the person who disagrees thinks that the claimant is stupid. There is no good reason to interpret the situation in this manner unless someone is clearly being a jerk or levying personal attacks. Disagreement in a respectful manner should not be construed as a personal attack.

Disagreement should not be thought of as a complete character evaluation of a person. For example, I might posit idea x and you might disagree with idea x. My reasons for believing idea x may be recognized as faulty by you, but this should [generally, but with some reservations] not lead anyone to the conclusion that my stance on one issue shows that I am, 'across the board,' an idiot. It is important to realize that many people hold beliefs for various reasons including rationalization of certain ideas, lack of exposure to counter-arguments, lack of skepticism, and fallaciously applying different standards of skepticism to different ideas (special pleading).

Many intelligent people can hold some unsubstantiated beliefs and the reasons for holding these beliefs can be really bad ones. For example, one of the smartest living scientists, Francis Collins, interpreted a triune waterfall as a sign from God and, seemingly because of seeing this waterfall, he believes that the Christian god exists. I can formulate a list of various reasons why the reasons for this belief are deeply flawed, disagree with Collins, and have a discussion with him. Although we disagree, this does not mean that I think he is a complete idiot and I am not attacking him in any manner.

Some people might hold beliefs simply because they have not simply are not skeptical or do not have 'critical thinking toolkits.' This was the case, I believe, with me in my childhood to my later teen years. I was not a skeptic and held many beliefs because of what I now think to be grave errors in thinking that I was unaware of. I believed in the Christian god, I think, because it was the 'default good,' I was taught to believe that faith was a permissible and worthy quality, and various authority figures held this belief. Because of this belief, I committed various lapses in thinking such as believing that God healed a sunburn I had and diminished the pain after I prayed (post hoc ergo propter hoc/false cause fallacy), a communion wafer tasted really bad because I ate it before I should have eaten it...and the later ones tasted better (placebo effect, false cause), and God sent a sign that my dead friend was in Heaven after I saw someone who spoke with me the next day wearing a shirt with an obscure band on it that I listened to.

I would not call my earlier self stupid or find him blameworthy because he simply did not know better. Now, with an understanding of logical fallacies and critical thinking skills, I recognize these errors. Another problem with my earlier self is that I never heard or considered serious objections to my belief in God until I was about 16. Soon after hearing objections, I determined that holding justified true beliefs was paramount and I embarked my quest to atheism and skepticism. I understand that many people, while they may be old or young, were and are just like I was; they were largely ignorant of contrary ideas to their positions and believed all sorts of fallacious claims. [Read more about my 'backstory' here.] Mainly because of this, and many other factors outlined in this post, I do not think people are stupid because they hold certain ideas that I disagree with.

Some people may compartmentalize belief; they apply rigorous standards/skepticism to almost every area of their lives, but they don't apply rigorous standards/skepticism to some beliefs they hold. For example, a person can understand that homeopathic 'remedies' are merely diluted substances that have no effect whatsoever and psychics have no real abilities to see the future, but they go to a chiropractor who alleges that he realigns spines with God's ultimate intentions and that asthma and long-term medications lead to a sicker body, amongst many other claims. A person like this, instead, should apply skepticism globally, but he/she does not. He/she may rationalize such a belief and utter statements like "My life was horrible until I went to a chiropractor and I was much better after!" (false cause fallacy, possible placebo effect) without realizing the logical fallacies.

Voiced disagreement rebutting the claims of the chiropracty endorser should not be construed as a personal attack, but rather a situation that both parties (and perhaps more in an 'audience' of sorts) can profit from. A good intentioned person who critiques an argument, instead of attacking the person, is actually doing the person a favor by disagreeing and having a discussion because involved parties are able to test their own beliefs by defending them in an open fashion. Justified true beliefs matter. Those who are able to critique their own beliefs and those of others engage in healthy 'cognitive exercise' and can walk away from a civil and productive discussion fulfilled. Instead of disagreement being thought of as disrespect, it should be thought of, if done in a respectful manner, respect. By taking the time to voice disagreement, I am helping others evaluate their ideas and care enough to voice my criticisms. While it is not always the case that discussions are motivated by good discussion, civil discussions can end as productive and fulfilling.

