The Many Faces of Atheism

As I have gone from theist to atheist the one thing that keeps coming up in discussions about what atheism is and how to better define it is whether or not there is such a thing as a strong or weak atheist, or a militant atheist, a naturalistic atheist, a Christian atheist, and so on and so forth.

Some people add descriptors to their atheism, to help define what they believe, or which worldview they lean toward. While others claim the description of atheism depends on which form of theism your are responding to. Both camps may turn out to be right.

On its surface, atheism is like a chameleon, it adapts to its surroundings, the situation, indeed, to the god it states it is rejecting or the theistic claim it is denying. But as many atheists have observed, at its most basic, atheism is just theism without.

Interestingly enough, however, I find that this revelation makes atheism all the more appealing to me--because it means we have here a highly adaptive belief (yes, believe it or not atheism is a form of belief) which contributes to a greater understanding of the world around us. But unlike religion, it doesn't claim to be a divinely revealed truth. In fact, atheism would happily confess its grand mistake if a supreme deity ever did come out with it and reveal "himself" to us. However, it is because atheism doesn't claim to be a revealed truth that it is in no danger of having to prove itself according to the claims it makes. Briefly, let me explain what I mean by this.

Monotheism, like the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teach that there is one (and only one) God. Now, how do they know? Well, this is the revealed part of religion. A voice from the heavens supposedly came down to them, and said, "I am."

They responded, "Who?"

"I the Lord," the voice declared.

"Who are you Lord?" the multitudes inquired.

"I am who I am," said the Lord.

Nobody ever thought to ask the obvious follow-up question, which would have been, "Oh, Lord, pray tell, art though a smart ass or just a dessert wrought hallucination?"

Instead, these few desert dwelling folk, amid their bouts of heat stroke and fending off dehydration, clustered together in sun scorched caravans far from any recognizable oasis, and cowered in the dirt and worshiped. Nobody knows why for sure, or whether the God which appeared to them was real or just a figment of their sun baked imaginations, but regardless, they erected entire religions based on some very dubious accounts of what constitutes evidence. Indeed, to the modern educated man, these accounts all look like ridiculous myths, and rightly classifies them as such.

Even so, some forms of religion are resilient to skeptical inquiry and doubt. Not because they are true--but because they have become so good at adapting themselves that they have evolved into religions which can survive the environment around them. If the cultural environment becomes enlightened and free thinking, the religion becomes theologically sophisticated and liberal. If the environment consists of mainly uneducated women living under the patriarchy of uneducated and highly conservative men, then their religion reflects this too.

But no matter how much religion adapts itself... it will always be limited by the tenets and articles of faith which help to define it.

Monotheism, for example, must maintain a strict definition of what it means to believe in God. You can't believe in many gods, because that would be polytheism. You can't believe that god is everywhere and everything, because that would be pantheism. What this means, I think, should be clear enough. Religion is always defined by the sort of God (or gods) it presumes to be real. Whether or not these deities exist or not is besides the point--because the believer believes it without question--and in turn their beliefs are dictated by the type of God they imagine to be real.

It is for this very reason that belief in God so often interferes with the truth. If God is said to be a Creator being, and said to have created it all, then when science postulates creation happen perhaps another way, then the religious grow weary of science--not faith. Subsequently, superstition overrides common sense and metaphysical assumptions trump knowledge. The reason, I think, is obvious. If the religious questioned their faith every time they had a doubt, then their belief in God would likely prove meaningless. Not because their concept of God is no longer seemingly compatible with the view of reality they are asked to consider, but rather, because to question the type of God you believe in in the first place is to question the very thing which, as a believer, defines who you are and how you see the world.

Religion is highly adaptive, perhaps for this very reason, because when faced with contradictions or dilemmas, and sometimes even hard evidence which complicates or compromises the believer's faith--they set about attempting to rationalize ways to harmonize the current information with the information they hold to be sacred, revealed, truth. Truth is truth, after all.

