If someone, say a man named Bill, received a picture of his wife having sex with three other men, in all likelyhood he would be visibly shaken.  One of the strongest covenents we make as humans are the pledges of monogamy to one’s spouse, and when these bonds are shaken it drives many to murder, drug addiction, suicide, or other incredibly destructive, suffering-perpetuating behaviors and actions.

But what if the picture was simply the production of a clever Photoshop worker? We know that almost every picture coming to us is manipulated or altered in some way, whether to increase breast size, give men a bigger six pack, or smooth away scars or hair.  We accept that these are not truthful representations of reality.

Image from the Photoshop Troll (Click Picture to Drive Traffic)

Likewise other people, objects, and unbelievable realities can be achieved through a few mouse-clicks. A family photo was set in space with an astronaut added in the above picture from the PhotoshopTroll.    It is incredibly straightforward to doctor a picture via Facebook’s repository of photos to create the aforementioned adultery photograph.

Reliability is Proportional to Content

From this example, it is not so much the message that is important; it is whether or not the message is true.  In the case of our imaginary photoshop image, the message has a credible object that lends to its belief: Bill’s wife.

Yet the message’s truth does not depend entirely on the message itself; the fidelity, or the resemblance to reality, depends on external factors as well.  If we were in Bill’s shoes, we would want to know the answers to questions like:

• Where was the picture taken?
• When was the picture taken?
• Was this a digital photograph that could have been doctored?
• Who are the other people in the photograph?
• Who gave Bill the photograph?

We can also ask internal questions relevant to the content of the message to determine if it is a reliable message:

• Who are the other men in the photograph?
• Is there any evidence of doctoring of the photograph?
• Is the location a likely location that is plausible?

All these questions may not be at the forefront of Bill’s mind when he sees the photograph, but they are immensely important to the truth of the claim presented.  Thereby, the reliability of the message is proportionally important to its content.  As the implausibility of content increase, so should the reliability of the message and the message-bearer.

Religious Texts: Incredible Content with No Reliability

The claim that a theistic, intervening, acting God exists is an incomparably more incredible notion than that Bill’s wife cheated on him.  Some would point out that cultures across time have continually created, invented, and worshipped god, but this no more proves that it is a credible claim than that if Bill believed his wife was cheating on him without the photograph.  The key is comparing the content of the claim (an intervening God exists) to the reliability of the method making the claim.

Snake-Oil Salesmen

As an example, we can think of dozens of examples of people who promised great wealth, health, or happiness at some expense.  Perhaps a miraculous wonder-drug, or a tarot card session, or any number of things that most rational people would not accept.  We can also go to a used car lot and be informed of seemingly miraculous properties of used cars.  Go to any political body on any day and you will find people with an agenda to sell you on some idea that actually benefits them more than you.

Agendas are everywhere, and it is unwise to recognize that people who say they speak on behalf of God are any different than those who speak on behalf of “Energy,” the body politick, or the car with 170,000 miles on it that won’t die for another 100,000.  Pastors have a need to retain members in their flocks, both for sustenance and for the mutual encouragement necessary to believe incredible claims.  This is not to say that they may believe it, but that throughout the ages, many, many people have spoken on behalf of God to (consciously or subconsciously) further their own means.

In the case of the pastor, many people treat their pastor’s claims as absolute truth, while in other areas of inquiry they treat claims with overly-arrogant skepticism. The claim to hear the voice and know the mind of God should meet an almost unachievable burden of proof before they should be believed, and yet it is not.

Holy Texts: Photoshopped Pictures

When talking about intervening Gods, most people refer to ones that are described by various holy texts that have existed throughout the ages: the Bible, the Enuma Elish, the Vedas, the Qu’ran, etc.  Many of these texts posit god-claims, that if true, should create extremely immense reaction from their acceptance.  Yet all too often people fail to look at the core facts about transmission.