Some people also believe that disagreement without someone is being disrespectful because people are failing to 'respect beliefs.' In my two years of blogging, public discussion, and commenting in various mediums, I have yet to hear one person give a solid definition (despite my constant asking) of what I believe to be an utterly incoherent concept that is fundamentally mistaken. This phrase is further confusing because the motivations for this phrase are hard or impossible to discern. Does the person really think that no beliefs a person holds should ever be criticized? Does the person think that some topics should be utterly left alone while others are 'fair game'?

I usually, after asking what 'respecting beliefs' means, note that beliefs have no cognition and can't possibly be disrespected, so this phrase makes no sense. I also note that disagreement does not entail that a person is being disrespected (as I've done several times in this post). I firmly believe that all topics should be open to be critiqued and that discussion about important and 'personal' matters should especially discussed. As a society, we do ourselves a great disservice when we fail to discuss important topics.

There is a huge difference between 'attacking ideas' (I'm using this very figuratively here) and attacking persons. When I am attacking an idea, I am noting the weaknesses of the idea, pointing out possible logical fallacies, and noting counter-objections. There is, at no time, and disrespect toward a person...and the person really is only involved as the other party presenting arguments because the idea is what is being discussed. If I were to attack a person, I'd hurl insults, possibly physically harm a person, or talk about how stupid the person is being/is.

Perhaps our language needs to be more careful in order to better 'separate beliefs from persons' and not give people the impression that they are being attacked when there is disagreement (and I need to work at this myself). More use of language should address the argument and not the person, perhaps by saying "I disagree with this argument because" instead of "I disagree with you because." Perhaps the phrase "This argument commits the *insert logical fallacy here*" instead of "You commit the *insert logical fallacy here."

This endeavor, though, is a tremendously difficult one for people who don't already understand that disagreement is not disrespect. Since people hold beliefs, people think of their beliefs as being a part of their character, a result of careful thought processes, and generally place them on a high throne. Very important and cherished beliefs, when challenged, can lead a person to utter rage and a vitriolic manner. Instead of thinking of disagreement as criticism of an argument, some people frame disagreement as a character attack by thinking: "Who are you to disagree with me?" , "You are saying that I am wrong?" , and "Since you disagree with me, you must think that I am stupid."

We can, at the end of the day, walk away from critical discussions as friends. We need not all agree about every given matter in order to be friendly and respect other persons. While living together is more important than agreeing, this should not, for one moment, be a reason to never critique a belief. Persons should welcome discussion and see discussion as an opportunity to put their beliefs to the test instead of viewing discussion as 'argument' and an attack on one's character.

Is Materialism Incompatible with Mind, Meaning, and Morality?

Mike, a frequent commenter on my Facebook page, blog, and elsewhere, and someone I have met and chatted with in 'real life,' has recently authored a blog post alleging that materialism is incompatible with mind, meaning, and morality. He also claims that secularism is "vacuous and unrewarding" and that secularists are "partial to pervasive cynicism." Mike claims that secularists can be "entrenched in their dogmas" and "are not familiar with the issues." He also claims that the metaphysics of materialism leads to nihilism. He concludes his post saying that "secularism is utterly unequipped to step up to the plate as a replacement for religious worldviews." I believe that Mike has a misunderstanding of what materialists and secularists endorse or otherwise is limiting his understanding to the worldviews of a select few. While I might be totally wrong about this, I will argue that materialism is compatible with mind, meaning, and morality.

Before responding, I'd like to define some terms here because misunderstanding about definitions or people employing different definitions is often is the root cause of disagreement or argument. I define a secularist as someone who advocates that government should remain completely neutral in regards to religion and non-religion and that there should be a complete separation of church and state. I define a materialist as someone who believes that everything that exists is the result of interactions of matter or that everything that exists is physical matter.

First, secularism and materialism, at a 'bare-bones nothing added' glance, offers nothing. While one may reap benefits from being a secularist and a materialist (they might realize that many of their previously held beliefs were false and be glad that they hold more justified true beliefs, they might find joy in looking at the world in a different way, etc), the positions themselves offer nothing. Please note a difference, as I mentioned, between a position offering something and someone benefiting from holding a position. To draw a parallel, atheism, likewise, offers nothing although a person may benefit from being an atheist. While the positions offer nothing, one may benefit from holding a position.