This explains how religious defenses truly work. If God created it all, but then science postulates the "Big Bang" singularity spontaneously caused the universe to pop into existence from a previous state of nothingness--these conflicting theories lead to the harmonization that--through no fault of the believer (who pleads ignorance in the face of understanding something as magnificent as God)--it was God who sparked the big bang into existence. Thus faith is salvaged and science, which directly conflicted with their premise, has now become fully compatible. So much so that many believers are quick to use it as support for claiming things like "God is all powerful, beyond understanding, and transcendent, he is immutable, existing beyond the boundaries of space and time." The only problem is, there is no real way to argue against such claims, accept to point out that it seems awfully suspect that the religious, and religion in general, has to continually keep making them.

But somewhere in all this apologetics which try to save the truth from itself, is the crux of the matter. Because eventually you start to see the pattern in what religion can and cannot be. Then one day, you stop to realize that if the God which is claimed to be real was at all real, then the religion would not be limited in such a way. In other words, religion is bound to the limits of human understanding and imagination. Typically speaking, of course, the more primitive the human minds behind religion, the more primitive the religion. On the other hand, atheism is free to be anything--well--anything except for theism that is.

As such, atheism is not bound to human understanding or imagination the same way religion is. In fact, it seems to me to be the opposite. Understanding directly feeds atheism--whereas the lack of understanding, and the ignorance it generates, is what feeds religion.

Atheism, is for the lack of a better word, undefinable--it's unlimited. This makes it difficult to define, perhaps even futile (which is why I don't see the point in adding descriptors to the type of atheist you happen to be--but that's just me) yet at the same time, atheism makes is rather expansive in what it can be--or what it can become. Is there militant atheism? Sure there is. Is there naturalistic atheism? You bet. Christian atheism? I personally know few people who consider themselves Christian atheists. But to me, all of these facets of atheism merely represent different faces of the same thing (another reason I don't specifically feel the need to classify each category or variation of atheism). I think it's time we start to grow comfortable with the idea that there are many faces to atheism.

As atheism grows, matures, and adapts I am sure we will see many more varieties of atheism. I for one, see this as a good thing, because atheism offers more for less, and once people start realizing this more fully--well then, religion will really have to start to compete. Robert G. Ingersoll once sated, "No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

I think this description rings true. I've never once heard of a group of brilliant scientists holding a summit and then everyone walking out of it with a firm belief in some kind of deity. But you hear of primitive tribes, shamans, and occasionally uneducated charlatans concocting religions all of the time. All this goes to show that understanding is when we know enough to admit we really don't know that much at all,  while religion is pretending to know more than we really can. Conversely, if there was enough evidence to establish the existence of a deity, of God, beyond an inkling of doubt, then atheism would never come to be. The very fact that atheism arises in the first place is a very strong indicator that God probably does not exist.

[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the "follow" tab next to the "Blogger" icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says "join this site." Thanks!]
 

Why Plantinga's EAAN Argument is a Non-Sequitur (Update)

In Christian theologian Alvin Plantinga's book Warrant and Proper Function, Plantinga argues that, if both:

(N) naturalism – the view that there are no supernatural beings

(E) evolution - current evolutionary doctrine

are true, then the probability that:

(R) our cognitive faculties are reliable and produce mostly true beliefs must be either low or inscrutable.

Plantinga claims that this argument gives anyone who accepts N&E with a undefeatable defeater for any belief produced by those faculties, including N&E itself. Hence, N&E has been shown to be self-defeating (this is his Evolutionary argument against naturalism).

Basically, he is saying that "the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low."

Now I am not going to criticize Plantinga's skills of philosophy, but it seems to me he actually hasn't thought about the ramifications of the claim.

If no cognitive judgments can be made, then rationality, is an illusion. We only think we are being rational, but in reality, our ability to make a rational, cognitive, decision would exhibit the same probability as a coin toss.

I offer an extremely easy to do scientific experiment which would show that Plantinga's theory is, in truth, a non-issue. It's basically a non-sequitur, and here's why.