The authors of the texts are largely unknown, especially in the case of the Bible.  There were as many as 5-6 different author groups within the Pentatuch alone! Investigative textual criticism, coupled with archaeology, has completely overturned the intelligibility of the notion that Moses wrote the entire Pentatuch as one contiguous document.  The facts instead point to different people with different agendas and conceptions of god, one in which God is all-powerful, all-knowing and unchanging.  However this same God is surprised and angry when things happen exactly as he should have known, and then he changes his mind.  These passages were written in different eras with different authors.

Then we can look to the gospels, whose authorship is anonymous.  Recall the earlier point about snake-oil salesmen; we need only to note that the “Gospel according to Matthew” appears on nearly every bible published today, yet it has been known for centuries that the authorship was anonymous.

When there is a patent lie on every bible published, we should question the reliability of the text.

Additionally, when we see contradictions with the virgin birth or things that appear to be legend, we should begin to doubt the truth and validity of the message, especially when one considers that an all-powerful god would not be so easily befuddled by humans getting his message wrong.  Yet we consistently see contradictions and problems within the bible itself, as well as problems in the transmission.

The Quran does not get off as easily either.  It was written after Mohammad’s death based on the memorization of various verses and sayings.  Unfortunately each of those scribes who memorized the words of the holiest book had competing and conflicting ideas over what was said. This resulted in several versions circulating, which were ultimately collected, some of which were destroyed, in order to make the ‘coherent’ document that exists today.

However, this message still suffers from many of the same problems, with an all knowing god becoming jealous, enraged, or surprised by something he, by all counts, should have seen coming.  There are numerous events that are reported that are not supported by archaeology or other external documents.  There are also fantastical claims contained therein, as well as in the Hadith, that should shake our reliability of the claims made.

Extraordinary Evidence

Whenever we investigate any claim, we should first look at the source and reliability of the message behind the claim.  In the case of Bill, he could have an extremely incorrect but justified belief that his spouse was an adulterer, yet if it is shown to be a photoshopped picture, he would have a very different response (and probably a different object for his anger).  It is here that I rest my case; I believe that each of the holy documents are photoshopped images of truth; that there may be a few real things, but that the unreliability of the message outweighs the content, especially when the content is so implausible as to render it nearly unintelligible.

Everyone is talking about the murder of 26 children and teachers thanks to, what seems to be, a mentally unstable 20-year-old.  And yet in the wake of this indescribable tragedy, Christians have no shortage of hatred and blame to go around:

We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools.  Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage? …We don’t have a crime problem, a gun problem or even a violence problem. What we have is a sin problem.

…the murders of Newtown are a warning to me — and you. Not a warning to see our schools as defenseless, but to see our souls as depraved. To see our need for a Savior. To humble ourselves in repentance for the God-diminishing bitterness of our hearts. To turn to Christ in desperate need, and to treasure his forgiveness, his transforming, and his friendship.

[We]  insist that the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace be taught and expounded publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

We’re not talking about a base human passion like you and I might feel… it’s simply God’s fixed determination to punish the wicked in Hell for their sins. Because he can. Because he’s God. Because he’s sovereign…

I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that’s what’s going on.

Christians know that this is the result of sin and the horrifying effects of The Fall. Every answer for this evil must affirm the reality and power of sin. The sinfulness of sin is never more clearly revealed than when we look into the heart of a crime like this and see the hatred toward God that precedes the murderous hatred he poured out on his little victims.

So now I will pour out my fury on them, consuming them with the fire of my anger. I will heap on their heads the full penalty for all their sins. I, the Sovereign LORD, have spoken!”

Seven quotes: One from the bible.  Two from John Piper and Albert Mohler, two prominent evangelical leaders.  Mohler is the president of Southeastern Seminary, Piper is one of the post prolific, desired speakers of the Christian movement today. One from Mike Huckabee, a former pastor and republican primary candidate, and another from James Dobson, founder of focus on the family.  Two from Westboro Baptist Church‘s about me section and an interview.

Can you tell the difference? No? Because there isn’t any.  I’ll say it again.

There is no theological difference between Westboro baptist’s theology and Piper’s, Mohler’s, or Huckabee’s, or Dobson’s. They all agree that wanton death is our fault and God’s punishment. Continue reading →

There’s a set of bogus mashed-together quotes from Ben Stein going around facebook, and I figured I would share my response.