One need not be a cynic because one is a materialist or a secularist and materialism and secularism do not entail that someone be cynical; while it might be the case that a materialist is cynical because he/she is a materialist, materialism does not entail that this person be cynical. Personally, I would not say that I am cynical and would not identify as a cynic. Instead, I identify as a skeptic and am still not cynical. While I evaluate arguments and look for crucial flaws in arguments, I am not radically doubting everything I hear, but rather am taking an open-minded and positive approach toward claims in which I am asking questions that should be asked and am not blindly accepting claims.

It certainly is the case that some secularists out there really do not understand the issues that they often discuss. Some secularists also might not be able to defend their positions, may have arrived at their positions for non-smart reasons, and hold on to their positions for no intellectual reason. Just because some secularists might behave in this manner, though, does not entail that one should distance themselves from other secularists or say "fare thee well" to secularism. In any given group or any given demographic of people, there are going to be some very unskeptical people, people you disagree with, people you don't identify with, or people who haven't arrived at their positions for intellectual reasons.

I've meet many atheists with which I've profoundly disagreed with. I have disliked the tactics of other atheists, noted that the arguments of some atheists are fallacious, have not identified with some atheists, and have not picked the same battles as other atheists. One huge point of contention I have had with atheists is focus of argument: I don't think that atheists should focus on religion being 'stupid,' treat religious people with disrespect (even if religious people are being disrespectful), point to why they believe people are religious (they fear death, they became brainwashed, etc), and argue about Bible verses (unless a verse is really clear, but better arguments can be had without mentioning specific Bible verses).

Secularism and materialism are two radically different issues. Not all materialists are secularists and not all secularists are materialists. One need not be a materialist to be a secularist and one need not be a secularist to be a materialist. While many secularists might be materialists, it is very possible to 'have one without the other.' If you reject materialism, for example, you can be a secularist.

Mike claims that materialism is incompatible with the mind. While some materialists might be eliminativists (people who believe that there is no mind, but rather is only the brain) or monists [Michael Shermer has taken this position in his most recent book] (people who believe that the mind is part of the brain), not all materialists need be monists or eliminativists. Personally, I am not even sure where I stand, but I'm certainly a materialist who is leaning toward eliminativism, but I don't know too much about these issues and would not take a 'hard stance.' Many materialistic philosophers argue against both monism and eliminativism and argue, for instance, that subjective experiences can not make sense unless there is a mind. Materialism can be compatible with the mind.

Mike claims that materialism is incompatible with meaning. Meaning, as I and many other philosophers see it, is entirely a human concept that we attribute to certain parts of our lives that we find to be sentimental, pleasing, worthwhile, etc. People might believe that meaning is not a physical 'thing' and is thus incompatible with materialism, but this is a misunderstanding; meaning arises from ideas which arise from consciousness (which is the result of physical processes). Ideas and consciousness, also, can not be 'touched' (like matter can), but these are the products of physical processes. Materialism can be compatible with meaning.

Mike claims that materialism is incompatible with morality. Many materialists, though, make sense of morality and don't even think that these two issues intersect; whether or not all that exists is the result of physical processes is a totally different issue from making sense of morality or questioning why we should be moral individuals. In my paper "Making Sense of Ethics in a Modern Scientific Worldview," I discussed this issue in a longer fashion.

Here is an excerpt from what I wrote. Please read the entire paper for more information.

"Drawing upon the ideas of Hume, Spinoza, modern evolutionary theory, and rejecting those of Hobbes concerning human nature can lead to an accounting of values. Values don't need to exist in the sense of a Platonic worldview or originate from a god, but rather can be thought of as contingently existing within social mammals and the realization of this, at least by humans, can be attained through moral philosophy and scientific findings. It makes sense to talk about values only because social mammals exist and are are generally concerned with well-being of themselves and society."

Materialism can be compatible with morality.

Materialism need not lead to nihilism (the stance that life is without meaning). We can find meaning in whatever we will to find meaning in. There also need not be an answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" in order for someone to find meaning in life. There also need not be meaning in an 'eternal' sense for a person to find meaning. Whether or not the statement "all that exists is the result of physical processes" is true has no bearing on whether we can find meaning.

