YECs Can Bite My Shiny Metal Ass

Anyone who knows me knows - I don't take kindly to Young Earth Creationists (YECs). Usually I avoid conversations with these kinds of people because I am aware of my own intolerance to them and I don't want to be a big jerkwad, which is usually how I end up acting if I do find myself having a conversation with a YEC. I don't know exactly why, but people who seriously argue that Earth is 4,000 - 10,000 years old and that the bible is a literal account of the creation of both the planet and all life on the planet make me erupt with utter contempt.

That's why, in addition to it being both fascinating and exciting, news like this makes me smile -

Giving new meaning to the phrase "older than dirt," scientists have found evidence of an underground rock reservoir left over from the days when Earth was a ball of magma, a new study says.

Rocks recently found on Canada's Baffin Island erupted as lava from a deep rock reservoir that formed 4.5 billion years ago, when the solar system was new, the study says. The reservoir may hold the world's oldest rock, according to the authors.

Because Earth recycles its building blocks so thoroughly—particularly in the mantle, the layer just below the planet's relatively thin outer crust—no purely primordial material has been found before.

"We've been looking for pieces of the mantle that might have survived the chaotic mixing and churning within the deep Earth," said Boston University geochemist Matthew Jackson. "But until now we haven't seen anything that looks like the original stuff that Earth formed from," added Jackson, who co-authored the study, published today in the journal Nature.

Even better, the newly analyzed rocks—which reached the surface some 62 million years ago—suggest a whole reservoir of the primordial rock could still lie somewhere beneath the Arctic, the study says.

I know, I know - no matter what we find, without some unquestionable, undeniable proof that we understand completely, YECs will always be ready to argue that there are pieces of information missing, therefore the whole of the information is worthless. But the problem is, there are ALWAYS pieces of information missing. That's why the scientific method is such a great tool for people to use to understand the world around them - it establishes criteria for considering information in order for it to be established as evidence for or against a given hypothesis and is able to change at any time with the onset of new information.

I think the biggest problem I have with Young Earth Creationists is that they tend to argue from the position that if everything isn't known, then nothing is known. And so because they follow a religion which feels comfortable assigning arbitrary and often entirely ridiculously illogical explanations to the more difficult questions in life, such as why we're here and how life began, they seem to feel secure in their position because even though their answer seems crazy, they have an answer and that's better than nothing.

Except it isn't better than nothing. My position is that when you don't know, the best response is - I don't know. That seems far more productive, truthful, and all around better than any position where any answer - no matter how truthful - is better than admitting that there are still mysteries regarding existence. And though a YEC might feel comfortable molding their entire understanding of life solely around the wisdom of a tome written by uneducated bronze aged people 2000 years ago, I can't imagine what would make anyone think that this position is one that is strong enough to argue from.

Do these people use medical information that is 2000 years old? No! That would be crazy! So...why get other aspects of science - the same science that makes modern medicine as successful as is is today mind you - from a 2000 year old book?

So, here we go. Bring on the reasons why the dating method used in this instance is flawed, why the scientists who found the rocks have ulterior and sinister secular motives, why the geochemist is wrong and the charismatic Dr. of religious studies is right - eventually there will be enough evidence against Young Earth Creationism that it will fizzle out - then we'll just have those Flat Earthers and the Time Cube guy to worry about, right? Riiiiiight.

Greenwich Mean Time Is Not Determined By The Biggest Clock

This is amazing.

For more than a century, a point on the top of a hill in south-east London has been recognised as the centre of world time and the official starting point of each new day.

But now the supremacy of Greenwich Mean Time is being challenged by a gargantuan new clock being built in Mecca, by which the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims could soon be setting their watches.

Due to start ticking on Thursday as the faithful begin fasting during the month of Ramadan, the timepiece sits atop the Royal Mecca Clock Tower which dominates Islam’s holiest city.

It is at the heart of a vast complex funded by the Saudi government that will also house hotels, shopping malls and conference halls.