Let's test the theory. We shall use a coin. We will give a control group certain problems to solve, while another group will be given the same problems. These problems will require using the cognitive function of the brain and thinking rationally to solve. While the other group will be attempting to answering the same problems based on random coin tosses.

If we see that the ratio of cognitive based problem solvers happen to provide the correct answer, and solve more problems, more often than the coin tossing based problem solvers then we can safely say cognitive function exists--regardless of whether naturalism and evolution both being true makes the probability of cognitive function low. Indeed, having tested the ration of random coin tosses with the ability to rationalize we would at least know, that having validated cognitive function, that the existence of cognitive function is real despite Plantinga's theory that it would be nearly non-existent. 

So we must test it. Here is my proposal.

Here are five simple problems to solve for both test groups. Remember, group A gets to use their "thinking caps" while group B must solve the problems with a coin toss.

1. Before eating your breakfast cereal, should you a) poor milk onto it, or b) poor gasoline onto it?

2. Is the following sentence grammatically correct? "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." 
3. John is twenty years younger than Amy, and in five years' time he will be half her age. What is John's age now?
4. Solve for J:

J = A − 20

J + 5 = (A + 5)/2

5. Do problems #3 and #4 represent the same question, yes or no?

Now, just as an aside, I do not expect anyone to actually eat the cereal with the gasoline on it, as it would likely prove lethal, or at the very least, make them horribly ill.

My point here was to show that our cognitive capacity to rationalize should always met out the correct answer, unless of course, the person is brain damaged or mentally ill and cannot differentiate between something toxic like gasoline and something like milk. But such a case would be so rare that it probably needs no further consideration.

The test reveals the cognitive capacity to rationalize and think through the problems outweighs the random coin tosses when giving us the correct answer, allowing us to definitively say that human cognitive function exists while evolution and naturalism both are true--and this would just make Plantinga's argument a non-sequitur, because it hinges on the notion that cognitive function would either be an illusion, in which case his argument is mute, or extremely low--which it does not appear to be. It's a 100% verifiable.

Proof of cognitive function, then, renders the claim that naturalism and evolution cannot both be true erroneous. By initiating the test which is designed to prove and confirm that cognitive processes are not an illusion, because they are shown work when aiding us in problem solving whereas random coin tosses do not work, allows us to dismiss Plantinga's theory as incorrect and Plantinga's premise is falsified.

A simpler, more basic, test which does likewise is is to take a picture of red colored square, with the following question written in black letters underneath, "What color is the (above) triangle, yellow or blue?" and show it to someone. Have them read the card, and then watch their reaction to the cognitive dissonance it generates.

A thinking mind could and should be able to detect the dilemma that causes cognitive dissonance. There is no triangle, it's a square. It's not yellow nor blue, but it is red.

Of course, anyone can do this because we all recognized there are such things as different colors, or at least we believe there are, and the ability to detect the difference shows we hold a basic belief about the difference between colors. The same goes for detecting different shapes.

Moreover, our belief that the question is misleading, and wrong, and our cognitive capacity to make a correlation between the image and the incorrect information imbedded within the questioning cannot be, as Plantinga admits, an illusion. If it were, it would suggest that the belief that triangles and squares are geometrically dissimilar is false. It would suggest that, in actuality, they are the same.

Now stop to think about this for a moment... how can two entirely different geometric objects, each containing a different number of points and lines, be indistinguishable from one another? They can't. This falsifies Plantinga's theory--because we can rationalize that our belief in the difference of colors and shapes is not an illusion when it is a proberly basic belief, otherwise there is no such thing as properly basic beliefs.

[Note: The beliefs being properly basic, if cognition was an illusion, then cognitive dissonance couldn't arrise. An illusion cannot arise from the destruction of a prior illusion, unless of course, the beliefs weren't properly basic to begin with. Red is red, not yellow nor blue. If it were an illusion, then this admits that red could be classified as something other than red, but it appears to us redly so it must be a properly basic belief. Hence, it cannot appear to us wrongly, meaning if it is said to be a color other than it appears to be, then our cognitive reasoning kicks in and informs us that something is not right, i.e. it sparks cognitive dissonance, thereby demonstrating cognition is not inscrutable or illusionary, but is entirely real.]