No one is stopping anyone from saying merry Christmas or even putting up Christmas trees. This ‘pushing around’ thing is nonsense. In 7 states, atheists cannot be elected to office, in one, their testimony in court isn’t valid. The last president who was not explicitly christian was ___________. This is simply a manufactured persecution complex; you have mistaken freedom of religion with always getting what you want.

All the ACLU, FFRF, and secularists the nation over want is to stop government endorsement one religion over another. That’s all. That just means either no Jesus-Is-The-Only-Way displays on taxpayer-funded land, or equal representation for all people. Recently one town government denied a pastafarian display next to the nativity; this is a clear example of endorsing one group’s religious beliefs over another’s, even if pastafarianism is a tongue-in-cheek parody of other religions, the fact that it does not receive equal representation amounts to government picking one religion over others. Certainly “there’s probably no god” displays don’t receive equal representation in any case where it’s been at all possible.

God is not out of our schools/work/public. Government-forced prayer is gone, but no one is stopping any human being from praying. This is an manufactured crime with imaginary victims. Churches exist as tax free institutions, break the law by endorsing candidates, proselytize, spend millions on political advertisements, endorse political groups, and more. If anything, I think that this sort of politicking should be reigned in, but this is a country that allows the free exercise of religion, and thus I must respect that (and i would fight to defend that exercise if it were ever actually in jeopardy).

To say that God is punishing a nation with death because the government isn’t forcing religion enough insults both God and the constitution. It is also incredibly ignorant of weather patterns, global warming, and the predictions of thousands of forecasters and meteorologists who accurately predicted the path and existence of the storm.

Furthermore, america is much more christian than norway, sweden, estonia, or the czech republic, and yet God isn’t sending hurricanes at these countries. Maybe because several of them are landlocked, so either god is not omnipotent, god doesn’t care, or the world looks exactly like it would if God didn’t exist. Just a thought.

Blaming terrorism and school shootings on madeline murray o’hare instead of the actual terrorists (who are oftentimes religious, or explicitly Christian: The Klu Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist, the Army of God, Eric Rudolph, etc.) is simply trying to scapegoat and stretch something that isn’t there. There have always been sociopaths, and moving away from “DEMONZ POSSESION” and towards medication has actually improved the condition of these people. Yet another falsehood.

Every psychological assessment done so far shows that assaulting a child is worse for them. Since that time, we have gained more and more knowledge about what does and doesn’t work. Turns out spanking doesn’t work.

Dr Spock’s child didn’t commit suicide. Please quit spreading lies, it doesn’t become anyone.

By all counts, people are more moral than ever before in the US. Crime is down, violent crime is down, white collar crime is down, prison populations are shrinking. Again, lying isn’t very becoming. Just because kids aren’t homophobic bigots anymore doesn’t mean they’ve lost their morals, as much as people realizing that hating someone because of their skin color have lost theirs.

I’ll talk about God’s supposed existence anytime, anyplace, where it’s appropriate. However, proselytizing and condemning people to hell in the workplace is not an appropriate time.

Responding to idiotic mush circulating on facebook, rife with false claims, lies, logical fallacies, misattributed quotes, and seething with ignorance, is.

Funny how the only way Christians can seem to feel better about themselves these days is to manufacture lies to tell each other about how bad they have it in the US, all the while ignoring the commands of Jesus to love the poor, sell all their possessions, love the outcast, help those in need, and pursue truth.

Original Text Below

Continue reading →

One of my best friends, Steve, asked me to do a brief article on Evolution.  What started off as a facebook response has morphed into a full-on brief response.  Here is his wall post, in full:

What do you do with all this evolutionary stuff? Could you write a future topic on Coffee Shop atheist to comment on what you do with evidence against old earth & evolution? Some things I have in mind are the mosaic species; the seemingly sudden appearance of man in the fossil record; the folding of old rock layers; the source of comets; the discovery of T-rex blood vessels; vertical fossils; the thickness of topsoil; and the thickness of seafloor sediment. You could probably ask the same from me, and it would be fair. Thanks much!

