Skeptical Ramblings

A place for long winded rants and rational ravings.

Why Don’t We Focus On What’s Important?

Why Don’t You Blame God?

The above linked post by Taslima Nasreen says:

“Why don’t you blame God for not saving Amanda from being kidnapped?
Why don’t you blame God for not saving innocent girls from being raped & tortured year after year?
Why don’t you blame God for helping Ariel Castro to commit heinous crimes year after year?
Why don’t you blame God for destroying three young lives, their youth, their future forever?
Why don’t you blame God for humiliating, insulting, abusing humanity year after year?”

It’s as arbitrary as thanking God, really, and accomplishes absolutely NOTHING. What difference could it possibly make to do either of these publicly? I helps nothing and only serves to detract from reality.

I’m for blaming Ariel Castro.  I’m for trying Ariel Castro.  I’m for convicting Ariel Castro.  I’m for punishing Ariel Castro.  I’m for making Ariel Castro an example to our androcentric, male dominated society that this really happens; That ignorance and complacency are NOT ok and things have to change.  This could have been YOUR sister, or your wife, or your mother, or your daughter, or any other female you care about.  I’m not for sitting around naming heroes and bad guys in terms of shoulda/coulda/woulda, unless it furthers the cause of awareness and prevention.  Most certainly I do no think that even a fraction of a joule of energy should be devoted to praising or condemning intangible, unproven forces.  What an absolute waste of time!

Get a grip.

What can we do to save others currently in this situation?  What can we do to prevent this from happening to anyone else?  How do we help these women, and others like them, heal and re-assimilate without turning them into pariahs?


Hoyle’s Fallacy

ImageLast summer my husband and I attended a birthday party of a good friend.  This friend is a high school science teacher and an outspoken environmentalist, so per normal we were not only treated to the pleasure of his and his wife’s company, but an assortment of other intelligent and interesting people as well.  During the festivities, I had the rare and exhilarating chance to engage in a spirited debate with two very intelligent gentleman, one of whom is an atheist and the other a theist.  Several topics came up, but my favorite was when the conversation turned to the possibility of a creator and that our universe was made deliberately instead of by chance.  It was bound to happen at some point… and so it did.

A year later, I remember the conversation not only because of how enjoyable it was to listen to these two engage, but because the theist introduced me to someone and something I’d never heard of before:  Sir Fred Hoyle, British astronomer… and his idea that has come to be known as “Hoyle’s Fallacy”.  Who Hoyle was I’ve discovered on my own after that evening, and I’ve found that he was a very interesting dichotomy among scientists.  “Hoyle’s Fallacy” specifically is the idea that, “The chance that higher life forms [such as us] might have emerged in this way [through the evolutionary process] is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”  In other words, the chance that we, and everything else, are here as we are through no intentional design is about as probable as tornado being able to assemble an airplane using scraps from a junkyard.

It threw me when I thought about it, and as far as I remember, ended the conversation.  If my atheist friend had anything to say to refute it, it does not stick out as prominently.  For the next few months I tried off and on to prove or disprove the example in my mind through casual research.  I attempted to read Richard Dawkins’ explanation, but found it was not spelled out very simply and it was hard to formulate a simple answer from the extensive information he presents.  It’s humbling to discover you are not as smart or as clever as you think you are.  Searching the internet randomly also did me no good in terms of finding a simple answer. I wanted something I could present that would stick with people when faced with the example.  Preferably something that would resonate with them the way “Hoyle’s Fallacy” originally resonated with me.  Something anyone could understand.  I like to think of myself as objective, with no bias and having no agenda other than finding what reality is.  As a result of this, I was beginning to think that because the answer wasn’t simple, that maybe there could be some truth the hypothesis.

Then one day I was commenting on a friend’s Facebook thread regarding faith and someone made mention of Hoyle’s Fallacy as a reason to have faith.  I watched to see if anyone would present anything to the contrary.  After awhile a mutual friend did indeed and I had my Aha! moment.  I asked him privately to elaborate and this is what he had to share with me:

“What I meant was, first, that I’m not familiar with Dawkins’ argument. I actually don’t know a lot about Dawkins, except that he’s an atheist. With regard to the metaphor though, if I understand it correctly, it’s used to disprove evolution. The problem is that it doesn’t make logical sense.  A tornado is the complete opposite of billions of years.  One is really fast and the other longer than most people can wrap their minds around. Also, the steps of a plane being built during a tornado serve no purpose, unlike evolutionary steps.  As you and I know, each evolutionary step is the result of one mutation out of an unfathomably large number that provides an advantage and allows the species with that mutation to procreate more successfully.  Each step in the plane being constructed during a tornado is nothing like that. The steps of the plane being built are not in competition with previous pieces.  The whole thing is hard to even talk because it doesn’t apply at all.”