Whether or not evolution and naturalism negate each other, it seems that such an inference is refuted by the basic evidence we contain which shows evolution to be a natural process. Maybe there is something more philosophically complex that I am missing, but not being a professional philosopher, perhaps I am not qualified to say, but Stephen Law refutes Plantinga's theory here, showing evolution and naturalism to be fully compatible.

Personally, knowing that our cognitive function isn't impaired in the slightest, and knowing the abundance of natural evidence which suggests evolution is true, I would surmise that Plantinga has probably misunderstood something about the nature of evolution or has not fully thought out naturalism. I would hate to have to say this about such an esteemed philosopher, but one has to wonder, why such an esteemed philosopher never thought about how his theory might be falsified and discredited. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to give you the correct rational response to, "Should you poor milk on your breakfast cereal or gasoline?" You can ask any child and they'll give you the correct answer.

Such a simple test should have been considered by Plantinga before he posited his theory--but having failed to do so makes him seem like either a bad philosopher, dead wrong, or biased to the point where he can't seem to admit that his theory is a non-sequitur from the start; which means Plantinga doesn't expect his theory to be falsified--he expects you to agree with him that naturalism and evolution are incompatible (or inscrutable). Which they are not, due to the amazing gift we have which is cognition and the ability to think rationally, as proved by my five question quiz and simple cognitive function test with the red square.

Therefore, I have offered a scientific proof, a test anyone can run (and see for themselves), which proves cognition and completely falsifies Plantinga's theory that N&E are incompatible. The only recourse Plantinga has now is to point out that N&E together only make our cognitive facilities a low probability--not entirely impossible--just improbable. But if that is the recourse, then why offer the theory in the first place? As you can clearly see, the theory is a non-sequitur any which way you look at it. It beats me why philosophers continue to keep resurrecting it. It didn't work for C.S. Lewis back when he offered it in his book Miracles, and it certainly doesn't work for Plantinga now.

Although it is not directly related to the above essay, I felt I needed to share the observation I made while thinking about how to falsify Plantinga's theory. It seems to me, the above refutation highlights an issue philosophers like Plantinga, and those who follow in his footsteps, need to start to seriously address. Science can discredit poor philosophy, but philosophy will never be able to discredit science. Plantinga wants to discredit naturalism and evolution to maintain his belief in a metaphysical supreme creator God--but having showed individual cognition is real--the burden is on Plantinga to explain how evolution x naturalism, something we have strong evidence for, is somehow less true than unfounded metaphysical assumptions. I do not think anyone who is honest with themselves would even try to deny that cognitive function and naturalism x evolution are 100% real--therefore another theory must be offered if Plantinga wants us to buy into his metaphysical propositions, which are far as I can tell, are completely without basis.

[ If you're not familiar with Alvin Plantinga, or his work, I have provided a link which Plantinga explains properly basic beliefs. I'll let you decide the merit of his arguments for yourself.]

[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the "follow" tab next to the "Blogger" icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says "join this site." Thanks!]

Due Criticism: Appeal to Authority

Introduction
The appeal to authority may be the most widely relied upon informal fallacy there is. Of course the reason for this is most likely biological and psychological. From infancy we have no choice but to rely on the protection and safety of higher powers. These powers are usually represented by our parents and guardians, elders, leaders, and governments. It is also why many people, once fully actualized adults, still seek authority figures in their lives. Without a King, or President, or a functioning government--most people wouldn't have the structure they need in their lives--a structure which reflects their entire upbringing since the day they were born.

Indeed, society as a whole is largely structured with authority in mind. It is why armies need dictators, militaries rely on governments, the pious rely on the priests, and so on and so forth. It is no wonder then that we innately appeal to authority when we are trying to justify our desires, needs, as well as actions.

