Why there is no Faith in Science

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that misunderstood concepts are expressed quite a lot in social media. The other day I saw a post of a witty cartoon showing how philosophy is still relevant to science. The cartoon, shown here, can be found at Completely serious Comics.

One commentator said the following, "We ALL do. It's just that those who hide behind science think they don't- i.e. that they are all reason, no faith. It reminds me of the know-it-all kid in class who says "well, Teacher agrees with ME!" lol"

Another commentator replied, and I'll paraphrase, that faith is unnecessary in science. In fact, faith is the opposite of science. To which, of course, the first commentator replied the following:

"You do have a faith, you just pretend to be above it all and made of pure reason. Put away your childishness and perhaps we could have a conversation on such an important topic. But I don't joust with snobs..."

Naturally, I had to chime in. My reply is below.

Philosophy =/= faith. the philosophical ground work of science relies in observation and logic grounded in some assumptions.
The assumptions are that there IS a physical universe, that we can learn things about the universe and finally, that explanations that predicts future observations are superior to explanations that do not.

Now, saying all of that, science is a method of decreasing uncertainty, not a method for "absolute" truth. After all, "absolute" truth is still an unanswered philosophical question. The great thing about science is that it is not a belief system. It is a way to explain the physical universe. that distinction is important because explanations can be abandoned if needed for better ones (see last assumption above).

A case in point is gravity. Various cultures had various myths as to why things fell to Earth. Sometimes fairies were involved, at other times it was a deity of some sort. Along comes Sir Isaac Newton. He develops a theory that gravity is a force of attraction between two objects. His theory predicted that a body moving at a certain velocity can balance with the force of gravity creating an orbit. However, his equations showed that the orbits would be unstable and thus it must be the hand of God that corrected the minor discrepancies.

A few decades later, a French mathematician named Pierre Laplace refined the equations and showed how the Solar system is stable all by itself. When asked by Napoleon as to why there is no mention of a creator in his model, Laplace answered, "I had no need of that hypothesis." In other words, deities and fairies were not necessary, the natural forces did it all by themselves.

And here's the kicker: They were BOTH wrong. Gravity is not a force (at least not in the conventional sense), it is a curve in the space-time continuum. Imagine a bowling ball on a foam mattress. That is a good visualization of gravity. This theory of gravity is Einsteins. Why is it better? First let me back up just a little. Einstein's theory of gravity is incredibly complex from a mathematical point of view. In fact, if his theory were developed first, the work of Newton and Laplace would probably be replicated as just a short cut because their equations are much simpler for everyday mathematics! So why are they still "wrong"? Einstein's theory predicts more phenomena. One such phenomenon is that gravity will bend light. This has been observed during solar eclipses. But perhaps some day Einstein's theory will lose out to an even more precise and predictive model. or maybe not. But how exciting will it be if it is so!

As you can see, faith isn't necessary. Now, no one pointed this out, but one could counter that holding the assumptions are done in faith. No. They are assumptions, not beliefs. The assumptions I pointed out are made for the sole purpose of just getting on with it. If better assumptions come along that improve the scientific process, then the old ones will be thrown out and the new ones accepted. We make those assumptions because they are useful, and keep them only as long as they are useful. A faith-based belief is something often adhered to in spite of contrary evidence. Often the belief is handed down by authorities that cannot be questioned, not experts who gained that title through being rigorously questioned.

10 Mistakes of the Indoctrinated.

The following is by a guest writer, Lawrence Tomas, who originally posted this to the Freethinkers United Facebook page.

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THAT ALL CHRISTIANS MAKE

Almost all Christians (followers of Christianity) make one tragic mistake in the very beginning when they first accept the religion and yes…it is a whopper!

Becoming a Christian at the tender age of 12 years old, I never knew of course that I was making this mistake.

But now that I see the mistake, it’s impossible to keep quiet about it! I can’t keep quiet... nor should I keep quiet. I have to share this…so listen close!

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS…

It usually begins at a young age when someone (parent, friend or family member) approaches you and they ask you the famous question…

“If you died right now, do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?”

They then proceed to tell you the Gospel story how that 2,000 years ago, God loved you and sent his son Jesus to die on a cross to save you from your sins and save you from going to Hell.

Well, if the timing is right, this particular confrontation is too overwhelming and as it tugs on your heart strings, you somehow feel obligated to repent and ask Jesus to save you.

If you ask any questions, they are quickly shut down and we are told…

“We don’t go by factual evidence or proof, we accept it by “faith”. Jesus said to “only believe”. He also said that the devil will lie to us and try to deceive us into disbelieving. Trust me…it is all true…I promise you!”

So we do what we are told and accept it by faith without seeing any evidence what soever to back any of it up…none…zero.

SO WHAT IS THE BIG MISTAKE!

THE BIG MISTAKE IS….We never check any of it out…

1. We never do any research to see if Jesus actually existed.

2. We never do any research to see if the apostles actually existed.

3. We never do any research to see who actually wrote the Roman New Testament…the hows, whys, whens and wheres…we never check any of that out.

4. We never do any research to see who actually started this religion and why?

5. We never do any research to see if the Apostle Paul who allegedly wrote over half of the New Testament actually existed or started any churches.

6. We never do any research to see if the Hebrew/Roman Bible is historically, scientifically and archaeologically accurate & correct. We never do any research to see if what the ancient Hebrews were telling us… was factually sound and 100% true.

7. We never do any research to see if any of the so called “Church Fathers” were legit and actually telling us the truth.

