Today we’re finishing up my response to Jered’s criticism of the blog. If you haven’t already you may want to check out part 1 and part 2.  As a warning it is quite long so I inserted a jump, but I want to finish it up.

This is a common misnomer of post-modern thought.  Just because an idea is taught does not mean that force or coercion is involved.  If I am taught Evolution in the classroom (which is also a theory/belief) does that mean that I am being forced to think that way?  That’s absurd.  I still have a choice to accept or reject its tenets.  The problem is when a belief is presented arbitrarily, with no room for the opposite point of view, as this one is–in schools worldwide.  It is incredibly difficult, as I’m sure you are aware of, to prove things.  Again, there’s nothing wrong with having a world religions course in the public school system for the sake of information, SO LONG as that course does not attempt to force the student to one religion over another.  (Like a philosophy course–just various people’s theories.)  Of course, I believe both you and I are against that dangerous, militant strain of religion that attempts to force others to behave in a certain way.  John 3:16 sums it up–‘whosoever would believe in Him.’  So to espouse the values of Christianity is always a choice.

First off, atheism, skepticism, and naturalism are all outright rejections of post-modern thought. Post-modernism views all truth as being subjective and existential by nature, essentially that all ideas are “true” if you want it to be. Atheists view whether or not there is a god to be something for which there is an answer and without evidence to be something that should be rejected, regardless of how people feel about it. Skeptics demand evidence for all claims and will reject them without that evidence, regardless of how you might feel about it. Naturalists view the world as being a product of natural forces that can be studied and understood, even when there is something that is a mystery what’s exciting about it is not some mystical joy of mystery but the anticipation that comes with trying to figure it out. We are agreed that post-modernism is BS, you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of it. What’s ironic here is that your view that all ideas are just someone’s belief or opinion is actually pretty post-modern.

You are correct that evolution is a theory, just like the theory of gravity. To become a theory a hypothesis has to not only account for the evidence, but it has to make predictions that are then verified to be true. If that theory has explanatory power, then it is useful. For example, with the theory of gravity it is predicted that an object on earth will be pulled towards the center of the earth. Since it has been demonstrated to be true, the theory stands.

Evolution predicts that the rate of genetic variation should be generally consistent with the length of time since the two populations diverged. This holds true with humans having the exact amount of genetic variation when compared with chimpanzees that would be expected for a divergence 5-6 million years ago accounting for the average length of primate generations with one exception, the genes that regulate brain development, but that isn’t surprising since mutations in a certain part of the genome can accumulate at a faster rate than normal given sufficient selective pressures. The amount of variation also fits the predictions when comparing humans to other primates. There is so much evidence for evolution that it is established fact. If you aren’t up to speed on any of that, I would recommend checking out the archives of the “Evolution 101” podcast, looking at the early “Tuesday Science” posts from my archives from October and November of last year, or reading a book written by a scientist about evolution.

Evolution is forced on creationists in biology classes just as heliocentrism is forced on geocentrists in astronomy classes. Science doesn’t stop to wait for science denialists, namely those who place dogma and ideology over evidence, to catch up and science classes rightfully should teach science.

Furthermore, if you are an atheist, you are merely reacting in the negative.  What do you believe in if you don’t believe in God?  In other words, what rational entity do you see as greater than yourself?  The goodness of humanity?  Good luck with that one. (Huge Fail)  Science?–a field that, despite it’s claims to method and logic continues to be exposed as full of misunderstanding and error; one whose core tenets must continually be revised as we are made aware of more facts?  Not to mention–we also have to insert the element of human bias in research: when one’s hypothesis is already slanted a certain way, one runs the risk of interpreting the evidence in accord with one’s construct.  Believing is seeing–our paradigm informs the way we interpret the data.  Of course you see no evidence for God.  You won’t–no, you cannot–because your belief system interprets the way you see.

If you think I am “merely reacting in the negative” then you obviously haven’t read much of my blog. Sure, I don’t believe in a god or gods, but I am a humanist, naturalist, skeptic, secularist, freethinker, etc. To suggest that I must have a “rational entity…greater than” myself is nothing short of absurd.

Science is the best way that we can learn new things. Without it you wouldn’t even have the computer you are using to read this and there’s a decent chance that you would have died from some eradicated or now innocuous disease by now. That fact that science changes as new evidence is found is not a weakness, it is a strength. Science is inherently non-dogmatic, its only goal is to better understand the world/universe we’re in. Oh, and who keeps proving old science to be wrong? It’s science! Sure some biases will be present, but the peer-review process, which can be quite brutal from what I hear, does a pretty good idea of limiting that. Scientists love to prove each other wrong, but they are willing to accept sound conclusions that are based on the evidence. I know for a fact that this is not how religion works.