What I am concerned with here, however, is a specific form of authority used in academia. It is the argument from authority. Now, the appeal to authority is one means in gaining support to justify an argument, idea, or belief. Basically any position we take must be validated before it can become formally accepted. If you write a book on the history of George Washington, it helps to cite historians, and better yet, historians whose expertise is centered on the time and place of your topic. Another important factor is whether there is a consensus on the relevant information. Do the experts agree?

The thing we must keep in mind, however, is that the appeal to authority should be just one aspect of the support we seek--it should not be the sole piece of evidence we have supporting our position--because even authorities can be mistaken or misunderstood.

Appeal to Authority
The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.

a says p about S.

Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

Subsequently, if an appeal to authority doesn't meet the aforementioned prerequisites, then chances are the appeal is fallacious. What this means is, if the authority lacks the expertise to be considered an authority on that subject, or else, the authority is a minority who holds a belief radically opposed to the general consensus, then chances are the authority is invalid. In which case, the argument based on that single authority would be invalid--thus rendering your position invalid.

This is why it is vital to refrain from relying on just one single authority for support of any given position. Which is why colleges teach you to properly support your arguments with more than just one ounce of evidence. Most scholars rely on mountains of collected evidence to support one meager position. Which is why when a scholar makes an appeal to authority, and neglects to cite any other sources, it should send up red flags cautioning you to think more carefully of whether or not this person truly knows what they are talking about.

An Appeal to Authority Examined
Now that we know a little bit about the argument from authority, i.e. appeals to authority, I want to do a semi-formal critique of an appeal to authority. My goal is to show how criticism can reveal the weakness in an argument by highlighting the fallacious appeals to authority. The reason criticism like this is such a powerful tool, is because if we can show that an appeal is invalid, then it most likely isn't credible. If it's not a credible argument, then whatever position the proponent is arguing for is likely either unjustified or stuck up in the air--and a better argument is required before their position can be deemed credible.

What follows is a quote from William Laine Craig's book Reasonable Faith (third edition) in which Craig makes a (intentional) fallacious appeal to authority.

In Plantinga's view the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit is the close analogue of a cognitive faculty in that it, too, is a belief-forming "mechanism." As such the beliefs formed by this process meet the conditions for warrant. Therefore, one can be said to know the great truths of the gospel through the instigation of the Holy Spirit.


Because we know the great truths of the Gospel through the Holy Spirit's work, we have no need of evidence for them. Rather they are properly basic for us, both with respect to justification and warrant. Plantinga therefore affirms that "according to the model, the central truths of the Gospel are self-authenticating"; that is to say, "They do not get their evidence or warrant by way of being believed on the evidential basis of other propositions."

As you can see, Craig appeals to the Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga as his authority. The position Craig is defending is basically the notion that Christian belief doesn't need to be justified, because it is basic, and he quotes Plantinga to garner this support.

In order to see why this support is invalid, and why this appeal to authority actually hurt's Craig's case rather than helping it, we have to do what literary critics do and break down the argument line by line (i.e., sentence by sentence). Literary critics call this an analytic deconstruction. It's a little different than a formal analysis in the sense that it recognizes that the words being used don't necessarily contain any meaning apart from the greater sentence, paragraph, or idea (see Jacques Derrida's 1967 book Of Grammatology). A formal argument, on the other hand, is trying to construct a position and then support it (customarily with evidence).

I typically prefer to analyze a text by first offering an observation followed by a criticism. Using this method helps both to clarify what the intended meaning of the sentence is and highlight any problems which might be obscured by the language. Let's take another look at the WLC quote, this time paying careful attention to what is actually being said. If you look carefully enough, I think you too will be able to detect the fallacy, even without me having to point it out.

L1: In Plantinga's view the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit is the close analogue of a cognitive faculty in that it, too, is a belief-forming "mechanism."

Observation: Craig affirms that Plantinga's view of the Holy Spirit is like a belief-forming "mechanism."