Bearing a striking resemblance to both St Stephen’s Tower, which houses the bell of Big Ben, and the Empire State Building, the Saudi upstart aims to outdo its revered British rival in every way.

The clock’s four faces are 151ft in diameter and will be illuminated by 2million LED lights along with huge Arabic script reading: “In the name of Allah”. The clock will run on Arabia Standard Time which is three hours ahead of GMT.

When a glittering spire is added, topped with a crescent to symbolise Islam, the edifice will stand at nearly 2,000 ft, making it the world's second tallest building.

The clock of Big Ben, by comparison, is just 23ft in diameter, while its tower stands at a mere 316ft.

Residents of Mecca will also be reminded that it is time to pray when 21,000 green and white lights, visible at a distance of 18 miles, flash five times a day.

OK, thus far, who cares - they built a big clock to rival other big clocks in yet another silly exercise that amounts to an international game of 'my dick is bigger than yours.' The clock sounds impressive, but also like a bit of a rip off, but really who cares. Wacky people do wacky things. This is where it starts getting good.

But Islamic scholars hope the clock’s influence will stretch far further than the sands of Saudi Arabia, as part of a plan for Mecca to eclipse the Greenwich Observatory as the “true centre of the earth”.

Because, as I'm sure you all know, we determine that by the biggest clock now. Wait, what?

For the past 125 years, the international community has accepted that the start of each day should be measured from the prime meridian, representing 0 degrees longitude, which passes through the Greenwich Observatory.

A standard time by which other clocks were set was needed to organise global travel and communications, but in the Islamic world the idea that it should be centred on a part of London is seen as a colonial anachronism.

As Mohammed al-Arkubi, manager of one of the hotels in the complex, put it: "Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time. This is the goal."

That sounds incredibly petty and stupid to me. GMT was established simply as a means of standardization around the world. Who cares what area 'gets' to have that time? For 125 years it's been London, for reasons other than it's London, so I don't get the point of trying to change it now. Well, I get the point, but it seems like an entirely petty endeavor and frankly, a huge waste of time and resources. Is there ANY reason we ought to change GMT to the middle east beyond the fact that some guys somewhere want it changed?

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric known around the Muslim world for his popular television show "Sharia and Life", Mecca has a greater claim to being the prime meridian because it is "in perfect alignment with the magnetic north."

This claim that the holy city is a "zero magnetism zone" has won support from some Arab scientists like Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Centre who says that there is no magnetic force in Mecca.

"That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier and is less affected by the earth's gravity," he said. "You get charged with energy."

Western scientists have challenged such assertions, noting that the Magnetic North Pole is in actual fact on a line of longitude that passes through Canada, the United States, Mexico and Antarctica.

Haha, so they want GMT to be changed because it's in line with the magnetic north pole, except it really isn't. Also, people in Mecca live longer, healthier lives and are less affected by gravity? Wow. I'll need to see some data, guys, somehow I feel compelled to question your assertions here.

Maybe they've also built a bigger copy of some insidious Western laboratories and therefore feel their "science" ought to be more credible by default as well.

Atheist Parenting - Science and Music

Parenting while being an atheist raises some interesting issues. I avoid religiously focused activities and organizations as a general rule, and that rule is just as important in regard to my son as it is to me. Still, the fact is that I live in a somewhat religious culture and so my son sometimes comes up with the most interesting ideas about belief, god, and what he believes.

The other day he told me, "Mom, my god can fly."

"Wow, Tristan, that's cool. Is this your personal god, or is it everyone's god?"

"Anyone who wants to believe in him can I guess."

"Do you think this god is real, or is he someone you made up, like a pretend friend?"

"He's kind of a pretend friend. I don't know. I don't think he's real, but I thought him up so I could believe in god like James at school."

"Do a lot of kids talk about god at school?"

"Some people do. People at my school. James asked me and I said I don't know and he made a face like I was crazy."