I am certainly glad that we have moved past the science of the 1st Century, 16th Century, and the 19th Century. The science of two hundred years from now will far surpass the science of today. Only by adapting and changing with new discoveries can we advance, however, each new discovery is based on the last so without the partial understanding of 50 years ago we would not have the more complete understanding of today.

Religion on the other hand holds to dogma in spite of evidence. That refusal to change and adapt (unless societal pressures require change to continue survival) is the utmost arrogance. Given the choice of getting information from a source that admits that it is finite and fallible versus a source that is rigid, unchanging, and blind to new information, I’ll take the more humble source, I’ll stick with science.

If you think I couldn’t see any evidence of a god, if there was any such evidence, you’re wrong. The same innate refusal to blindly accept dogma that lead me to loose my faith, that allowed me to see that what I had always believed was wrong, would allow me to do that again if that’s where the evidence led.

You ridicule Christians for believing when we can’t gather evidence for our faith through instruments/the senses.  However, in view of the transient nature of scientific theory, how can you be sure you know what you do?  You can’t. Example: basic laws of metaphysics were defied (broken) when the discovery was made that the universe is actually Accelerating in its expansion.  There is NO KNOWN FORCE that can do such a thing. (I believe this article is in the Nat Geo Nov. 07)  This refutes the assumption that some of these laws Einstein delineated are universally applicable.  So we call such a thing ‘dark matter.’  Does naming explain the phenomenon?  Not at all.

If God exists, he is largely an UNKNOWN FORCE as well.  Unknown or not, the force responsible for this cosmic expansion is incredibly real.  For me, my take on this expansion is called an Ultimate Entity who ‘upholds all things by the Word of his power,’ and who ‘stretches the heavens out like a curtain.’  Not saying God is dark matter–just that His ‘ways are past finding out.’  Dark matter–like gravity, light, magnetic fields, supernovae, etc.–is simply another of His servants. But that is simply my take.

My point is this:  what DO you or I know?  Precious little.   The theory of the expanding Universe that’s supposed to cool and finally die is here instantly debunked, and rather demonstrated to be accelerating at a rate that shows no signs of stopping.

But, as you have mentioned, there is no evidence for God, so I’m sure we’ll figure out this ‘dark matter’ sometime soon.  Except for right now it’s a mystery!–along with the phenomenon of life, the thought processes of sentient beings, the dualistic nature of matter and energy, and the existence of good and evil–(which some would like to reduce to chemistry of the brain, which is completely absurd as well.)  Just a few of them.

You have not debunked the hypothesis that the universe will suffer heat death. The universe contains a finite amount of matter most of which is contained in stars. As the fusionable material is used up and more and more stars die we will see a decrease of the energy released into the cosmos. As matter gets more and more diffuse it will also cool. The hypothesis has merit and you have presented nothing to debunk it. To say that God won’t let it happen a meaningless statement since you can’t even show evidence of God working.

I’ve already addressed why it’s a wonderful thing that science changes as new evidence comes forward. Doesn’t it seem interesting that you ask “Does naming explain the phenomenon?” and yet that’s exactly what you’re doing? Science gives it a tentative name while they continue to study it and find understanding of it, you just call it “God” and say that it can’t be understood. If history teaches us anything we will find an answer.

As far as what we know, sure it’s limited and sure a lot of it is probably wrong. However, we know a lot and we know this because it has been proven by experimental data. While it might not be a complete understanding, it is sufficient for now.

I’m glad there are mysteries, otherwise I’d have nothing to report in my “Tuesday Science News” segment and scientists would be out of work. Dark matter and dark energy are a mystery, but they probably won’t be for more than a few decades. Abiogenesis is a mystery, but it’s less and less of a mystery every year. Neuroscience and artificial intelligence are both still in their infancy, but they are already yielding a lot of information on how our thoughts work, every year as the methods and instruments get more precise that understanding will continue to improve. As far as the “dualistic nature of matter and energy” there is none; Special Relativity did a good job of explaining the relationship between them, but String Theory is going a long ways towards fully integrating them. Good and evil cannot be objectively proven to exist. And there is nothing absurd about everything that goes on in our brains to be electro-chemical in nature, that’s the only thing there’s any evidence for in there.

