The Problem With Atheists These Days

Most Muslims are ok.  Most Christians are ok.  Most people, in general, are ok, including atheists.  But then you get the extremists and by this, I don't mean hairy little men running around donning the finest in tea-towel head equipment and high-yield explosive devices as their latest fashion accessories. Oh no, no.  I'm talking about the irrational passionates whose reaction dials are permanently set to 'knee-jerk'.  This is kind of like most microwave ovens which are never set to any power setting other than high.

Yes, I agree that Christianity has dominated Western culture for quite long enough and religious privilege is driving secularists such as myself up the wall.  Here in New Zealand, Christianity is still permitted to be taught in secular schools which in this day and age is quite absurd really.  In the long run, this needs to be addressed, but it's not - or rather should not at all be - a priority call (see my blog Abolishing Religious Instruction From New Zealand Secular Schools) as there are much more pressing issues at stake, such as religion having a direct influence on legislation.  The lesser issues and everything else?  Meh, we'll get around to dealing with them when we've got some spare time.  Well, at least that's how it should be anyway.

Unfortunately, we have individuals, groups, and organisations rallying together to speak up and fight the little things and believing quite incorrectly that the little things will lead to rectifying the greater issues.  Nope, not at all.  That's not how the church plays ball and whether you like it or not, the church is setting the rules and the knee-jerks are playing precisely the way the church anticipates them to play.  Not only are the knee-jerks ingorant of this fact, they DON'T WANT TO KNOW.  I guess it's a pride thing.  You know, we wouldn't want religious people to be smart and ahead of us now, would we?

So the problem with atheists these days, or more accurately, the outspoken anti-theist atheists, is that they react to anything and everything religious and have little or zero understanding of the battle they are fighting or whom they are fighting against.  They exhibit no tolerance at all and quite frankly, they are no different to religious fundamentalists who won't even so much as allow a lesbian to enter a bridal shop.  Yes, we need to separate religion and state because bigotry has no place in society and its governing legislation, but is witnessing a small thank-you prayer before a corporate meal or school exam really shoving religion down one's throat?  Is it something to lose our minds over?

The very psychology behind the closed mindedness that keeps people religious and irrational is the exact same psychology that causes the anti-theist to seek out and smack down anything and everything religious.  Or to put it more bluntly, to deny all religious people of any religious freedom whatsoever, regardless of whether it has any effect on those around them or not.

At the end of the day, being such an intolerant insolent because of a harmless superstitious tradition makes you look like a fool when you react so strongly to a practice that you insist you don't believe in. The people who do take public prayers seriously (a lot don't and only say these prayers to keep other traditionalists happy) will take one look at you and triumph at the fact that the power of prayer is demonstrably real by the manifestation of the evil within you trying to resist God's power. Not only that, but they will get up to tell everyone in Church how God is working through them because yet another non-believer has been defeated by the power of Jesus Christ through prayer. You think that sounds like utter tripe? Then get a grip and stop making the rest of us look like weak non-religious pansies.

But You're Not A Scientist!

In recent discussions with evolution deniers, quite often I've been told two things.  One is that I'm not a scientist so how would I know what I'm talking about and the other is that I have to take a scientist's word on faith.  At first glance, these seem like reasonable statements, however, when you slow them down and look at them more closely, you will find that they aren't so accurate.

Let's first look at the fact that I am not a scientist.  The definition of scientist is as follows:

"A person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method."

Now let's look at the definition of expert:

"A person who is very knowledgeable about or skillful in a particular area."

A scientist is a person who acquires knowledge and an expert is a person who learns about and understands the information acquired by the scientist.  We aren't all scientists.  It takes scientists to figure out how to design a working helicopter, but it takes an expert engineer to build one and an expert aviator to fly one.  Most helicopter pilots would be unable to build one and most helicopter engineers would be unable to fly one.  Then there are scientists who not only figure out how to build better helicopters, but can also engineer and fly them.  Having said this, you don't necessarily have to even be an expert to fly one.  Every pilot has to start somewhere, right?

For over 150 years, scientists have been studying and acquiring knowledge that contributes to the continually developing theory of evolution.  These scientists have provided the information and all we need to do is learn this information.  A person who studies a particular topic, such as the theory of evolution, is usually an expert compared to those who don't understand it at all.  If you are unsure about someone's expertise on a particular topic, just check their claims by going back to the original source of information provided by the scientists.

Let's look at the second claim made about me.  I have to take a scientist's word on faith.  The two definitions of faith are as follows:

1. "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
2. "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

Usually, when someone accuses you of accepting a scientist's word on faith (yes, this is an accusation), they are using a logical fallacy called false equivocation.  This means they are using one definition of a word that doesn't match the context in which that word is being used.  In this case, the accuser is using the second definition of the word faith which is belief without evidence rather than the correct definition which is trust or confidence in the scientist.

Now even using the correct definition can cause reason to doubt considering the fact that it's possible to trust someone who is wrong, but trusting a scientist's word doesn't by necessity have to be by belief without evidence.  Trusting a scientist can and should be based on looking at the evidence presented.

Bill Nye is often ridiculed by doubters for not being a scientist.  As I've demonstrated, there's a difference between being scientist and being an expert.  You don't need a PhD in physics to pilot a helicopter.  You don't need a PhD in biology, paleontology, geology, zoology, chemistry, molecular biology, taxonomy, mathematics, cosmology, physics, probability, anthropology, archaeology, history or philosophy to learn about and be an expert among your peers on how evolution works.

If Something Can't Come From Nothing, Then Who Created The Universe?

See this storm cloud?

To say it came from nothing would be absurd, right?  Of course it would, but would it be sensible to say that there must have been a mind behind it, or would that be equally as absurd? To say that because you can't get something from nothing, the only conclusion is that it had to have been intelligently designed, that is called a false dichotomy, or false dilemma.

In ancient times, before humans had knowledge of the behaviour of warm and cold air, air pressure, precipitation, etc, it seemed perfectly sensible to them to assume that a thunderstorm was the manifestation of the gods since there was no other explanation available.  This may seem ridiculous to us now, but we do still hear claims of the very same false dichotomy being made today.  Just as our distant ancestors didn't understand the physics of meteorology, we do not yet understand the causes behind the existence of our universe.  Claims are continually being made that because something can't come from nothing, then the only other explanation is intelligent design.  This is a false dichotomy saying it has to be one or the other and deliberately leaving no room for further exploration of what may have preceeded our universe as we know it.