The Prime Mover Debate: Conclusion

Here is my conclusion to the Prime Mover debate that I have been enjoying with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com  A complete dialog of the debate will be posted soon. But if you wish to be current please review these links in order.

Bushey's introduction

My introduction

Bushey's rebuttal

My rebuttal

Bushey's second rebuttal

My second rebuttal

Bushey's three questions

My three questions

Bushey's conclusion

My Conclusion 

Mr. Bushey claims that “The infinite doesn't exist in nature”  and he opts to verify this statement by using thought experiments.  I have responded that nature is absurd and therefore a logical contradiction cannot disprove nature.  I've supported this by showing how classical logic has no weight in the quantum realm.  One need only Google the famous double slit experiment, quantum superposition or quantum tunneling  to find that classical logic is not universal.   

Bushey feels that I did not address his objection to my claim that contradictory statements can sometimes be simultaneously true.   I find this frustrating since I did address this objection, twice.  He simply doesn't acknowledge any of my responses; he doesn't admit that there is such a thing as quantum logic and that it is incompatible with classic logic. Instead he simply plows onward re-stating ad nauseam that the claim “two contradictory statements can be simultaneously true” is self defeating.   He marvels endlessly at the nonsensical outcome of applying classical logical rules to the absurdity of quantum facts.  Bushey is essentially claiming that quantum mechanics cannot be true since its principles are self defeating.  I hope he reconsiders.

My 3 questions were designed to illustrate the inconsistency in Mr. Bushey’s  logic.  The 1^st question was meant to show that supernatural hypothesis’ are irrational since a supernatural event is essentially defined when something is explainable.  Please note that transcendent and supernatural are synonymous.  Bushey contends that his argument deductively arrives at the conclusion of a transcendent cause.  My claim is that unless he has deductively eliminated all possible natural explanations, then his logic is flawed.  He writes:

“I think there are many conceivable instances wherein it would be irrational to cast doubt upon the supernatural as an explanation, even when there are possible natural explanations” 

……Like comets crashing into the moon spelling out "Jesus is lord"!? Note that Bushey couldn't provide an actual instance to illustrate this point.  

The 2^nd question was meant to illustrate one simple truth: no one prefers a priori deductions over scientific conclusions.  Deductive reasoning alone cannot produce technology, it has cured no diseases and we should be skeptical of its claims to know the origins of the universe. The 3^rd question Implies that a claim about the cause of the universe ought to make a prediction about that cause which could be empirically verified or falsified.  One cannot apply this concept to itself because the statement “a good theory ought to be empirically provable” doesn't make any specific claims about nature.   Bushey’s objection that this is self defeating arises from a sort of equivocation fallacy.   I find it odd that he thinks a good theory shouldn't require empirical verification to succeed.  I don’t find it odd that he could not propose an experiment to verify the necessity of a prime mover.  

Bushey's argument failed to prove that infinity doesn't exist in nature, failed to prove how a mind can exist without a body, time or space, failed to eliminate all natural explanations in order to prove the necessity of a transcendent explanation and failed to show how a prime mover could be empirically verifiable through experimentation.   Therefore, the argument for a prime mover fails. 

The Prime Mover Debate: 3 Questions

This is the continuation of my debate with Richard Bushey of ThereForeGodExists.com.  We are debating whether or not a "Prime Mover" is necessary and we are at the point in the debate where each of us gets the opportunity to pose 3 questions to our opponent.  Mr. Bushey's turn was first. His questions and my responses are below. If you wish to make yourself current with the progression of the debate, please scroll down to the previous post which contains links to our discussion so far.

Question 1:
If time and space had a cause, would you agree that it follows that the cause must transcend time and space?

The Prime Mover Debate: Second Rebuttal

If you are a frequent visitor to this blog, you may have noticed that I've been participating in a blog-debate with Richard Bushey of thereforegodexists.com.  The purpose of this post will be to present my second rebuttal to his position that a “Prime Mover” is necessary to explain why the universe exists.  To be current with the dialog that follows in this post you may wish to review the following links:

Bushey’s Introduction

My Introduction

Bushey’s First Rebuttal

My First Rebuttal

Bushey’s Second Rebuttal

 

My Second Rebuttal

During this debate, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain my objections to Mr. Bushey’s argument, specifically on the subject of contradictory statements and the existence of infinity in nature. To begin with let’s discuss a key point of contention between us. My position is based on observations in quantum mechanics which prove that it is possible for two contradictory statements to be simultaneously true.  Based on this fact we can further conclude:

1. Logical contradictions exist in nature
2. Demonstrating a logical contradiction is not a reliable way to disprove natural phenomenon.
3. Classical logic is not the end-all to problem solving in nature, since, on a quantum level it doesn't apply

Bushey has disagreed in two separate replies, stating that to question the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is self defeating and I’ll allow the reader to review his exact statements.  However to my great pleasure I would like to point out that I am not the first person to question the LNC.  It is at very least open to debate and the line of thinking is like this: The laws of nature are just descriptions of what we consistently observe in nature.   If scientists observe some new phenomenon, they don’t discredit it as a violation of law, they rewrite the law to fit what is observed.  The rules of Logic should be open to the same revision. 

