Yearly Archives: 2011

Burden of Proof

Posted on by

Do you believe in unicorns?  I’m guessing not.  But how do you know that unicorns are fiction?  Or leprechauns?  How do you know that aliens from distant planets aren’t on earth, dissecting cows and probing humans?
Of course, we don’t know with certainty.  But that is where the evidence points, which is our best alternative.
Suppose someone makes a claim.  You don’t believe it, but you’re willing to listen to the argument.  There are three possible outcomes at the end of this discussion:

  1. Right.  The other person is right, and you change your mind.
  2. Wrong.  Nope—you’re still right.  You’ve heard nothing new, and this conversation might as well not even have happened for the effect it had on you.
  3. Middle Ground.  You’re not convinced, but you’ve now heard evidence that you can’t simply dismiss.

Let’s consider another area of argumentation, the courtroom.  Legal cases don’t end in ties.  There are only two options—guilty or not guilty.  The law handles option 3, the domain of some evidence but not enough to be compelling, by giving it to the defendant.
Suppose the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney did nothing more constructive than use their time to talk about favorite movies.  The arguments are equally bad.  Does the judge declare a tie?  No—the prosecution didn’t uphold its burden of proof, so the defense wins.
When someone shows you evidence for unicorns (perhaps references to unicorns in historical documents), you might agree that it is evidence but not sufficient evidence to convince you.  The other person didn’t uphold the burden of proof.
On a related issue, if you say, “unicorns exist” and I respond, “No, unicorns don’t exist,” then I have now made a claim that I need to defend.  If I make no such claim, the burden of proof remains yours.
Greg Kokul and his Stand to Reason blog say that it’s a “ploy” for the atheist to put the burden of proof on the Christian who claims that God exists.  The atheist isn’t playing fair.
Nope, “God exists” is a claim.  In fact, the claim that a supernatural being exists and created the universe is about the boldest claim possible.  If you make that claim, you shoulder the burden of proof.  If the evidence you provide isn’t compelling, I’m logically obliged to reject your claim.
Photo credit: stock.xchng
 

A National Registry of Atheists? Y’know–Like Sex Offenders.

Posted on by

The Thinking Atheist has created a very polished rebuttal to this proposal from a pastor.

Yeah…he’s a nobody, but Florida “pastor” Michael Stahl has provided a great excuse to remind others just how many atheists and free-thinkers affect our lives and cultures every day. Stahl has suggested that known atheists be categorized on a list he called “The Christian National Registry of Atheists.” Imagine what kind of names, past and present, such a list would provide.

Another resource is W.A. Smith’s Who’s Who in Hell (2000), a 5 pound, 9 ounce tome listing humanists, freethinkers, naturalists, rationalists, and non-theists throughout history.
My only concern is that Stahl might well respond that these intellectuals and changemakers are indeed who he’d like to see marginalized!

We Have an Admirer!

Posted on by

Well, not really an admirer—more like an antagonist.  But I say that in a good way.
Matt Slick runs the CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) web site.  He interviewed me on his radio show about a dozen times in 2007.  We reconnected recently, and he responded to my Science Answers the Big Questions post.
His reply is here.
Unfortunately, there’s not much to respond to.  Matt seems mostly concerned about sloppy thinking, making sure we put materialistic thinking into the “science” bin and philosophical thinking into the “philosophy” bin, making sure words are used correctly, and so on.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I didn’t find anything interesting enough to respond to.
But let me sharpen one point.  I said that science answers the Big Questions of Life.  It would probably be better to say that what science tells us about reality means that wedon’t need religion’s answers.  Science’s natural answers show that looking for a transcendental purpose or an ultimate mind are unnecessary.