8. We never do any research to see if any of the Old Testament Bible characters were legit and actually existed.

9. We never do any research into the ancient Romans to understand the religious culture & political climate which existed in Rome during the 1st Century CE. We never do any research into the ancient Judean Hebrews to understand the religious culture & political climate which existed in Palestine during the 1st Century CE.

10. We never do any research to see that Imperial Rome had their dirty hands upon this new Christian religion from the very beginning and that the entire Gospel Story is nothing more than a fabricated Roman lie.

NO…we never checked anything out for authenticity…we just went with it. We accepted the entire story upon the basis of “faith” and never spent ONE MINUTE of our time to see if any of it was ever true.

Then we start going to church where we are told if we question anything it displeases God and we are to accept & believe everything on “Faith Alone”. This brainwashing usually continues until we die unless we have an “epiphany” and somehow come to our senses which most people never do.

Yup…Christians have been taught to believe that the church was born 2,000 years ago and that’s the big mistake. They naively assume that everyone has been telling them the 100% absolute truth from the ancient Romans down to the modern day Christian ministers.

We believe and accept it without doing any research whatsoever…we just go with it because someone told us to. We buy into and believe the greatest hoax that mankind has ever seen. What we thought was true (the Bible), turns out to be 66 separate books which are nothing than mythical fabricated fairytales.

And it’s a whopper of a mistake because it controls & colors every single aspect of our thinking and being. We become a Christian, develop an imaginary friend, and spend the rest of our lives thinking we are immortal and that we are going to live forever in a paradise. This false beliefism will control us and our family for the remainder of our natural lives.

QUESTION: Then who is to blame for making this monumental mistake?

ANSWER: YOU and YOU alone. Because you never took the time to do any personal investigation or research. You just believed the lies and for doing that you payed or are still paying a great price…

WAKE UP!

An Atheist rebuttal to "5 Ways to Be a Better Atheist"

An article came across my news feed lately entitled “5 Ways to be a Better Atheist” by Michael Patton. I initially thought that the article is either a lesson in critical thinking or a rant against anti-theism.  Typically I check the source before I read something, this time I did not.  It is a happy accident though, because the article has become popular in theistic circles, so I feel as if I must address it as a reference to not only atheists, but also skeptically minded theists.  “Five Ways…” is written by a theist in judgement of atheists.  Imagine if an Atheist wrote such an absurd list as “5 Ways to be a Better Christian.” I can almost hear the theistic outrage now! 

The introduction to the article claims that “Atheism is suffering.” He is writing his article to theists and is only pandering to their emotions.  By claiming that Atheism is suffering, Patton is trying to allay theist fears that they are losing some sort of battle for the souls of man. Furthermore, he claims that New Atheism is evangelical in its nature.  Not quite.  In all fairness, some New Atheists have used the word evangelical – trying to spread the word as it were – but most New Atheists would say they are activists, not evangelicals.  Why the distinction?  Most New Atheists (that is all except for the extremists – all movements have their crackpots) couldn’t care less what you believe, so long as you do not force others to those beliefs.  If you want to believe that that a certain day of the week is special, fine, good for you.  But do not force businesses to close down that day.  If you want to believe that the universe was created in 6 days, fine, good for you.  But, until you can prove it though verifiable and measurable means, do not insist that it is taught as science in schools.

And now for the laundry list:

Claim One: Atheists must make more concessions.

Patton asserts that Atheists must stop making certain claims.  The first is that there is no evidence for god.  Well, there isn’t, and no a religion’s sacred texts do not count.  To claim that a certain sacred text is exclusively accurate without allowing the claims in the text to be scrutinized is the fallacy of special pleading.  This is true for not only material claims (the age of the earth, resurrection etc. but also for moral and historical claims.  A case in point is that there is debate among historians as to whether Socrates was a real person, or a literary device for Plato.  The evidence for Socrates is stronger than that for Jesus (THIS PAGE covers the comparison of evidence quite thoroughly). Briefly, there are three sources for Socrates that were written in his lifetime, the earliest sources for Jesus were written over 50 years after his death, and by non-witnesses. To compound the problem, many “official” books of the Bible have been added to centuries after the earliest copies.  In other words, later authors forged parts of the books.

According to Patton, Atheists must stop saying theism is irrational.  No. We must not. When you hold a belief based on faith and not evidence, you are being the very definition of irrational.  Faith is incompatible with reason.  I will not go further into the matter here, as I have already covered the material in my response to R.R. Reno’s view on critical thinking HERE and in my video on faith HERE.

Next he tackles the correlation between education and Atheism.  Studies show (here’s a few The Independent, Barna, Medical Daily) that the more educated a person is, the more likely that they are an Atheist. This is also true not only of populations within a country, but among nations themselves (most educated countries, most Atheistic countries)  Patton tries to counter these studies by saying that there are many highly intelligent people that are Christian.  This is true.  It is also true that there are those who are as dumb as a box of rocks that are Atheist.  But he misses the point.  The point is that highly educated people are also well versed in critical thinking.  Religions are often found wanting when challenged with the words “prove it”.  Saying that, there are still those that find comfort in the rituals of religion, in the promise of seeing loved ones after death.  No one faults them for holding on to those desires.  But when they try to justify their beliefs through reason, even the most intelligent of people may buy into their own bullshit. 