Criticism: Craig fails to cite where Plantinga actually makes this claim. Craig also fails to properly explain what it is meant by "mechanism." Furthermore, Craig has spent the prior few pages using esoteric language to described what he believes the Holy Spirit to be--and since the Gospels, indeed the whole of Holy Scripture, fail to adequately detail what it is--Craig turns to another authority on the subject. The thing we should note here is that Craig is speaking on behalf of that authority--i.e., Craig is paraphrasing Plantinga. So even though Plantinga is the cited authority, Plantinga may not actually agree with the way Craig is representing him. The only way we can be sure that Plantinga's view is what Craig claims it is--is to directly consult the work of Plantinga himself.

L2: As such the beliefs formed by this process meet the conditions for warrant.

Observation: Craig holds that since Plantinga's view is sound, belief [in God] via the Holy Spirit is warranted.

Criticism: Plantinga's view of warranted belief has not been clearly established. Craig automatically expects his lay audience to be experts in Christian theology. Well, actually, he doesn't. What Craig is doing is making a bandwagon appeal (another well known informal fallacy). Basically what Craig is hoping for is that his audience will be lazy and simply take his word for it. If Craig says it is so, and Plantinga says it is so, then heck, why not just jump on the bandwagon of agreement and ride it whichever way it takes you? It's a sly rhetorical device used to get people to agree with you without having them ask too many questions, but it still hasn't explained what it is meant by the term "warrant."

L3: Therefore, one can be said to know the great truths of the gospel through the instigation of the Holy Spirit.

Observation: Craig has argued that the Holy Spirit is the author and revealer of truth, and because Plantinga has shown that it is a "belief-forming 'mechanism'" (whatever that might mean), all one needs to do in order to justify their belief in the truth of the gospel, used synonymous with the truth of God, is to accept the Holy Spirit. Craig claims the Holy Spirit can reveal specific truths, mainly the truth of the gospel itself. In this case, the lower case gospel, as Craig uses it, informally refers to the complete New Testament, not merely the Gospels (i.e., Synoptic texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Criticism: This is where the fallacy is made. Craig has implied the truth of his conclusion is given considering the truth of his premise. But anyone who understands inductive reasoning knows that the truth of a conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premise--so to claim as much is fallacious--hence the fallacy. Furthermore, such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary. It also is a blatant case of circular reasoning. Belief in God is justified by the truth of the gospel, which is revealed by the Holy Spirit, which, in the Trinitarian view (to which Craig prescribes), is part of God. You can't get much more circular than this.

L4: Because we know the great truths of the gospel through the Holy Spirit's work, we have no need of evidence for them.

Observation: Craig now shifts his argument from the function of the Holy Spirit as a belief-forming "mechanism" to claiming that as a belief-forming "mechanism" the belief in God can be sustained even without evidential verification.

Criticism: Craig has claimed that Christian belief in God, via instigation of the Holy Spirit, makes Christianity impervious to having to rely on evidence as a means of justification. It's basically saying, Christianity is true because Christianity is true. No evidence needed.

L5: Rather they are properly basic for us, both with respect to justification and warrant.

Observation: Craig eludes back to Plantinga, relying on Reformed Epistemology to negate justification and warrant belief as rational--of course without actually showing it.

Criticism: If we haven't read Plantinga, it would be unclear as to what Craig is arguing for here. Is he arguing that Christian belief is basic or that the Holy Spirit is a basic belief generator? It can't be both, but due to the obscurity of the terminology being used, and concepts like Holy Spirit, warrant, and basic belief, confusion arises. Without actually laying it out in more detail to help clarify the issue--we can't be certain what Craig is hoping to prove.

L6: Plantinga therefore affirms that "according to the model, the central truths of the Gospel are self-authenticating"; that is to say, "They do not get their evidence or warrant by way of being believed on the evidential basis of other propositions."

Observation: Craig cites Plantinga to affirm his prior claim that Christian belief doesn't require evidence to guarantee the truth of Christianity. I think Craig hopes the unthinking person will just agree--after all, if Christian beliefs don't require evidence, and Christian belief is gained only through the belief-forming "mechanism" of the Holy Spirit--then logically speaking--only Christians have access to the truth. Something I am sure most Christians would agree with.