"Do you think James knows for sure that there is a god?"

"No, I think he pretends like I do. I think pretend friends help you not feel lonely sometimes."

So, I feel like he's doing fine in his development in regard to god and religion in general. He's kind of interested, but at the same time he realizes that just because someone else believes something, that doesn't mean it is actually real or that he has to believe it.

One of the things I do make sure my son is exposed to is lots and lots of science. My son responds to anything in song form, so I've taken up watching They Might Be Giant podcasts and videos from their Here Comes Science CD/DVD. I can't recommend these guys enough. They're even scientifically responsible enough to have made a song which corrected an older song they released regarding why the sun shines. Now that's pretty awesome!

Scientists Can Design Bacteria, Therefore The Universe Was Designed?

Hopefully everyone has heard at least a little bit by now about the first "synthetic bacterium", a copy of an existing bacteria which was created with synthetic DNA. Pretty exciting stuff. What I'm finding interesting is the negative response to the experiment, of course being led by religious institutions and ethics committees. PZ Myers was kind enough to compile a quick reference list of the most ridiculous responses here, but I wanted to write specifically about one response which I felt was exceptionally ridiculous.

Given the effort that went into the synthesis of the total M. genitalium genome, it's hard to envision how unintelligent, undirected processes could have generated life from a prebiotic soup. Though not their intention, Venter's team unwittingly provided empirical evidence that life's components, and consequently, life itself must stem from the work of an Intelligent Designer.

Yes, that popping sound was my head exploding. I hate creationist arguments, mainly because they're often so convoluted that they become difficult for me to argue against. Not because they contain even a small measure of validity, but rather it's hard for me to fathom their position enough to rouse a response. So let me break this down to it's simplest form - the bacterium was designed, which is proof that the universe is designed.

Not...really.

One thing being designed is not proof of everything being designed. I don't understand why people even believe this argument, let alone feel confident sharing the position with others, it seems so blatantly illogical. If a building is painted, is that proof that anything with color is also painted? I hesitate to believe that even my own analogy is accurate, that's how baffling this kind of logic is to me.

In a forum I frequent, someone is trying to argue the same position, only their argument isn't the the bacteria is man made, therefore the universe was also designed, their argument seems even more rudimentary and absurd - Anyone can tell just by looking at it that Stonehenge was designed, therefore the universe, being obviously far more impressive, was also designed.

Obviously, if you didn't know that Stonehenge was man made, it might occur to you that it might have been, but you would be making an assumption. There are plenty of occurrence in nature that are just as, if not far more, wondrous that are not man made. The whole argument is based on a huge, simplistic assumption - that one instance or even a million instances of design is proof of everything in the universe being designed.

This argument boils down to a kind of pleading. "Of course the universe is designed! Just LOOK at it!!" I spend a little time being sad every time I'm reminded that people who confidently argue with this kind of thinking exist. I guess that's why we have warning labels on lighters telling us they can cause burns.

Why Argue Against Something You Don't Believe Exists?

An interesting question was posed to me, one that I feel every atheist should consider and take the time to respond to -

If God is nothing more than a human fabrication then what is there to disprove? Why do atheists spend time arguing about something they don't believe exists?

My personal response is as follows, and though I know for a fact that my response isn't the same as the response others might put forth, I felt it was beneficial to myself to be reminded exactly why I concern myself with what other people believe.

I don't think of myself as wanting to disprove god, I think of myself as wanting to communicate with people of faith to the point where they have to accept that my position has validity. I don't want to change anyone's mind because I honestly don't care - pray to a popple and worship cinnamon toast crunch, it's all the same to me. The issue I see is that there are people in positions of power and influence who use religion to convince the masses of certain ideas which then are put forth as laws with lots of support from said masses. I don't have a lot of money so beyond making phone calls and voting, I can't take an active stand against the people of power, so I do what I can and reach out to people who follow the people of power and try to explain to them why it's wrong to legislate their religion.