James Randi, aka the Amazing Randi, is a mentalist and a magician.  For decades he wowed audiences with seemingly supernatural powers until he became fed up with charlatans who were practicing the same tricks to convince people that they had “real” supernatural powers.  So, Randi picked up where Harry Houdini left off, and began exposing these charlatans for what they were (Randi’s expose of Uri Geller).  Randi has offered a million dollar prize (JREF) to anyone who can perform supernatural feats under laboratory conditions.  So far, no one has been able to.  There have been scientists who have claimed to find evidence of ESP or telekinesis, but once Randi’s people evaluated the studies, the ruse was exposed.  The scientists were not the ones trying to con Randi, but it was their subjects that conned the scientists!  Why?  Magic tricks are not a part of science curriculum.  You see, nature does not lie, it does not try to con us; only people do that.  The scientists lacked the proper training in mentalism and the art of illusion.  So even a highly intelligent person, a highly trained skeptic can fall for a ruse.  That’s one of the dangers of having an open mind: those well versed in grift can take advantage of you.  And sometimes we want to believe something so badly, that we twist logic and reason any way we can in order to hold those beliefs.

Patton claims that by not relenting to theistic claims of evidence,the Atheist is committing intellectual suicide.  On the surface, he is correct.  However, what he fails to understand, is that when Atheists are being “dismissive” of theistic claims of evidence rooted in sacred texts, miracles, prophesy, etc. they are dismissive because such things are conjecture not evidence.  Evidence is corroborative, verifiable, and falsifiable.  That means that more than one source can produce the results, that the results can be repeatable, and that there are conditions that, if met, would render the evidence as false.  However, when backed into an intellectual corner, the theist often pleads that if the Atheist only had faith they would understand.  The fallacy of appeal to faith is the last refuge of the theist.  To which, I will invoke Hitchens’ Razor in the late, great Christopher Hitchens’ own words, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Lastly, Patton, says that there is evidence for god, and we must concede that point.  Go back to the beginning of this post and click the link to Patton’s article.  Read the bit where he says there’s evidence.  Notice something missing?  Yep, this supposed evidence.  Now naturally, his article is not about presenting such evidence but he could have at least listed some types of evidence, or arguments, or even a link or two to those arguments.  Alas, he does not.  He asserts there is evidence for god, but fails to include that evidence.  

However, I would wager dollars to doughnuts that the majority of the evidence has been thoroughly debunked, most of which was so centuries ago.  Here’s the thing, if you make an argument for something and that argument is shown to not only be invalid, but the counter argument is shown to be valid, then your argument is no longer evidence.  Since Patton has not listed is supposed evidence I cannot disprove it.  However, I have already addressed the most common theistic apologetics here, which may include what Patton would consider his “evidence”.

In conclusion to this first little bit, I will say that all ideas must be challenged.  Personally, I care too much about people to allow unfounded, untrue, and often malicious ideas contribute to their misery.  This is doubly true when their false ideas contribute to someone else’s misery.  So no.  No concessions will be made by me or anyone else that place their fellow humans above any notions of imaginary sky-daddies.

Claim 2: The Flying Spaghetti Monster

At first I was going to gloss over this one, because it is silly.  Then, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Patton, and quite possibly many of his like-minded cohorts are actually scared of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM).  For those who have not heard of the FSM, he is from a children’s book that is written much like the bible, about a deity, the FSM and the religion that follows him.  It’s silly. It’s cute. It is an illustration on how silly the claims of other religions are when viewed outside that religion.  And what I think gets the goat of most theists is when a non-believer in their brand of woo-woo points out that their little religion looks just as ridiculous to the non-believer as the FSM does to them.  No one that follows the FSM think it’s real, it is just fun make believe, but the theists are taking it seriously!

Patton makes it clear that he takes the threat of the FSM seriously when he tries to get philosophical to counter FSM claims.  He claims to be able to invalidate (remember, he is trying to invalidate something that the fans of it say is fiction) the FSM through a two-step process. First, Patton brings up the specter of the necessary being.  It is a tired philosophical concept that it is necessary that some being caused the very first event in cosmic history; an uncaused cause if you will.  This idea is found in the Teleological and Cosmological arguments which are addressed, again, in my God Arguments page.

Secondly, and if we were being intellectually honest, we would say that Patton is still stuck on the first part, he says that there is no historical basis for it.  ALL religions are stuck on this step.  The reason that anthropologists, sociologists etc. are the least religious scholars is that these fields have not only studied various religions, but have even seen the historical record and archaeological evidence of when religions and deities were invented, borrowed and developed.

Claim 3: Admit the weakness of their position

Patton is getting slick with this one.  He makes an indirect ad hominem on Atheists by claiming that those Atheists who publicly debate are similar to used-car salesmen: they dress nice, so they MUST be hiding something!  He then says that we Atheists must admit that our position is a “weak” one (implying his is the “strong” one.) The basis for his assertion is that Atheism cannot explain any basis for morals or existence itself. 

Ok, first, Atheism is not a belief system.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods.  That is all.  Atheism doesn’t HAVE to explain anything because it is a baseline position.  But, since Patton brought it up, are there any secular theories to morals or existence?  Why, yes.  Yes there is.  There is a whole field of philosophical study (it’s called ethics, by the way) that deals with morality.  As to why there’s something instead of nothing, I say, why not?  Assuredly, science is working on it, and there are some hypotheses as to why we have a universe.  But it is a complex matter and one that cannot accept the lazy-man’s answer: god did it.  You see, if you want to posit an idea as to why there is something rather than nothing, you must prove it.  Claiming one deity or another and resting on it is intellectually lazy, and fraudulent.