My thoughts are below, tailored as a personalized response.

I Can’t Convince You

Hey sexy man. I wanted to respond to this but I’ve been swamped and couldn’t get away long enough for a good response to what you asked.

I guess first off, I want to confess I’m not as knowledgeable about evolution or geology as say, history of the bible, psychology, or theology, and those fields’ implications for Christianity. I.e. I don’t know enough about it to be able to deal with specific creationist (i’m assuming here) claims about ‘problems’ with evolution.

But evolution isn’t a theological issue; it’s a scientific one.  It is like quantum mechanics, interharmonics, magnetic fields generated by 4GHz switching cycles [Steve is a fellow electrical engineer].  It is about what we know concretely about biology, geology, chemistry, and reality.  It technically has nothing to do with God at all, which is why I am less concerned with it.  It’s true, yesterday today and tomorrow, and says nothing one way or the other about God, but does say a bit about some of the books He is reported to have authored.

To that end, I guess I can give a more general mindset, because I know even if I try, I can’t convince you that evolution is true or false. You’re an extremely smart guy, which has benefits and problems: you can believe you are 100% correct about something, can come up with creative solutions to any new ‘facts’ that might change your way of thinking, and based on past experience, you’ve generally been correct.

So I don’t really want to ‘argue’ for evolution; you have to do the research for yourself. I can explain why I think it’s true, and why Creationism ultimately fails to pass the test for being an honest method of inquiry.

Evolution 101

For evolution to be true, there are two facts that have to be true, and nothing more:

• Random genetic mutation occurs
• Some random genetic mutation leads some reproducing cells or groups of cells to have a better chance at either survival or reproduction (known as natural selection and sexual selection).

That’s it, that’s all that’s required. Everything else is extraneous. The Macro/Micro misinterpretation is irrelevant. If it happens on a small scale, it happens on a large scale.   Geology, fossils, DNA, everything else is just fluff.  So the question is, are these two facts true, always?

The answer is yes, and we have proof.  These to facts have been observed in people’s lifetimes. My favorite examples are a group of lizards that evolved completely new necks and digestive abilities in a few decades after being introduced to a non-native island, or the nylon-eating bacteria that have evolved recently (Nylon was not invented until WW2).  A final example takes the form of an experiment conducted by Richard Lenski, a researcher who undertook a 20-year long experiment in which E. Coli, after 30,000+ generations, developed the ability to process citrate.  It morphed to adapt to a new climate.  The comedy involves an attempt by Conservapedia to dismiss the results using attempts at logical fallacies and deliberate misinterpretation, but was met with a clear, strongly worded response by Lenski.

In addition to this, the genetic makeup of a species and its ancestors can be used to corroborate the claims of Evolution.  Whenever a new species or bone or somesuch is found, we can use the information about it to determine where it fits in the tree of extant species.  To see some of these examples, google “Dna Evidence Evolution” and see what comes up.  One article from Sciencedirect presents the genetic sequencing of the human genome in the context of fossilized evidence, and presents a tremendous amount of information to exacerbate the linkage.  There are hundreds of thousands more like it, and more produced every day.

Creationist Claim: T-Rex Blood

As far as the above claims, these seem like specific claims trying to pick holes in the theory. There’s a really cool website, TalkOrigins.com, that has an index of creationist claims and well-laid out layperson-style explanation of the claim and responses.

For example, the T-rex blood vessel article has 6 citations, a link to the original article, and there is even a lengthy response article in the FAQ!