I would love to not feel the compulsion to do this and to simply live my happy atheist life, but I can't do that unless other people wake up and realize that belief, even in mass numbers, does not equal a free license to start dictating how others live. I don't go out of my way looking for confrontations or arguments, but I don't back down if I come across them and I rarely ignore them - even if the argument is about something as stupid as whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or if God definitely exists or not. These discussions are less about the subject for me and more about being continually active as yet another voice of atheism. I think, this is stupid to argue about, but maybe if I make enough good points, it'll add to all the other good points this person has heard and they will at least THINK about why they're supporting what they're supporting. Maybe if enough people say they disagree, religious people might stop blindly following that random religious person in a position of influence and start thinking for themselves a little more, and things will get better.

Another reason I willingly engage in conversations and arguments with theists is because I feel like science needs a voice in the everyday world. I am by no means a scientist and I don't have a degree in a scientific field. Most of what I know about science is self taught, and that self taught knowledge is constantly changing with every bit of new evidence which I come into contact with. My point in making this distinction about myself is that I feel like I'm on a level playing field with any random person who is approaching scientific data. I'm not trained in how to read studies and I have trouble at times understanding complex scientific ideas, but the awesome thing about science is that you don't have to be an expert in a field of study to learn more about a particular subject. You do, however, have to learn to tell science from pseudoscience and I feel like that is an area where a lot of people go astray. It would seem that there is a stigma about science that a lot of my fellow laymen fall into where they feel that if someone has a PhD or a degree in a certain subject that they must know what they're talking about. However, from my experience, it doesn't take an academically trained scientist to distinguish good science from bad. It does take a little bit of effort and skepticism toward what you are reading, especially if you're exposed to an idea which you would like to be true, even though it has been proven false by countless other sources. The argument of whether evolution is real is just as ridiculous to me as the argument of whether god is real, but I still participate in these arguments because though I know the argument against evolution has little to no scientific validity, there are still those people in positions of power and influence telling their supportive masses that evolution is a lie and that preposterous pseudoscientific ideas such as Intelligent Design should not only be taught in schools, but should be taught as science.

This might seem like a huge deviation from the initial question, but it's not. One thing most theists agree on is that for them, god is important in every aspect of their lives. It was, and sometimes still is difficult for me to understand the scope of this kind of thinking as I was never personally religious and didn't grow up with religious parents, but once I understood how truly intrinsic the concept of god is to people, I realized how equally important it was for someone like me, someone who doesn't believe in god, to have their voice be heard.

Misinformation in the name of god is still misinformation, and I feel a personal responsibility to speak out against it wherever it's found. Maybe it's a naive waste of time or delusions of grandeur on my part, I don't know, but at least I'm doing SOMETHING to help spread the word that atheists exist, we're rational people who deserve the same rights as everyone else, and even though people may not agree with us that doesn't give anyone the right to treat us like we count less or don't count at all.

Monkey Girl FAQ - Evolution and ID Facts and Myths

To be sure, one of the more trying aspects of reading Monkey Girl was listening to the misguided and, at times, embarrassingly incorrect opinions people of the town of Dover had concerning evolution - especially people who were aggressively pushing the ID curriculum. Here is a FAQ from Edward Humes, the author of Monkey Girl, which was put together as a direct response to the kind of information and misinformation he ran across when researching for the book:

MONKEY GIRL: Evolution Facts and Myths

• Myth: Evolutionary theory holds that life on Earth, including humans, arose by luck or random chance.
• Fact: Evolution is mindless, but never random. Variations (in height, strength, intelligence, disease resistance, etc.) occur naturally among members of every species, from jalapeños to humans. Variations that help individuals survive (and reproduce) become concentrated in later generations, gradually transforming a species. Variations that pose a disadvantage are weeded out of the gene pool through the death of individuals or the extinction of whole species. This “natural selection” is evolution’s main engine.
• Myth: Evolutionary theory states that man evolved from monkeys.
• Fact: Evolutionary theory states that man and monkeys share a common ancestor that was neither man nor monkey, but possessed qualities passed on to each. Every species on Earth has an ancestor in common with every other species – some dating back millions of years, some hundreds of millions, others dating back billions of years. One implication of common ancestry is that there are far more extinct species than living ones; evidence in the fossil record and in living DNA suggests that more than 99 percent of creatures that have lived on Earth are now extinct.
• Myth: Belief in evolution requires atheism or leads to it.
• Fact: Most scientists accept the validity of evolutionary theory AND believe in God. Charles Darwin was trained to be a preacher and wrote that evolution and belief in God were completely compatible (with evolution contradicting only biblical literalism). It is true that Darwin grew to doubt the existence of God, but not because of evolution. He lost his faith when his young daughter, Annie, died.
• Myth: Evolutionary theory asserts that life arose from nonliving chemicals in Earth’s primordial environment — a process called abiogenesis, popularly referred to as “from goo to you.”
• Fact: Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the beginning of life. It explains how life forms change over time, and does not attempt to explain how life began in the first place. Thus, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with creation but only change.
• Myth: There is more factual evidence to support the biblical account of creation than evolution.
• Fact: There is more scientific evidence, laboratory testing and direct observation to support evolutionary theory than virtually any other scientific theory, including gravitational theory* and the big bang theory. No credible evidence has yet falsified the theory of evolution, while new discoveries Darwin never dreamt of, such as the unraveling of the human genome, have supported his theory. On the other hand, there is no evidence outside of the Bible itself to support the Genesis creation and flood stories, and considerable evidence of inaccuracies and contradictions in Genesis’s description of the physical universe (such as a flat and motionless earth at the center of the universe). This is why many theologians, as well as the doctrines of mainstream churches and synagogues, avoid literal readings of Genesis in favor of metaphorical interpretations.
• Myth: Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has detected scientific evidence of God. It is a legitimate scientific rival for the theory of evolution.
• Fact: Intelligent Design is a non-biblical form of creationism that avoids overtly religious references but posits an unnamed master “designer” by claming certain features in biology — particularly DNA and the complex molecular “machines” inside living cells — appear to have been designed, in the same way humans design software and complex devices. Because it posits a supernatural process — an intelligent designer fashioning life and the universe — it falls outside what is conventionally considered the realm of science, which is generally defined as the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. This is why evolution is a scientific idea, while Intelligent Design is seen by many as a religious idea.
• Myth: the modern Intelligent Design movement was conceived by scientists to further human knowledge and understanding.
• Fact: The modern Intelligent Design movement was conceived by a lawyer in order to overthrow evolutionary theory and bring God “back” to public school classrooms.
• Myth: The teaching of evolution in public schools has undermined belief in God.
• Fact: Only one fifth of Americans believe humans evolved from earlier species.
• Fact: Sixty-four percent of Americans are creationists (meaning they believe humans were created directly by God, as in the biblical Genesis).
• Fact: About half of Americans believe God created the Earth and all life less than ten thousand years ago.
• Fact: A majority of Americans — including President Bush — believes evolution, intelligent design, and creationism should all be taught in public schools equally.
• Fact: The more educated a person is, the more likely that person will accept the validity of evolution and reject creationism (65 percent of Americans who attended graduate school believe evolutionary theory is scientific and well-supported by the evidence; 52 percent of those with bachelor’ degrees accept evolution; 20 percent of Americans with high school educations or less believe evolutionary theory is well supported by the facts).
• Fact: 98 percent of scientists in the nation and world accept scientific evidence that the earth is four billion years old and that primitive life first appeared on the planet three billion years ago.
• Fact: A majority of Americans who reject evolutionary theory as invalid have no clear or accurate understanding of what it is they are rejecting.
  