Claim 4: Atheists must be more open-minded

Patton claims that Atheists are necessarily closed-minded. He pleads that Atheists cannot claim to be open-minded because Atheists reject religion. When I first read this, I thought, “Oh, he just doesn’t understand what open-minded means.” Now that I’ve read it again, I’m not only sure he doesn’t, but I’m also sure he doesn’t fully understand his own argument. Patton claims that Atheism is so married to naturalism that Atheists cannot think outside the box. Again, Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. Most Buddhists are Atheists, as are Jains. And yet, they do believe in non-naturalistic things. Again Patton’s attack on Atheism is really an attack on secular skepticism (Skepticism with a capital ‘S’ as it is a sort of movement that fits exactly what Patton is raging against). When a Skeptic says to be open minded, they mean to not clutch your beliefs so tightly that when faced with evidence that nullifies those beliefs, you are incapable of revising your beliefs. The Skeptic uses reason and empirical evidence as their basis for knowledge because it fucking works! Language and math operate on the same logic, in fact the field of Propositional Calculus does just that: it turns logical, linguistic statement into math so computers can compute.  

What people like Patton cannot stand, is that there is no room for faith at the table of reason. Faith is accepting something to be true (believing in it) without evidence.  This is the antithesis of reason!  Now, the most popular theistic dodge to this criticism is that theists do not base their faith on a lack of evidence, but rather on evidence, such as personal revelation, miracles and fulfilled prophecies.  I've already tackled why these do not count as evidence in my god videos.  The video on prophecy and miracles is here, which leaves personal revelation.  It is not evidence. Accepting something on someone's say so is not good evidence of any sort.  It is not that they are lying, though that may be the case, but it is well known that eye-witness accounts are not reliable (even for cops). Not to mention that while an eye witness account of an event will more than likely have corroborating physical evidence, a report of someone's feelings on something, or the voices in their head are most likely attributable to various psychological states, not on the super natural.  One last thing that gets the preachers, used-car salesmen, kings, and other con-men upset with the rejection of faith as evidence, is that THEY have to prove what they say too.  They do not have the authority to dictate "truth."  Take that power away, and they have none.  No religion has ever been able to withstand the words, 'prove it.'  What Patton cannot comes to grips with, is that neither can he prove it.

Another interesting thing, is that many theists will try to commit an amphiboly by interchanging two separate meanings of the word faith to show that their religion is "true."  They will mix the meaning, 'belief without evidence' with other meanings of the word, be it a synonym for some other emotional state like hope or 'confidence', or they will use the synonym 'religion'. I won’t go into it more here, I've already covered faith in the following video, here, and argued against R.R. Reno's idea of using faith instead of reason in education here.

Claim 5: Stop saying Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.

Oops.  I think I've fully violated that one.  The reason why Patton says this, is because he is convinced that Atheism is more than that.  He makes a claim that the reason why Atheists say that Atheism is a lack of belief is because Atheists are trying to avoid the burden of proof.  There are a couple of things going on here.  The first, is that the reason why no one claims to be a-leprechuanist or a-Thorist is because leprechaun and Thor are not Greek words (though Atheism includes a-Thorists). Secondly, and again, Patton is nor raging against Atheism, but Skepticism.  Now, it is true that many Atheists in the US come to it through Skepticism, but they are not the same thing.  In fact, the man who argued for modern skepticism was very devout indeed!  Rene Descartes formulated the principal of doubt as a starting point to figure out how we could ever know anything. 

Before Descartes, new knowledge was mashed with old preconceptions, and it the new did not fit, it was often rejected.  Copernicus had this problem, as did Galileo, with the authorities at that time.  Descartes said that to gain new knowledge it is best to begin from a state of utter doubt, and let the evidence guide our conclusions.  This one principle has guided scientific inquiry for the past 400 years.  This one principle is the foundation that led to discoveries that feed the world, that prevent and cure disease that got us to the moon.  Now, as devout as Descartes was, he began from is principle of doubt and arrived at a "necessary, and good god" conclusion.  But, that was due to certain assumptions that can easily be argued away today.

So, since Patton is confused on what Atheism is, and he is actually arguing against Skepticism…

What Patton is trying to get at is that people need a world view and that Atheism is a part of it.  He is basically making a Red HerringFallacy, by misusing the term Atheism to distract what he is really against: world views other than his own. While he is correct that Atheism is a part of an Atheist's world view, Atheism itself is not a world view.  Patton proposes the following questions are necessary to answer to have a world view:

• Is there such a thing as morality?
• Does man have free will?
• Why is there something rather than nothing?
• What is the basis for rationality?

For each of these questions, Atheism is an irrelevant concept; meaning that the concept of Atheism does not answer the question. 

Question: "Is there such a thing as morality?"

Answer: "A lack of belief in gods"

See, it doesn’t fit.  So then what is he getting at?  He is railing against modern philosophy and science, which are beginning to answer those questions in a manner that is more in touch with reality than the authoritarian mandates of religion. 

Can Skeptical inquiry answer such questions?  Let us consider some questions then (note: these questions are far from exhaustive):

Is there such a thing as morality?  A skeptic would ask such questions:  What is morality?  Is it universal or not?  Can morality be determined either philosophically or through the eyes of science, say evolution, or sociology?

Does man have free will?  A skeptic would start with, "what IS free will?"  Is free will even possible?  Then the Skeptic would tackle the problem if man has it.

Why is there something rather than nothing?  A skeptic would begin thusly: What do we mean by nothing?  Is nothing even possible?  Does the original question, itself, have any real meaning?

What is the basis for rationality?  The skeptic would then ask, "What is logic?"  What does it mean to know?  How do we know if we know?  What is the best way to use knowledge to find new knowledge?  Can we use knowledge to find knowledge?