There it was!  The simple answer.  At least for me.  A violently rotating convergence of warm and cool air sweeping momentarily over anything has no deliberateness.  There is no purpose to it.  There is no chance for change or growth.  It’s one single action being compared to a series of slow, purposeful actions taking place over a very long span of time.  You can’t take a puzzle out of a box, throw it in the air and have it land together because there is no physical way for it join together in such a fleeting, violent process.  However, you can start with one piece, and then add another, and then another until, through a long process of trial and error, each piece fits to complete the whole.  As my friend stated “A tornado is the complete opposite of a billion years.” because the key ingredient for evolution to happen is TIME!!!  As well, the reason evolution happens is that it, as stated above, “… provides an advantage and allows the species with that mutation to procreate more successfully.”  What would be the reason for a tornado to assemble a completed airplane?  And in addition, how is forming a completed airplane anything like evolution which has no end to it and no absolute completion?  One is an finite action… the other is a infinite process.  Life… whether it be human, animal, insect, plant, single cell, ect… will never be done evolving. The fact that it is not an accident that you and I are here as we exist, does not mean we were created by anything more deliberate than the slow convergence of the right cosmic formula.

Words Mean Things: Atheism vs. Agnosticism

When I watched this video for the first time last year it was like a light bulb went off in my head. It is possible to be an Atheist without absolute, irrefutable proof there are, or ever have been, any deities.

The word Atheist does not mean complete knowledge that there are no gods; It means the BELIEF there are none.

It just so happens that as opposed to the belief there is a divine deity, based on minute scraps of historic writings and very large amounts of faith, the atheist’s belief there is no god is based on very large amounts of evidence and very little unknown.

An agnostic… someone who is unsure of what to believe either way… is not even the same animal.

Definitions In My Own Words

An Agnostic is someone who doesn’t feel there is enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.  Being an agnostic also includes the belief that whether or not a deity truly exists could be something that is unknowable, or not meant to be known.

An Atheist is someone who does not believe that there are, or ever have been, any deities responsible for our universe or anything in it. There are no other static, unifying traits among those that identify themselves simply as such.

A Humanist is someone who believe that humanity as a whole is more important than any one individual group.  As Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”  In my mind you can be a humanist and not be an atheist, although I believe this to be the rarest of species.  If someone has a belief in a deity (or deities) that doesn’t contradict the basic idea that no one group (saved vs. unsaved, christian vs. not christian, ect.) has more favor with said deity, or has any way to invoke more favor (i.e. prayer), that does line up with the basic beliefs of the humanist movement.  In addition, humanists believe that we are responsible for our own actions and choices.  There is no destiny.  There is no divine intervention.  Everything happens for the sole reason that a series of individual and collective  human decision have made it a reality.  So if someone believes in a deity that can and does intervene based on the pleas of human to do so, that does not not line up with the beliefs of the movement.

A Skeptic is someone who requires a information to be well supported by evidence.  People who identify themselves as skeptics do not hold a bias for reality to be one way or another other; they simply want reality to prevail.  A person who identifies them self as a skeptic can also be a humanist so long as the desire to continue to embrace factual evidence is the most prominent.  Presently, there is no well supported evidence for a deity, thus all Skeptics are also Atheists.

A Theist is someone who believes that at least one deity exists.  This term encompasses anyone who believes in a God or Gods as described and defined by modern day Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and a variety of Pagan religions.  It also includes people who believe in an abstract God or Gods and people who identify as “deists”.

“Storm” by Tim Minchin

Atheism vs. Skepticism

How Skepticism is a much broader and more encompassing thought process than simple atheism. Skepticism envelopes atheism.

How you reason out gun control sans emotion

My favorite part of this is how she points out that the US is very different from the rest of the world.