  *There is, of course, no doubt that gravity exists, but the understanding of how and why it effects space and time is surprisingly incomplete when it comes to laboratory evidence. For instance, the existence of gravitational waves is predicted by gravitational theory, but despite determined efforts by physicists for many years, such waves have never been directly detected. Evolution, on the other hand, has been observed directly in the laboratory and in nature innumerable times.

A Word On Evolution

I don't tend to engage in arguments that are staged as 'creationism vs. evolution' because I don't see the two views being at all comparable. The creation myth is simply that - a myth. When someone demands proof for evolution, I often suggest they start by reading The Origin of Species - a 150 year old book which conceptualizes the idea, and then continue research with the knowledge in mind that this idea has become as solid a scientific theory as that of gravity. The 'softer' argument that seems to pop up in regard to evolution is the 'it's just a theory' BS. Angie the Anti-Theist is having a grand old time staving off the logical fallacies of one such person and I chimed in and what happened - I was accused of being Angie and my questions were entirely ignored. Typical.

I feel like the issues with debating regarding evolution are ones of scientific illiteracy. A theory to the layman is nothing more than an idea. A theory as its established in science is far more conclusive. To attribute the layman's understanding of what a theory is to the scientific classification of evolution as a theory is a mistake that many uneducated people tend to make and refuse to correct. What exactly is the point of debate with someone who stubbornly refuses to understand the way basic science works?

To say that proponents of evolution are asking for people to accept facts on faith is ridiculous as well. This to me is just another way of saying 'your explanation is complicated and I don't immediately understand it, therefore it must be your explanation that is faulty.' No. Life and the universe are complicated subjects which require complicated explanations. A person's unwillingness to take the time and dedication to learn does not in any way make the complicated explanation any less true. Even more interesting is that as you learn about science, the explanation of complex ideas becomes far less confusing and difficult to understand because science builds on itself.

I feel for Angie - conversations like the one she finds herself in are the reason even my mother understands the term 'head/desk'.

A Word From Ken Ham - RE: Creation Museum Visit

So I wandered over to the Answers In Genesis website (I know, gross, but I was curious) to see what creepy ol' Ken Ham had to say about the impending (and by now completed without incident) visit of about 285 atheists/humanists to his abomination unto mighty Atheismo, the Creation Museum.

I wasn't shocked to find his quote mining of prominent atheist and university professor PZ Myer's blog as definitive proof that all atheists are mean and snarky. The fact is, the creation museum is as much a joke among atheists as I don't know...valued and accredited scientific research is among creationists so lets not claim innocence on that front. However, this quote from Ham was a bit much:

Most people (even most of the non-Christians) who come to the museum do so to learn, to be challenged, to search out information, to be equipped, and so on.

I guarantee you, Mr. Ham, what you're doing at the creation museum has nothing to do with information unless you count misinformation as a kind of information. People may go there to learn the latest in christian apologetics, but as for learning history, science, or anything of value, the creation museum is not on the top of anyone's list. I will agree that there is a challenge here - the challenge to not burst out laughing hysterically at the ridiculousness of the 'museum' and it's content.

Yeah, I'm snarky when it comes to the application of pseudoscience when trying to give creationism scientific validity because creationism is an idea based on a myth. There are no observations in nature which support creationism unless you refuse to observe nature in its entirety. Once you start trying to lie to people by telling them that their mythological belief system has any amount of validity in the field of science, you are essentially throwing down the gauntlet for the discussion and the scientifically minded community isn't going to pull any punches in it's response. You can call us mean for it, but to relate to you on a level you'll understand - you started it.

Ham goes on to quote a post PZ made about the recent Iowa bus ad controversy where the DART pulled atheist bus ads after having initially approved them, published them, and collected the money for them. At first the DART claimed the bus ads were pulled because of a negative community reaction, but then changed their story to say that they were never approved in the first place. When confronted with proof that they were in fact approved, the DART has once again changed it's story to say that they were supposed to be approved AGAIN and weren't.