Again, the questions above are far from exhaustive, and many a career in philosophy has been made just focusing on one set of questions above.  So, why not just use some sort of variation of "god did it" To answer the above questions?  Because then you would have to prove two things: One that there is in fact a god (more specifically your god) and two, you would have to prove that god did, in fact, do it.  It is the same burden of proof that ANYONE has when trying to answer the above questions.  Do Atheists have the same burden of proof to answer the above? Of course they do.  But, Atheism does not, as it is a concept with a singular meaning and it is a meaning that has nothing to do with explaining anything other than a singular person's acceptance of any gods.

Modern philosophy and science are used more and more to answer the above questions and people are relying less and less on religion for those answers.  Religion is losing its special status, its power, and the shamans of the world's religions are fighting to keep their power.  

The closing remarks of Patton’s diatribe against Atheism is another ad hominem against Atheists.  But, he did offer to pray for us.  I think I can speak for many Atheists by saying, “keep praying.  Want to try to convert us? Stay at home and pray for us.  Want to spread the word at a school?  Stay and home and pray that your god will reveal himself.  Is it the second Tuesday in November?  For the love of democracy, stay at home and pray!”

A rebuttal to "Answering the Skeptic: Is the Bible a Myth?"

The following is from the ComeReason ministries found at www.comereason.org.  The exact address of the article can be found at http://www.comereason.org/skeptic-bible.asp

The original post is in plain text, my comments are in itallics.

Answering the Skeptic: Is the Bible a Myth?

Recently, I received some e-mail from an avowed skeptic that repeatedly made the following claims:

"Is not the bible simply a book of parables and mythology, written by men for men? Is not the parable simply a short story, never intended to be taken literally? With the events of September the eleventh behind us, is it not reasonable for humanity to take another look at religion and it's contribution to the chaos in the world?"

Such a sentiment is common. So many people today think that belief in the Bible is for the simple-minded of the past whereas we are now "enlightened" through science and discovery. However, in that view lies some unfounded assumptions - making the position as unreasonable as that which they object to.

Assumes Myth With No Good Reason

When a skeptic asserts that the Bible is merely a collection of myths, he must put forth evidence to bolster his claim. This is a misuse of burden of evidence.  It is true that those making the POSITIVE claim must put forth evidence.  Thus if I say that there are unicorns living in my shoes, I must provide evidence to that effect.  The skeptic's position is a negative.  All stories are fiction unless shown to be otherwise.  But if we are to compare the Biblical texts against other ancient documents, we find a marked difference. The Bible speaks about real people, places and events and dates many of those events within an historical framework.  A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens also is about people, events etc.  But it is fiction.  If you notice, the original author sneaks the world real into his list without explaining how he determined they are real.   The New Testament especially reads not like myth at all, but like recorded history. This statement means nothing.  How something "reads" has nothing to do with if it is true or not.  And, no, I've read the bible several times and it most certainly does not read like a history book. In fact, if we use the rules of textual criticism consistently across all ancient documents, we find the Bible to be some of the most reliable historical documents of antiquity. Again, the author makes a claim that is absolutely false.  I'll even give him an out: what rules are you talking about?  List them and explain how they apply.

More importantly, it is evident that the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to take them literally.  That still has no bearing of whether the stories are true or not. Luke begins his gospel by explicitly stating, that he has carefully investigated the accounts of Jesus from the eyewitnesses and he seeks to write out "the exact truth about the things you have been taught." To claim that this was intended as a parable or myth is wholly without merit. If a freshman in high school were to use book A as proof to the claim that book A is true, the teacher would patiently explain that you cannot use a source to prove that source true.  IF that student were a freshman in college, the professor would be less patient, and probably mutter something about the failing of the US educational system.  If a senior in college made that mistake, the professor would tell the student that he should look at trade school as an option.  Why?  It is called begging the question.  Begging the question is a fallacy where the truth of a proposition is assumed in its evidence.  In layman's terms it means that a piece of evidence you present is only viable if the conclusion (point you're trying to make) is true.  Here, the book of Luke is assumed to be true based on the evidence that the book of Luke says it is true.

Assumes The Evil In The World Is Attributable To Religion

The more prevalent assertion today is that religion is at the root of much of the world's evils. Some anti-theists do make this claim. However, it is not a "skeptic" position.  A skeptic is someone who demands evidence to accept a proposition, and will hold that proposition until evidence indicates otherwise. Here, the author is mixing terms.   Skeptics will argue that a serious belief in Christianity promotes a type of fanaticism that causes more harm than good. History has shown this to be the case. But it is not JUST Christianity, but ANY form of faith based belief.  This includes Christianity, Islam, Roman Polytheism, Scientology, Babylonian Polytheism, Mayan Polytheism, and the Cult of Personalities found around such people as Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Smith, Charles Manson and the list goes on.   Again this assumes much, but provides little support. Where are the facts? The Inquisition, Slavery in the US, the Twin Towers, ISIS, the Salem Witch Trials, Jim Baker.  Just to name a few. Exactly what evils are we talking about and from where are they drawing your data?