Criticism: Although we could spend our time unpacking this extremely dense, extremely obscure, last sentence, we needn't bother wasting any more of our time. Remember that the argument became fallacious in line three. This means everything afterword is invalid. Every sentence, every argument, since line three is based on a completely fallacious appeal to authority, so quoting the authority even more does nothing to bolster or strengthen the argument. The argument is already failed. 

Conclusion
Of course, this is but one example of a fallacious appeal to authority. But, hopefully, by breaking it down step by step, I have helped you to detect the weaknesses in any given argument. Also, it should show us why it is a bad idea to rely on argument's from authority without any other evidence, because often times these very appeals to authority have a way to end an argument before it has even begun. Finally, without any additional evidence, you are right back where you started.

A Way With Words: Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll was eloquent like you wouldn't believe... the man truly had a way with words. I am currently reading the entire works of Ingersoll, which is why I have been sharing so many of his quotes recently. Today I am going to share a few more which I found really insightful, and as always, perfectly stated.

"A few have said, "Think!" The many have said, "Believe!"

"The intellectual advancement of man depends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth."

"No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

"If abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them. If slaves are freed, man must free them. If new truths are discovered, man must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected; and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of man. The grand victories of the future must be won by man, and by man alone."

"The trouble is, these pious people shut up their reason, and then open their bible."

Understanding Science Better: What is Science?

Understanding Science Better
I for one feel it is imperative to educate people about the merits of science. But before we can do that, we have to talk about what science is, and only then can we come to a better understanding of science.

Personally, I am no scientist. But I did take numerous science classes in astronomy, biology, chemistry, human physiology, and psychology at a prestigious university of science. Also, I practically devour any scientific work of popular literature I can get my hands on--especially in the areas of cosmology, evolution, and neuroscience. Occasionally, I read scientific journals and articles, just to keep with the times. So I think it's safe to assume that I have an idea of what science is.

Here is what I understand science to be (but don't take my word for it--read a book--reading rainbow).

Science, as we use it colloquially, commonly refers to the scientific method. As such, science is basically just a methodology for testing the validity of evidence.

Quote of the Day: Robert G. Ingersoll

"Man has not only created all these gods, but he has created them out of the materials by which he has been surrounded. Generally he has modeled them after himself, and has given them hands, heads, feet, eyes, ears, and organs of speech. Each nation made its gods and devils speak its language not only, but put in their mouths the same mistakes in history, geogrpahy, astronomy, and in all matters of fact, generally made by the people. No god was ever in advance of the nation that created him." --Robert G. Ingersoll

It's that last line which is so pertinent, so true, so revealing. No god was ever in advance of the nation that created him.

Buddhist Religious Superstition Kills 13 Year Old Girl

Sad news, I am afraid. As some of my readers know, I live in Japan. My city is called Kumamoto. Yesterday, a religious man took his mentally ill daughter to a monk to have an exorcism performed. The exorcism is part of a water cleansing ritual where a person is dowsed with water. The water is usually from a natural waterfall, but a makeshift waterfall device, sort of like a manual pump rigged to flood gate showering device, is available for ritualistic purposes. The process entails having water poured down onto you from about three meters.

I've seen this practice done in real life at a beautiful scenic outdoor location with a beautiful waterfall. During the occasion I witnessed this ritual, the gathering only consisted of monks cleansing themselves. They would jump under the water, let it pelt them, and then scream chants. The idea is that the weight of the water, along with the cleansing properties (i.e., washing oneself clean), will wash evil spirits out of the body.

Now, if you've ever stood under a real waterfall you know the kind of pressure we are talking about. Even a strong shower head can be pretty painful. It's hard to believe anyone would throw their child into a waterfall. But that's exactly what this Japanese father did to his young 13 year old daughter, along with the help of a monk and his wife. The father and monk strapped the girl down, using restraints, and proceeded to pump water onto her for over a 100 consecutive times.