The dispute comes mainly from the overemphasis of the claims made, and is made clear by the quote (from that previous link) below:

“They have clearly stated they could not even assert that there were residual blood products, but Wieland falsely claimed Schweitzer asserted there were actual cells. The lack of permineralization (the infilling of the intravascular spaces with minerals, and recrystalization of the bone mineral itself) is the reason that Schweitzer could loosely refer to the bone as “not completely fossilized” in The Real Jurassic Park. Wieland grossly exaggerates this as “unfossilized”. [1997: pg. 42]

Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) is most charitably characterized as a dumbed down version of the scientific publications published the same year (Schweitzer, et al. 1997A, B, C). Schweitzer, et al., “Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone” (1997A) gives us a straight forward data presentation,and concludes that there were heme, and hemoglobin protein fragments sufficiently well preserved in a small portion of a particularly well preserved bone from which they could produce an immunological response in rats. There is no indication that there were “blood cells” found in the bone…”

Basically, what AiG and Wieland did was read into a single article, the watered-down, pop-science version of a journal paper, and conflated ‘cells’ with ‘residue,’ which is patently dishonest. This is, in my experience, par for the course when people seek to disprove evolution.

As far as the other problems,

• Sudden appearance of humans (CC100) has about 8 articles, discrediting most of the reports as completely false.
• Rock layers (CD510) can fold when heated or be deformed otherwise
• Comets (CE260,CE261): there are way more comets than just the ones that happen to come near the sun (these are exceptions), the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt exist and have been observed,
• Topsoil (CD620) is created and destroyed, and maintains an average level due to environmental factors
• Sedimentation (CD200) has about 12 articles.  One in particular about attempting to discredit the old earth with the amount of sediment is similar to the topsoil claim; it is in a transient state, so claims about the earth based on its age are completely irrelevant.

There is a big huge article that takes specific aim at Kent Hovind’s claims, and goes through a majority of them.  I’d love for you to check it out.  I hope you understand I’m not dismissing you or ignoring what you have to say by writing brief summaries, but go check them out for yourself.  I don’t know what you know, but I know you well enough that you can learn a thing or two.

On Creationism

Most commonly the arguments commit some sort of logical fallacy, whether equivocation (where a word has two meanings, such as “macroevolution” as defined and used by scientists or ‘macroevolution’ as defined and used by creationists. The other option is outright lying, such as repeated attacks on geological time measurement methods that aren’t used to date things the way creationists say they’re used (carbon/isometric/radiometric dating; problems with one don’t mean the others are flawed within their acceptable ranges)

As far as fossilization goes, as already discussed there is evidence in our own lifetime of evolution occurring, and genetics/DNA provide additional correlation. Fossils are the icing on the cake, and because of the very circumstantial conditions that must take place for fossilization to occur. Thus, it is a ‘miracle’ (a highly random possibility) that we have any fossils at all. To that end, finding some fossils out of order can be more easily explained as a fluke situation than something that undermines the whole theory of evolution.

Conclusion

I know there is much, much more here, and for every well-established truth about evolution or the age of the earth, there are a million misinterpretations of it from the creationist side.  But that’s just what they are: logical fallacies wrapped up as trying to prove some belief true.  That’s not how science or truth works.  You find the truth, then let the truth inform your beliefs, not the other way around.

Science constantly and continually corrects itself, and you can bet that if anyone had real, demonstrable, non-fallacious proof that some other mechanism besides evolution is the cause of speciation, they would win the Nobel Prize and go down as the most influential person in history.  But they haven’t.  All that has happened is various people have latched on to “God of the Gaps” theories, which many Christians think demeans God’s character.

What these arguments boil down to is “Science hasn’t explained this yet! Look! Look Here! Ignore the mountains of evidence and look here at this pothole!”  The weak nature of this claim is exacerbated when people are starting from the conclusion, rather than from the evidence.  If I start with, “I’m right that the earth is 6 KYa, and evolution is false,” I’m not mentally capable of skeptical, rational, iquiry.  I am only capable of tricking myself into believing what I want to believe.

So I urge you to look just at the evidence. Don’t look with an agenda, with a goal, with proving yourself right or wrong.  Just look. Stare. Look at your own bias: Is it making you treat the evidence unfairly? I know it did me!

Ultimately, if you value truth, you will have to admit that bias and agenda-seeking is not a good path to it, and that is the entirety of what people like Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis do.  There is nothing honest about what they do, nor (with any amount of research) in the methodology they employ to attempt to convince others.  If you value beliefs, by all means, don’t go down this road.  However, I find that truth is much more palatable than mere belief, and much better at getting us to where we wish we could be.