If faced with having to provide proof for the above claim, most skeptics tend to either reassert their assertion or shrink into anecdotal tales of a particular event (such as the Crusades.) Anecdotal evidence is hearsay of one highly specific incident. For example, Alice tells Bob that smoking is linked to lung cancer.  Bob replies that his second cousin on his mother's side smoked all his life and never got lung cancer.  Bob is giving an anecdotal account.   A skeptic wouldn't offer anecdotal evidence, at least not a good skeptic.  The bible is nothing BUT anecdotal evidence.  And for the record, the Crusades are most definitely not anecdotal evidence.  There is an archeological record, and corroborating accounts of the Crusades. However, it is illogical to argue from a particular to a general. Actually, not at all. There is a whole field of logic that does exactly this: it is called inductive logic.  Everything we use today is the result of it.  Computers, cars, wine glasses, tracking game through the woods, all owe their existence, as it were, it inductive logic.  Therefore, the skeptic's claim dismissed as irrational.

The One Question

The main problem with both these objections is that the skeptic assumes Christianity to be false a priori. Again, it is the Christian making the POSITIVE claim, not the skeptic.  The default position is that something isn't. In other words, they are coming from an anti-Christian bias and then trying to muster support for their position. The use of anti-Christian is what is called a weasel word.  The author is trying to play on the fears of his intended audience (Christians) to strengthen their resolve against reason.  The skeptic is not anti-Christian, just as the skeptic is not anti-Unicorn.   But this is neither fair nor rational. It is both actually. If a skeptic were to say there IS NO god, then they would be making a positive claim.  But that is not the skeptic position.  The skeptic position, is that they will not BELIEVE in a god, until one is proven to exist.  A sincere seeker of truth would look for just that - truth. We all have biases and we all start examining truth-claims leaning in one direction or another. But if we're honest, we will study all positions with an open mind until they have proven themselves to be not true. Not at all.  It is the reverse.  Positive positions must be shown to be true, or at least shown to be the most plausible position.  Keeping an open mind does not mean believing, or giving credence to any old idea.  Keeping an open mind means to weigh the evidence for claims and give them credence based on that evidence.

The most reasonable stance to take on any position is the one that is true. If the Bible records history accurately and it portrays Jesus' life, death and resurrection as history, then it follows that Christianity is true. If Christianity is true it becomes the only rational position to hold. In rejecting Christianity out of hand, one runs the risk of rejecting the truth - and to reject the truth is the most illogical thing someone could do.  Again, the author implies that the bible is true, yet has not provided any evidence to that effect.  He is trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative claim of the skeptic, which is unfair.  Why is it unfair?  Because negatives cannot be proven!  Prove that unicorns do not exist.  Prove that aliens did not impregnate the Virgin Mary.  Prove that George Bush was not responsible for the Twin Towers. 

The skeptic position is the same as the Missouri State motto:  Show me.

About that J. Krishnamurti meme going around...

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

The above quote came across my Facebook feed recently.  At first glance it looks like wise words, Krishnamurti's sentiment is very humanistic, and what he's trying to say is worth listening to. However, if you spend more than a second thinking about it, the woo-woo slaps you in the face. Where Krishnamurti fails in reason is that he is redefining the word violence outside any intelligible meaning.  By saying that violence is when you separate yourself from the rest of humanity.  

The quote above begins with Krishnamurti giving a definition of tribalism, but the tail end of the quote implies that any separation is his version of violence.  Let's be clear on what violence is. Violence is doing tangible, physical harm to others. It is not calling some one a name, and it is definitely not joining or identifying with a group.

Are you a registered Democrat or Republican?  You're being violent!

Have you joined a church? You're being violent!

Do you root for your school's sports teams? You're being violent!

Consider yourself a Humanist?  You're being violent!

Are you a member of a labor union? You're being violent!

Do you consider yourself Canadian?  You're being violent!

What about considering yourself Irish, African-American or Polynesian? You're being violent!

Do you have a name? You're being violent!

To reiterate, This is violence:

Violence

And this is NOT violence:

Not violence

According to Krishnamurti, the black people in the "Not violence" photo above are being violent because they are identifying themselves as black, and thus not white like the police officer in the photo.  That same police officer is being violent by identifying himself as a cop, and thus not a civilian.  Ironically, that last photo not only exposes the absurdity of Krishnamurti's definition of violence, but refutes the very thing he was trying to say while simultaneously reiterating his sentiment.

How the photo refutes Krishnamurti is that the Black Lives Matter movement is in response to rampant and inexcusable police violence and institutionalized racism in many police departments in America and yet there is a white police officer holding up a #BlackLivesMatter protest sign.  Human identity is a necessary component of our psyche.  To end violence is not to get rid of our differences, but to embrace them when we can, dissect them and change when they cannot.  right now, American police departments are being dissected, we as a people cannot accept their treatment of certain members of our society.  Eventually, we will change the outlook of police officers towards black citizens.

Separating oneself from others does not necessarily breed violence. It can also breed corroboration and cooperation; in fact humanity is at its best when doing so.  But if we all have the same beliefs, the same ideas, belong to the same groups, then what is best in humanity dissipates.  It is not the act of differentiating oneself by idea or nation that breeds violence, the desire for violence is in some ideas themselves. Does your religion allow you to lie or harm non-followers?  Does your group necessitate hostility to other groups (like the KKK or NFL teams)? Then THAT is the cause of violence through groups: the design and desire within the group itself.  Often the purpose of the violence is more power for the group, or at least for the leaders of the group.  Until notions of personal power are eradicated from the human psyche, there will be violence.  Until then, redefining a component of identity as violence only asks the wrong questions, thus seeks the wrong answers.

Faith in God IS a Crutch

This article was sent to me after I said that faith, at best is a crutch.  The original article can be found at gotquestions.org.  In the usual fashion, I will put the article here as it appeared on 01 January 2015, and my comments will be in red ink.

Question: "Is faith in God a crutch?"