Secularism also need not be a replacement to religious worldviews. Again, a secularist can be religious. I would like to think of secularism as a response to religious worldviews [which assert that the government should endorse religion] instead of thinking of it as a replacement.

Restating, one need not be a materialist to be a secularist. To also restate an often endorsed point of mine, we need not agree on everything to 'be friends.' You can advocate for a total separation of church and state and find common threads with others who do the same without being a materialist. For example and to draw a parallel here, I am a straight ally and defend homosexuals on a daily basis although I disagree with many homosexuals defending religious groups that are intolerant toward homosexuals or otherwise directly work against the interests of homosexuals (namely normalization and equality). I need not say "fare thee well" to every homosexual just because I disagree with some of them on some issues. One can rightly be a secularist while not being a materialist and one can rightly reconcile materialism with mind, meaning, and morality.

I await a response from Mike so that we can continue this discussion and so that, if I am misunderstanding his stances or if I am missing something important, I can correct this post and better address his stances.

Update: Mike has responded below and a discussion has insued.

Confirmation Bias and Sampling Errors

In a recent discussion I had, I was arguing against the random drug testing of welfare recipients. I noted, by linking studies, that welfare recipients are no more likely than non-welfare recipients to use drugs. Someone disagreeing with me noted that he/she has worked in liquor stores and grocery stores and has seen many people who appear to be addicted to drugs and people talking about illegal substance use with Access cards in their wallets. Because of this, she reasons, welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than non-welfare recipients.

This line of reasoning commits mainly two errors including confirmation bias and a sampling error. Confirmation bias is the tendency to notice and favor information that accords with their pre-established beliefs and ignore contrary evidence. Michael Shermer also calls this "noticing the 'hits' and missing the 'misses' when we remember certain information." The commenter who worked in grocery stores and liquor stores may have seen some welfare recipients who seem to be addicted to drugs, but she has certainly seen many people who were addicted to drugs who were not welfare recipients and many welfare recipients who were not addicted to drugs. The commenter, though, does not mention this and instead uses a very small sample to justify her conclusion.

Another error the commenter makes is applying a conclusion formed about a very small group of people to a larger whole. If it really is the case that welfare recipients are more likely to use drugs than those who are not welfare recipients in this area, this does not entail that this is the case for the entire population of welfare recipients.

It is very important to consider all data instead of a select group that you remember that accords with your pre-established belief. Confirmation bias also occurs with psychics. Through cold reading, the process of making general statements about a 'client' in which the person receives feedback to make more specific statements, people will make 'accurate statements' about the client and the clients remember these accurate statements while forgetting about the inaccurate statements. Psychics will say many statements and eventually something will stick, but clients will often selectively remember the sticking statements.

Instead of trying to look for information that supports our already held beliefs, we should draw conclusions from a larger group of data, consider opposing arguments, and not draw conclusions about an entire group of people based on a small set of data.

For more on drug testing for welfare recipients, visit the following two links...but this discussion is beyond the scope of this post:

Rationally Speaking Blog

ACLU

To atheists who say "It doesn't matter what others believe as long as they don't harm anyone"

In my philosophy capstone paper, I wrote about the importance of justified true beliefs among other topics. Here are some excerpts from that paper:

Beliefs often inform actions and have the ability to help, harm, or inform others' beliefs. [Philosopher Jonathan] Kvanvig writes, “Without beliefs to guide decisions about what actions to perform, we would be reduced to the position of random selection of actions, hoping that one selected was useful” (Kvanvig 29). Humans do not live in 'moral vacuums' in which beliefs and actions have no effect on others. There are practical benefits for being concerned about holding justified true beliefs and globally applying a skeptical attitude toward all sorts of claims about reality: skeptics are less likely to be swindled, less likely to look like fools, more likely to arrive closer to the truth, and skeptics are likely to encourage others to think.