TBS (Tokyo Broadcasting Station) is reporting that the parents took the mentally and physically ill girl to the monk after doctors had failed to resolve her issues.

Of course the monk stated that he believe the girl was possessed by an evil spirit.

According to the news, the father held the girl's head, so she couldn't turn away to take a breath and breathe. Gasping for air, she died of suffocation, similar to how water-board torture victims die from water induced suffocation.

The mother of the 13 year old daughter sat by and watched her child take her last breath, and then called the ambulance. What kind of mother does that? This is child abuse in the extreme--as it involved water torture, bondage, suffocation, and ultimately ended in death. I hope these parents get a full life sentence for their deadly parenting techniques.

The Australian is reporting on it here if you want to read an English edition of this news.

[UPDATE] 

More reports are coming through. They can be read by clicking the following links:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110927006195.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8792357/Teenage-girl-dies-in-Japan-exorcism.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/09/28/Japanese-teen-dies-during-exorcism/UPI-89881317214570/

My wife (who is Japanese) said this is what happens when uneducated people put their faith in nonsense instead of using their common sense. I couldn't agree more. Moreover, my wife says this is why all religion is dangerous--because you don't know how or when it will impair your judgment--because it doesn't always--until it does. And that's when something terrible like this happens. My wife then said that people would be better off without such superstitious religious thinking.

I couldn't agree more.

International coverage of disturbing events like this can often paint Japan in the wrong light. Apparently this water cleansing ritual is only practiced by a very small minority of religious monks. Japan is by and large a secular country, and even the Japanese feel this superstitious practice is bizarre.

Many of my work colleagues commented how deranged this was. They seem to acknowledge that "evil spirits" aren't real--and that no amount of "dunking" will cleanse someone of something which is not even there.

This, however, all goes to show that people will do strange things if they believe. Indeed, belief in the supernatural, and the superstitious customs which come with religion, often show us how dangerous religious modes of thinking can truly be.

If the parents of the 13 year old girl weren't religious, would they have tortured their daughter in this despicable way thinking it would cure her? Not a likely. The same might be said for circumcision, baptism, or other strange religious rituals which affect the child physically and mentally but, sadly, they so often times don't have the liberty of being given their own choice in the matter. Their religious customs are often times forced upon them by their parents. This form of religious abuse was taken to the extreme in this case.

Religious thinking like this, that doing some form of religious related ritual for superstitious reasons often causes the believer's rationality to go out the window. In this case, dumping water on the girl repeatedly didn't work. She died. In fact, I guarantee that this type of cleansing ritual has never worked, and this is the proof. Will people stop doing it? Not unless a higher authority, such as the government, steps in and says that this form of religion is harmful to society. Most people will blithely keep practicing the ritual--as ridiculous and dangerous as it is. Why? Because they believe it works. Their reasoning is bankrupt. They think if they keep at it--eventually their prayers will be heard. But this form of religious belief is no different from believing that if you rub two ice cubes together enough you will be able to make fire. No matter how many times you rub them together it won't create fire. Just because the religion says it can make fire by doing it doesn't mean it will, but people put their faith in the religious promise before reality, and so needlessly go through the motions, hoping to get fire--hoping to get their one miracle. I think they will be badly disappointed. In fact, I know they will.

On the other hand, a better educated person would, hopefully, reject the ridiculous and absurd claims of religion based on a better understanding of the world. We know, for example, how to get fire, and rubbing ice cubes together is not it. The same can be said of curing mental and physical illness, we know how to deal with it, and going to a religious person and having them pray, chant, or do all kinds of useless rituals is not going to help cure that illness in the slightest. The only reason religious people think it will is because they believe it will. And well, if believing were enough, it would come to be. The fact that their beliefs fail them, time and again, should tip them off that something about their reasoning is seriously flawed.

P.S.

I felt I should report on this since I know I tend to focus my religious criticism on Christianity and the Abrahamic religions, but this just goes to show, religion everywhere is deeply flawed.