Answer:Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, once said, “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.” Agreeing with him is pornographer Larry Flynt, who commented, “There's nothing good I can say about it [religion]. People use it as a crutch.” Ted Turner once simply said, "Christianity is a religion for losers!" Ventura, Flynt, Turner, and others who think like them view Christians as being emotionally feeble and in need of imaginary support to get through life. Their insinuation is that they themselves are strong and in no need of a supposed God to help them with their lives.

Such statements bring a number of questions: Where did such thinking start? Is there any truth to it? And how does the Bible respond to such assertions?  Again here is the common tactic of using the bible to refute an argument.  Where this becomes a problem, is that to the theist, their sacred texts are unquestionable, and infallible.  To the non-believer, they are just fiction.  What this means is that if a theist wants to put forth an argument it must not be scripture based, as the scriptures have no rational authority.  The scriptures only have authority for the congregation, not those outside of it.

Is faith in God a crutch? - The Impact of Freud
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian neurologist who founded the practice of psychoanalysis, a system espousing the theory that unconscious motives dictate much of human behavior. Though championing atheism, Freud admitted that the truth of religion could not be disproved and that religious faith has provided comfort for untold numbers of people through history. However, Freud thought the concept of God was illusionary. In one of his religious works,The Future of an Illusion, he wrote, “They [believers] give the name of ‘God’ to some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves.”

As to the motivation for creating such illusions, Freud believed two basic things: (1) people of faith create a god because they have strong wishes and hopes within them that act as comfort against the harshness of life; (2) The idea of God comes from the need for an idyllic father figure that eclipses either a non-existent or imperfect real father in the life of a religiously-minded person. Speaking of the supposed wish-fulfillment factor in religion, Freud wrote, “They [religious beliefs] are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. We call belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation and in doing so we disregard its relation to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.”

For Freud, God was nothing more than a psychological projection that served to shield an individual from a reality he does not want to face and cannot cope with on his own. After Freud came other scientists and philosophers who asserted the same thing and said that religion is just an illusion/delusion of the mind. Robert Pirsig, an American writer and philosopher who typifies Freud’s followers, has said, “When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it's called religion.”
What we have here is the build up of a classic straw man.  Freud new little if nothing of archaeology or anthropology as they were primarily new fields of study in Freud's lifetime.  Thus, Freud based his views on his own flawed research into psychoanalysis.  Freud is often attacked for the God is a crutch argument, because his is the easiest to build an argument against.  This is so, because Freud's argument is that the Christi-Muslim concept of an all powerful God is a fairly recent development in human history.

The history of religion begins with mythological explanations for natural occurrences.  Along the way, the idea of a spirit comes into play.  This is due to how human conscience works.  We are able to not only distinguish ourselves from, say, a lamp but our sense of spacial separation (or self) is so great that it is flawed.  It is flawed in that we can separate "our self" from our body.  It doesn't take a great imaginary leap to conclude that animals, rocks, trees and the sky have these "souls" or "spirits" too.  

I'm actually surprised that the author didn't include Karl Marx's claim that religion is the opiate of the masses.  Instead, he quotes Robert Pirsig, a practicing Buddhist author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.  Where the author gets that Pirsig was a "follower" of Freud, I don't know. I can't find any information on that.

Below is a simple illustration as to how religions can evolve over time.

Why does it rain?  

The sky-god sweats.  

Why isn't it raining now?  

We must have pissed off the sky-god.  

What does he want?  

A new bride!  

Ok, let's sacrifice a virgin to send her spirit to the sky-god.  

There are no virgins, except for small children.  

Then let's make some rules that girls cannot have sex until they take a husband.  

They'll never go for that.  

Then tell them that the sky-god commands it!  They will be rewarded by the sky-god if they stay a virgin until marriage, and punished if they do not.  

But if they have premarital sex and are not punished, won't that give up the game? 

Hmmm.  I know! We'll tell them that the rewards and punishment are for their soul and come after they die.  

Brilliant!

What about the above charges? Is there any truth to the assertions made by Freud and others?

Examining the Claims of the “Crutch Crowd”
When making an honest examination of these claims, the first thing to recognize is what those making the assertions are claiming about themselves. Deriders of religion are saying that Christians are prone to psychological and wish-fulfillment factors that they, the skeptics, are not. Not at all.  Any person is prone to flights of fancy, and wishful thinking.  A skeptic is one how uses the tools of reason, science and logic, to keep their own flights of fancy in check.  Occasionally, Skeptics have to keep an eye out for those who wish to force their flights of fancy on others: such a priests, ideologues, quacks, and other con-men. But how do they know that? For example, Freud saw the need for a Father God as an outworking of emotionally needy people desiring a father figure, but could it be that Freud himself had an emotional need for no father figure to exist? And perhaps Freud had an outworking of wish-fulfillment that manifested in not wanting a Holy God and judgment in the afterlife to exist, a wish for hell not to be real. Demonstrating the plausibility of such thinking is the writing of Freud himself who once said, “The bad part of it, especially for me, lies in the fact that science of all things seems to demand the existence of a God.” Again, more build up of a straw man.  Freud was a shrink, and a bad one at that.  He wasn't a philosopher and really didn't follow the scientific method.  Consider that he is the one who turned everything cylindrical into a phallic symbol, yet said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Freud is easily picked on because he has no credible defenders.  