Science Answers the Big Questions

Posted on by

In a recent post, I argued that Christianity’s smug claim to be able to answer the Big Questions of Life® is empty.  Sure, it can answer these questions, but so can anyone.  It’s whether the answers are credible that matters.
For discovering reality, religion comes up short.  And I would argue that Science does provide answers to these questions.
For example: Why are we here?  We’re here for no more cosmically-significant reason than why deer, jellyfish, and oak trees are here.
For example: Where did we come from?  Science has some decent answers (Big Bang, evolution) and still has a lot of work to do in other areas (string theory, abiogenesis).  Science never answers anything with certainty, but the scientific consensus, where there is one, is the best explanation that we have at the moment.  The retort “Well, if Science can’t answer it, my religion can!” is hardly an argument.
For example: What is my purpose?  There is no evidence of a transcendental or supernatural purpose to your life.  One great thing about rejecting dogma is that you get to select your own purpose!  And who better than you to decide what that is?
And so on.  Science has answers; it’s just that religion doesn’t like them.
Science has only one reality to align itself with.  By contrast, each religion makes up its own, which is why they can’t agree.  Science provides answers and doesn’t demand faith to accept them.
Think about a church steeple with a lightning rod on top.  The steeple proclaims that God exists, and the lightning rod says that it can reduce lightning damage.  Which claim has the evidence to argue that it’s true?  Religion makes truth claims and so does science, but science takes it one step further: it actually delivers on its claims.
Religion … well, not so much.
Photo credit: Wikipedia

Map of the History of Religion

Posted on by

I made an interesting discovery a few years ago. Not an especially unique discovery, I’ll admit, and rather obvious in hindsight. But here goes.
The Eastern Mediterranean spawned three great religions: Judaism, then Christianity, and then Islam. With Christianity dominant in the US, it’s easy to focus only on this region. But northern India also spawned three great religions: Hinduism (before the tenth century BCE), Jainism (c. ninth century BCE), and Buddhism (c. sixth century BCE).
This short animation shows the spread of these great religions and gives a little perspective. The Judeo-Christian religions have obviously had an enormous impact on history, but they’re not the only ones.
[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1002732&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Map of World Religions

Posted on by

Everyone’s seen maps of world religions like this one.
Have you ever wondered why you never see a Map of World Science?
Let’s imagine such a map.  Over here is where scientists believe in a geocentric solar system, and over there, a heliocentric one.  This area is where they think that astrology can predict the future, and that area is where they reject the idea.  The Intelligent Design guys reign in the crosshatched area, and evolution in the dark gray area.
Naturally, each of these different groups think of their opponents as heretics, and they have fought wars over their opposing beliefs.  (To keep it manageable, I’ve shown on the map only the conflicts with more than 1000 deaths.)
Of course, the idea is nonsensical.  A new scientific theory isn’t culturally specific, and, if it passes muster, it peacefully sweeps the world.  Astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry replaced alchemy, and the germ theory replaced evil spirits as a cause of disease.  One scientist should get the same results from an experiment as another, regardless of their respective religions.  Evolution or germ theory or relativity or the Big Bang are part of the consensus view among scientists, whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Other.
Sure, there can be some not-invented-here thinking—scientists have egos, too—but this only slows the inevitable.  Contrast this with the idea that Shintoism will sweep across America over the next couple of decades and replace Christianity, simply because it’s a better idea.
Let’s go back to our map of world religions.  Religions claim to give answers to the big questions—answers that science can’t give.  Questions like: What is our purpose?  Or, Where did we come from?  Or, Is there anything else out there?  Or, What is science grounded on?
But the map shows that the religious answer to that question depends on where you are!  If you live in Tibet or Thailand, Buddhism teaches that we are here to learn to cease suffering and reach nirvana.  If you live in Yemen or Saudi Arabia, Islam teaches that we are here to submit to Allah.  We ask the most profound questions of all, and the answers are location specific?
What kind of truth depends on location?
For discovering reality, religion comes up short.  Next time someone nods his head sagely and says, “Ah, but Christianity can answer the Big Questions®,” remember how shallow that claim is.