Philosopher Richard Taylor argues that truth is worth seeking because “it saves one from the numberless substitutes that are constantly invented and tirelessly peddled to the simple-minded, usually with stunning success … it saves us from these glittering gems and baubles, promises and dogmas and creeds that are worth no more than the stones under one's feet.” (Taylor 7) Taylor notes that beliefs that people can hold may not be the product of a quest for knowledge and evidence, but rather false illusions based on faith; he stresses, “Many persons spend their lives in a sandcastle, a daydream, in which every answer to every metaphysical question decorates its many mansions. … They find, in other words, a comfort born of ignorance” (Taylor 7-8).

Holding false beliefs can often have pernicious consequences. People who are not properly skeptical about certain claims can empty their life savings, contribute to unsavory causes, wager their entire lives on one idea or a group of ideas, and can even die. Members of the Heaven's Gate cult, a group of people who believed that 'the earth was going to be recycled,' committed suicide because they had believed on insufficient evidence that an alien spaceship was behind a comet. Those who believe Harold Camping's May 21, 2011 doomsday prediction are not concerned with the future and have abandoned their 'regular lives' because they really believe that the world is going to end. One doomsday believer, according to a National Public Radio article said, “I no longer think about 401(k)s and retirement. I'm not stressed about losing my job, which a lot of other people are in this economy. Another doomsday believer has experienced a rift in his relationship with family members who do not believe that the world is going to soon end and is also emotionally troubled because he is unsure if his family members will be raptured (Hagerty). Proper skepticism and concern for evidence, rather than faith, can provide a sort of mental armor for a person to be less likely to fall prey to harmful beliefs.

Milder beliefs can also cause disastrous consequences. In April of 2011, the United States government almost shut down because opponents wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and could not reach a compromise on the nation's budget. Although Planned Parenthood provides abortions, abortions are only a small fraction of the services provided by Planned Parenthood; the majority of services offered by Planned Parenthood include pap smears, breast exams, STD testing, sexual education, and birth control. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, notes that one in five women in the United States have visited a Planned Parenthood clinic and says, “For more than half our patients, Planned Parenthood is the only nurse or doctor they will see all year” (Rovner). If Planned Parenthood were defunded and the government were to shut down, millions of people would suffer because of actions that were motivated by insufficiently justified claims.

Richard Taylor notes that many people do not really consider issues without regard for research and evidence; Taylor writes, “Now the intellects of people are not as strong as their will, and they generally believe whatever they want to believe, particularly when those beliefs reflect upon their own worth among others and the value of their endeavors. Wisdom is thus not first what they first of all seek. They seek, instead, the justification for what they happen to cherish” (Taylor 3). Instead of holding positions based on faith, people should look for evidence to support their claims and be sure that adequate reason justifies their claims.

Time and time again, I've heard this following phrase from fellow atheists when discussing religious belief: “It doesn't matter what other people believe as long as they don't harm anyone.” In the past, I believe that I've been sympathetic toward this sentiment, but more recently I've found many problems with this position. Whether or not people are being harmed because of certain beliefs, I still care about what other people believe. I'm convinced that people really haven't thought much about their epistemic attitude of “it doesn't matter what others believe as long as they don't harm anyone” and will change their positions if they really thought about what they said.

Throughout this post and elsewhere, when I say “I care about what other people believe,” I am generally talking about important beliefs and beliefs that inform actions. It is very obvious that beliefs relating to religion can have a major impact while some other beliefs such as how many grains of sand exist on a beach do not (unless, of course, someone is in a position in which this does matter). Anyone who is not living under a rock realizes that beliefs informed by religion greatly impacts society (not just specific individuals).

The idea of “it doesn't effect me” that I often hear is no legitimate defense because it is missing a larger impact on society...and is just plain selfish. Some friends of mine and many others atheists who use the “it doesn't impact me” defense are seemingly apathetic to the issues of our time in which religion plays a negative role. While religious beliefs might not lead to something as drastic as the death of your family members , bricks thrown through your windows, or direct encroachments in your day-to-day activities, this does not entail that you are not affected. Even if you are not affected, this is no good reason to behave as if justified true beliefs do not matter.