What confuses me is that Ham quotes PZ's entire post and then comes to this conclusion:

You see, regardless of the creation/evolution issue, these people oppose anyone who believes in God, regardless of whether they accept Genesis as literal history.

What? A post about discrimination against atheists in reference to a bus ad is proof that we oppose anyone who believes in god? I suppose when you run an establishment that brazenly asserts that T-rex was a vegetarian regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you can come to any conclusion from any source without fear of being called out on your erroneous logic. Erroneous logic seems to be the name of the creationist game. Sometimes I just want to take creationists by the shoulders, give them a good shake and demand in my most authoritative voice that they make sense.

Atheism - Is The Lack Of Belief Still A Belief?

One of the most annoying occurrences I run across with fellow atheists is the claim that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. To me, this argument seems unimportant and a bit nit-picky. I understand the logic behind it - atheism isn't a belief but rather a lack of belief in a god or gods. Yes, OK. However, since the question of whether there is a god or not is at present an unanswerable one then to not believe in god is still a belief in that you believe that there is not a god. Rearranging the words of the conviction to say "I don't believe in god" doesn't automatically make it less of a belief.

I think the issue that is raised here is the lack of congruency in regard to what constitutes an atheist. Some are ardent and convinced that there is no god. Others are unconcerned with the existence god and simply don't feel that the issue deserves much of any consideration. The latter position begins to bleed into the gray area of agnosticism, but I know plenty of people who feel entirely unconcerned about god but who still consider themselves atheists. I have found that an atheist is an agnostic is a non-believer is a freethinker, all depending on who is considering the source.

The only reason the issue of whether atheism is or is not a belief seems to stem from a habit of religious detractors who like to claim to that because atheism is a belief then atheism must also be a kind of offshoot of religion, requiring the same faith which atheists and anti-theists often ridicule religion for relying on. The problem with this argument is that while the entirety of religious belief is based on faith (if we are to cast aside ridiculous pseudo scientific arguments which we should because they're crap), atheists form their beliefs based on empirical data and scientifically sound evidence. When you consider the difference between the sources of information either opinion is based off of, the argument that atheism is the same kind of belief as belief in god falls apart quickly because it's clearly not.

To touch a bit more on pseudoscience, the very essence of the difference between belief in god and belief that there is no god is what gave birth to the aggravating practice some religious groups have adopted of trying to warp scientific information or at times completely making up science to try to prove their religions as valid. This paired with the insistence that believing there is no god is no more valid than believing there is a god is a kind of religious two pronged attack on atheism on all fronts. If atheism really is a belief in the same respect as religiousness is a belief, there would be no need for pseudoscience to even exist.

I don't see any reason to argue whether atheism is or is not a belief because I feel like it's a moot point. If you say it's a lack of belief or you claim it's what you believe and is therefore your belief, neither position is incorrect or more correct than the other. I feel like the wholehearted rejection of atheism as a belief within the atheist community is almost an indication of cowering to the pressures of the religious who seek to invalidate our position with semantics, pseudoscience, and conflated convictions in regard to belief.

Perseids, Galileo, Religion, and Torture

Tacoma Atheists recently twittered about the upcoming Perseid meteor shower which in turn got me thinking more about Galileo, science, and atheism.

It was Galileo's curiosity about the heavens that inspired him to refine the telescope and start studying the stars and planets of the night sky. It was in 1610 that he first saw Jupiter and noticed four moons which were orbiting around the planet, which was proof that the Catholic church was wrong about the universe revolving around the Earth.

Galileo wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong, he was simply curious and his curiosity at that time in history was a dangerous thing. Previous to this discovery there had already been several church killings as a response to scientific discovery, including some of Galileo's closest friends. These killings often included barbaric tortures such as driving nails through victim's tongues and burning people alive.

One of the things that saved Galileo's bacon was the fact that he was friends with the pope at that time and was even given permission to write a book with the stipulation that his ideas and the church's ideas be given equal weight. Once the book was published it was decided he failed to maintain equality and in 1632 he was called to Rome by the Catholic Inquisition.