It would seem reasonable to conclude, as Freud and his followers have argued in their position, that the only way a person could overcome “demanding” black-and-white evidence of something is by creating an illusionary hope that overpowers the verifications of God’s existence, and yet they do not consider this a possibility for them. Some atheists, however, have honestly and openly admitted this likelihood. Serving as one example, atheist Professor/Philosopher Thomas Nagel once said, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.”
Most Atheists who hope there is no God are referring specifically to the God of Abraham.  The God depicted in the Torah (that's Old Testament to you gentiles), is a horrible god.  He is a boastfully jealous, petty, misogynistic, genocidal bully that has a fascination with genitals.  On the other hand, the Hindu Brahman, or even Spinoza's God do not scare the Atheist, and if such a being were real, an Atheist would want to know about it!
Another consideration to keep in mind is that not all aspects of Christianity are comforting. For example, the doctrine of hell, the recognition of humankind as sinners who are unable to please God on their own, and other similar teachings are not of the warm-and-fuzzy kind. How does Freud explain the creation of these doctrines?
Ah, the doctrine of Hell, and sin.  The original Hell can be found in Zoroastrian writings, as they have a version of it.  The same is true of Hades's realm, some parts of it can be considered a hell.  As far as sin, what is considered sin is a crime against God.  If you do not do what he says then you sin.  Judeo-Christi-Muslim religions aren't the first to conceive of a hell, or even sin.  But I think they may be the first to ABUSE their children by telling their kids that they are evil.

The idea of inventing an illness that only you have a cure for is an old con.  This is precisely what snake-oil salesmen do.  Have a bloated tummy?  It's too much gluten, by my over priced bread to ease your weight!  Have subluxations?  I'm the only one who can even see them, and with a quick snapping of your neck I can cure them!  Have sin?  Then do everything I say and they'll go away after you die, and it is all for the low low price of 10% of your income!
An additional thought that springs from the above question is why, if humankind merely invents the concept of God to make itself feel better, would people fabricate a God who is holy?  Social control. Refer to my example above.  It is a fictitious illustration, but one that took little imagination on my part.  It is hard for a ruler to justify sending young men into combat to be killed for royal glory and the ruler's personal gain.  However, if the ruler can convince his subjects that God commanded them to do so, then they will much more easily.  Why so many regulations?  Some are to keep communal order, some are to make a sense of tribalistic community (like rules on how long to grow your beard) and others are to keep control of family planning in the hands of those who are in control in the social hierarchy. Such a God would seem to be at odds with people’s natural desires and practices. In fact, such a God would seem to be the last type of god they would come up with. Instead, one would expect people to create a god who agrees with the things they naturally want to do instead of opposing the practices that they themselves (for some reason yet to be explained) label as “sinful.” What the author is trying to do is confuse the reader.  Here the "they" is supposed to be ALL of the followers who crafted the religion.  However, in reality, the "they" were the few in power.  And let's not forget that those in power mostly did not follow their own rules.  In biblical times, most kings were either held as gods, (like the Pharaoh, or Caesar), or were seen as direct voices of the gods.  Thus they got to make their own rules, and were not typically forced to keep them.

One last question is how do the “crutch” claims explain people who initially were hostile to religion and did not want to believe? Such people seemingly had no wish or desire for Christianity to be true, yet after an honest examination of the evidence and an acknowledgement of its “realness,” they became believers. What is meant by "realness"?  I have to say, that I find it amusing that the author had to put "realness" in quotes.  English scholar C. S. Lewis is one such person. Lewis is famous for saying there was no more reluctant convert in all of England than himself, that he was literally dragged kicking and screaming into the faith, which is hardly a statement that one would expect from a person engaged in a wish-fulfillment fantasy.
The crutch outlook has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a god.  
These issues and questions seem to be at odds with the claims of the “crutch” crowd and are conveniently ignored by them. But what does the Bible have to say about their claims? How does it answer their charges?

I've omitted the biblical section, which would go here as it is not necessary for the rest of this post.  Again the author tries to use the bible to prove god.  Again, the bible would only have authority of god exists, so using the bible to prove god is a circular argument.  One quickly tires of spinning of biblical proportions.

Is faith in God a crutch? - Conclusion
Jesse Ventura was wrong when he said that religion is nothing more than a crutch. Such a statement speaks to the prideful nature of man and epitomizes the type of people rebuked by Jesus in the book of Revelation: “You say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (Revelation 3:17).

The wish-fulfillment claims of Freud, Ventura, and others only act as an indictment against themselves and showcase their desire to reject God and His claim to their lives, which is exactly what the Bible says fallen humankind does. But to these same people, God asks that they recognize their true desires and offers Himself in the place of the false hope of humanism that they cling to.

The Bible’s statements regarding the fact and evidence of Christ’s resurrection bring comfort and real hope—hope that does not disappoint—and instruct us to walk in a way that trusts God and recognizes our true “weak” position before Him. Once that is done, we become strong, just as Paul said, “For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-God-crutch.html#ixzz3Nb3ezcoE

I have stated that this article is a straw man argument because the author is trying to refute the claim that since religion is a crutch, god does not exist.  That is not the claim at all.  To say that religion is a crutch is not to imply that those who are religious are weak and stupid.  At least not always.  Picture this, you see a man with no legs in a wheel chair.  Do you consider the man weak and stupid?  Of course not.  What about a girl with a leg cast, moving about on a crutch?  Nope, neither stupid nor weak, just hurt.  And that is how religion is a crutch.  There are times we need someone to lean on, and at times, a group to lean on.  Those you lean on act as a crutch to keep you from falling... to keep you on your own two feet.  And this is what is meant by religion is a crutch.  It is also what Karl Marx meant by religion being the "opiate of the masses".