Many atheists whom if I have interacted with in 'real life' and online care about what people think about medicine; they favor science-based medicine and reject prayer as a suitable alternative. These same people are horrified when children die because their parents do not send them to doctors or otherwise deny science-based medicine. While being mortified by deaths of children because of their parents' rejection of science-based medicine, they same people will endorse the sentiment of “I don't care what other people believe” in a different situation. Why is this? Is this dishonest? Is this special pleading? These people will care about belief when children die, but for some reason they do not when children aren't neglected.

Many atheists care about science being taught in science classrooms and reject idea of creationism and intelligent design being taught as science. On one hand, these atheists care about what people think here (they challenge the people who believe that ID and creationism are viable alternatives to evolution that should be taught as science in science classrooms), but they claim that they don't care about what people believe in regards to religion. Here and in my previous example, there may be a difference between action and belief, but we must not forget that beliefs inform actions; if people did not believe that prayer can be a substitute for medicine or that intelligent design and creationism should be taught as science, the actions simply not happen.

Why don't we ever hear phrases like these from atheists who say that “what people believe doesn't matter:” It doesn't matter if people believe that prayer is an acceptable substitute for medical treatment! It doesn't matter if people believe that creationism should be taught as science in science classrooms! Let people believe what they want! You shouldn't criticize these people or challenge their beliefs? While it may be the case that Joe Smo Catholic who has no real power on policy in our nation, has no children, and does not act on his beliefs (and this is really questionable, I'll get into this later), this does not entail that just because he is 'silent' we (or he) shouldn't care about justified true beliefs.

In a recent discussion on Facebook, one of my atheist Facebook friends noted that we should not belittle others' religious beliefs and should leave people alone. I asked for clarification of this statement and received clarification. Someone posted that she had a great time in church and a person responded saying that her beliefs have no basis in reality. Here, we should note that the idea of “belittling beliefs” is incoherent because beliefs have no cognition. Also, the responder here, I would say, was 'out of place' and was being disrespectful to the poster. This does not mean, though, that peoples' beliefs should never be questioned, but rather should show that we should respect other people and criticize beliefs when the situation calls for it. The responder would have done a better job if he/she said something like “What supernatural beliefs do you hold and why? I'm interested.” if he/she was looking for some critical discussion. A simple dismissal really gets nowhere.

After responding to the atheist who said that we should leave people alone and not belittle others' religious beliefs and including much of what I included above in this post, the atheist said that she doesn't care about what others believe and I called her out for being inconsistent and special pleading (she applies different standards for different areas when such a 'move' is not warranted). Why do people like this try to deflect criticism away from religious beliefs and 'stonewall' those who challenge religious beliefs? Why should atheists be accommodating to those who hold religious beliefs? I was soon defriended by the atheist and further noted, on my profile, that those who openly advocate a position should be willing to defend it instead of unfriending.

I've said before, in many contexts, that my gripes with the theologians at King's College (and others who are 'moderate' religious believers) are not as numerous as those I have with political officials who use religion to inform policy, fundamentalists, or people who have uninformed and hurtful opinions about atheists. Although many religious believers are out there who aren't doing harm (or perhaps are doing little harm), this doesn't mean that I'm perfectly okay with these people and think that their beliefs are intellectually justified just because they don't do harm. My arguments will be directed toward all fronts (and I think they would be most beneficial if the 'moderates' and other atheists heard them); I will not give the 'nod of agreement' and say that it's perfectly permissible for believe to believe things just because they aren't actively harming others (like the atheists who advocate the “it doesn't matter what people believe” position seemingly assert).

While it is important that we get along and live together, this does not mean that we shouldn't challenge other beliefs are believe that it is permissible to believe something as long as people aren't harmed. Another common misconception people have is that those who challenge others' beliefs are somehow being jerks for doing so (even if these people are very mild like myself). I have discussed this in other posts like this one.

People have been fooled into believing that belief is permissible and should not be criticized if people who hold beliefs do not harm others and this is quite a shame. Atheists who are in positions (whether anonymously or publicly) to levy much needed criticism are instead giving a nod of approval to religious believers seemingly only because they aren't harming others. Instead of taking this ridiculous attitude, we should care about justified true beliefs, and not only in the area of religion. Questions of form, of course, are a discussion for another day; people shouldn't disrespect others just because they hold silly beliefs, but rather instead should be respectful and offer fair criticisms when the situation calls for it.