At age 70 he recanted his scientific research and discoveries - undoubtedly out of fear of being horribly tortured - and was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.

It was only in 1992 - that's 23 years after the moon landing - that the Catholic church admitted that Galileo was right about his (and by extension Copernicus') heliocentric universe. How did they address the torture and anguish their institution was responsible for during the time when Galileo lived? They didn't. In fact there are plenty of other scientists from that era who are still considered wicked and whose writings are still condemned. Did they praise Galileo for being the brilliant scientist that he was, as one of the first men to incorporate empirical research into his work and someone who helped define and understand the universe as it is? No. They attributed his successes to their god, of course.

It would be nice if this negative reaction to scientific discovery were a thing of the past but it's not. Now we don't have people ignorantly rallying against heliocentric ideas, now we have people foaming at the mouth over evolution. Back then it was an affront to the Catholic religion to admit that the earth was not the center of everything. Now, it seems the fact that everything changes on this world - plants, people, the planet itself - and that nothing that you see today is the same as it was and always will be is an affront to religious people across the board. You can cite animal husbandry, aviary speciation, co-evolution of flowers and the unique animals which pollinate them, but it's a waste of breath.

Just recently there was a study where the change of a single gene within two closely related populations of birds has evidently started the process of speciation. This is stuff we can see, we can witness in our lifetime - proof that evolution is the process by which life as we know it came to be yet there are still people who reject it without even trying to understand what it is. Why? A guy in a robe, a lady behind a podium, a smiling soothsayer on TV told them to reject it. That is the power of religion right there.

I often wonder, if given the opportunity, how many of these evolution naysayers would drive nails through our tongues and burn us at the stake if given the oppertunity. It seems like that really is the only way to keep logic from reaching people - make logic punishable by torture and death.

This is Your Brain on God

NPR has a fun little interactive page about religion and the brain in which there are 5 basic subtopics:

The God Chemical
The God Spot
Spiritual Virtuosos
The Biology of Belief
Near Death Experiences

Reading through the articles I had some positive and negative reactions to what was being said. I want to focus on the first topic, the god chemical, as this was both the most obvious explanation for people's passionate belief in god and the article which inspired the most negative response from myself.

Under the first category, the god chemical, it reads:

research suggests that chemicals that act on the serotonin system trigger mystical experiences that are life-altering. Serotonin is a chemical messenger that helps regulate mood and sleep. Now those neurologists -- and others -- are replicating studies from the 1960s in which patients with end-stage cancer were given LSD to see if they were convinced that life exists beyond death. The research raises the question, is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit for people to reach God?

Now, I have had my assumptions all along that there must be some kind of correlation between brain activity/chemical balances and the passionate adherence to beliefs which logically seem entirely ridiculous. The thing that bothers me about this is the question which is posed at the end - The research raises the question, is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit for people to reach God?

This question is only raised if you are somehow inclined to believe that god exists in the first place. Given the overwhelming evidence that points to god not being real, it seems ludicrous to say that in this instance brain chemistry and activity might exist as a conduit for holy interactions when in most other cases brain chemistry and activity is considered with far more scrutiny - certainly more scrutiny than would allow such a theory in any other area to even be proposed.

This begs the question: why is it that the rules seem to change whenever god is brought into the picture?

Now I admit I'm treading into unknown waters here as I am not a biologist or scientist of any kind and so I also freely admit that there could be information which I don't know about which could solidify the suggestion of there being a god connection wired in the brain. I know that the brain is one of the most unknown organs of the body despite decades of dedicated research, but that to me seems to weaken the argument that because x part of the brain reacts in this way when exposed to god, that means that x could be necessary in talking to god. That seems like more of a logic jump than what should be allowed with the amount of information we currently have available.

Logic jumps like these seem to only be widely permissible when kept within the context of religion, and so to a skeptic like myself that makes these allowances all the more suspect.