So you’ve disproved God based on your human logic.  You are right: where’s the empirical evidence for Him?  Good for you.  You took the easy route. It’s far easier to disprove something ’empirically’ than to prove it. I just showed evidence that eradicates the theory of a Universe decelerating in its expansion as it collapses back into itself.  I don’t know the answer to this–but how much of what we call ‘modern science’ has been built upon the framework of these laws of thermodynamics that were just debunked with the above-mentioned discovery?  In view of the shifting, ‘meteorological’ nature of scientific theory, you are likewise relegated to belief too, aren’t you? What’s to keep ANY of the theories/laws of scientific knowledge from being likewise toppled?  Only a cessation of new discoveries!–and we know science will never permit that, given its lust for knowledge.  It stands then to reason, that there is nothing about your paradigm that is superior to mine, subject as it is to revision and change.  Our knowledge is imperfect because we know only in part, and therefore our constructs are largely flawed.

You have it backwards, the only way to disprove something is to be able to prove the opposite to be true. Proving something is so much easier, that is if there’s evidence to support it. In my own journey from Christianity to atheism it was far from easy. I suffered with intense cognitive dissonance for several years, faced several radical shifts in my world view, and had to walk away from my entire life and start over. I’m still not taking the easy road. Socially, life would be a lot easier if I believed in the same stuff as the vast majority of the people around me.

I have not disproved the existence of a generic hypothetical god, but the God of Christianity is not generic, he has very specific descriptions and characteristics. I do think that it is easy to show that that god is not consistent with what we know about the world around us, our most basic sense of right and wrong, and even with Christianity (and the Bible’s) own claims about their God. I think I have demonstrated that over the course of the last year, just as many atheists have done. I also know that in the mind of most people faith trumps logic and dogma trumps evidence.

I have already addressed how a mind set that is open to new information and new discoveries is superior to one that is closed, so I won’t address that further here.

One final issue.  What’s more important–to be right, or to be a decent human being?  In reading your vernacular above, I hear a lot of angst, ridicule, and even anger expressed.  These things have no bearing in a rational discussion–in fact, they can even skew one’s logic.  People get angry when their belief systems are attacked, and yet I am not angry with you. Yet there are more accounts of Evolutionists and Atheists alike who adopt a tone of derisiveness and even viciousness when they are on the Offensive: in their attacks of religion and God. Look at the approach of that guy they call ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’  Look at the Scopes trial.  The evolutionists did not win that argument.  They resorted to browbeating and name-calling, running their opponents into the ground, not with well-formulated logic, but a domineering tirade.  And so now the belief of macro-Evolution is taught as scientific fact in the schools.  You use the term God___ to describe certain professed Christians.  This term is generally one to express anger and is extremely derogatory. (not to mention ironic, since you don’t even believe in Him.)  Certainly you have the right to express what you want.  However, to resort to name-calling when trying to bolster your argument is infantile, and doesn’t help your logic in the slightest.  Is that what you want to become?  Because in assuming that type of approach you lower yourself to the level of these ‘phoneys’ that you attack.

Do you really want to use the Scopes Trial, dating to 1925 as your example, especially since Scopes lost? What about Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) which ruled that bans on teaching evolution were religious in nature? Or how about Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) which ruled that Intelligent Design is also religious in nature. Science classes should teach science, not religion, and that is why evolution is taught throughout our nation’s public schools.

I don’t think there’s a reason to separate being right and being a decent human being. That being said, the post you commented on was a rant. I do rants on Friday. If every blog post I did was pure logic and reason then my blog would be even more boring than it already is. Satire, tongue-in-cheek, and even indignation are useful literary tools to keep things interesting. As I already mentioned, for some rants I have to manufacture some of the rage. Rants just aren’t quite “ranty” enough if I’m too calm. Using some colorful language, language that is often associated with anger helps increase the rantiness of the blog post. Don’t make the mistake of reading too much into what is simply a literary tool.

However, there are some attitudes and positions that are so incredibly illogical that the only proper approach to address them is ridicule and derision. I would say the chief of those would be bigotry, such as racism, homophobia, and sexism. Some would argue that science denial is also worthy of derision, a position which I can appreciate although I’m not sure that I completely support it. I will not, however, fault Dawkins for that.

As far as my use of the word “goddamn” it is part of the lexicon. As it has gained in popularity it has been stripped of its original meaning. It’s also more poignant than than some of the other words I could have used in that context such as intolerant or hypocritical. It also flows nicely in a rant. In fact I did a rant a while back about the word goddamn, I even called it “The Goddamn Rant.”