There is a wonderful book called “The Law of Non-Contradiction”, in which my summary above is presented:

“….It is possible to revise logical principles or logical rules on the basis of extra-logical considerations-which include empirical considerations.”

Specifically, the authors outline an “Argument from Quantum Mechanics” which concludes:

“The main idea is that,…. classical logic simply provides the wrong results when applied to the quantum domain. The overall structure of the latter domain is not adequately represented by classical logic; but it is by quantum logic.”

The LNC is not as universally accepted as Bushey has presented it to be in his rebuttals.  These objections are fatal to his argument, not just to his conclusion that the past cannot be infinite, but also to the entire methodology by which Bushey has arrived at ALL of his conclusions, that is: Philosophically without empirical support.

Science

I have had the pleasure of reading Alexander Vilenkin’s book called “Many Worlds in One” from which Bushey offered a quote. Unfortunately for theists, on the very next page Vilenkin writes:

“…The theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist…. Religion is not immune to the paradoxes of creation.”

“…Scientists have been to rash to admit that the cosmic beginning cannot be described in purely scientific terms. True, it is hard to see how this can be done. But things that seem to be impossible often reflect only the limitation of our imagination.”

The very next chapter of his book is called “Creation of Universes from Nothing”, in which he explains in scientific terms exactly how the universe could have spontaneously come into being from a literal nothing.  Another interesting feature of the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem is that while suggesting a finite past, it also suggests eternal inflation of our universe into the future.  It also suggests the creation of an infinite amount of alternate universes in which everything that could possibly happen: does happen. According to Vilenkin, there is an alternate universe in which a Richard Bushey exists who is in total agreement with my argument.  

Unanswered Objections

I discussed in my previous rebuttal that Bushey’s claim that a mind with causal authority can exist without space, time or a body; places a burden of proof upon him.  This is also a fatal objection if unanswered.  

Conclusion

Indeed the past may very well be finite, though as I mentioned before, such a claim if true, will be proven by science.  So why not skip the logic and paradoxes and just go straight to science to support a finite past?  The answer is because the Kalam is totally dependent upon a philosophical conclusion, and its proponents must distance themselves from science because empirical evidence disagrees with the concept of timeless, spaceless, bodiless, universe-creating minds with causal authority.   Again, I haven’t argued at such length because I believe the past is infinite.  I argue because I disagree with the way in which Bushey makes his conclusions, and the same flawed methodology is employed to make additional conclusions which I absolutely DO NOT agree with, specifically the claim that a prime mover is necessary.

On Choosing Atheism over Agnosticism

There is a misconception in American culture that unless you are 100% certain of God's existence, then one ought to self-identify as an agnostic. This is inaccurate, and what is worse is that the mislabeling provides shelter to bad religious ideas. Once the title of agnostic is worn, one feels they are in a non-position to comment or disagree with religious ideology. "Who knows the real truth? Who am I to disagree?" As a former agnostic, I found myself defending religion, not because I believed in it, but because I felt atheists were guilty of the same logic-crimes as a religious person: claiming to know the unknowable. It wasn't until a few years ago that I realized I had mislabeled myself as an agnostic. As it turns out, my mistake was purely in the definition of the terms.

The Prime Mover Debate: First Rebuttal

This is a continuation of the "prime mover" debate I am participating in with Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com  If you wish to be current on our dialog so far, please read the following links.

His introduction

My introduction

His first rebuttal

My first rebuttal 

In my response to Mr. Bushey’s debate introduction and argument for the existence of a “prime mover” I raised a several objections. To my objections, Mr. Bushey’s has kindly responded in his rebuttal. Yet, despite his response, my objections remain unsatisfied. 

To Be and Not To Be

My first objection was in regard to the paradoxes offered as proof that the infinite cannot exist in reality.  Bushey insists that the mathematical notion of infinity, when applied to real-life thought experiments, will produce logical absurdities and therefore prove the non-existence of infinity.  My response was that a mathematic paradox which produces logical absurdity does not prove non-existence.  I offered a well known example of quantum mechanics, a thought experiment called Schrodinger’s Cat, in which it can be simultaneously true that a cat exist in a living and dead state.  Bushey correctly identified the effect which produces the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment as quantum superposition.  Unfortunately, that was the end of his correctness on the subject.  His interpretation of quantum superposition was that it implies contradictory states 

The Prime Mover Debate

I recently exchanged a few tweets with an Christian apologist on twitter. As it turns out: we couldn't agree on very much. So I suggested that the topic was too big for a 140 character limit. He then politely referred me to his blog which contains an excellent pre-fabricated debate format. I chose the topic of "first cause", a popular point of contention between atheists and theists.  The debate format is as follows:

1 Introduction (1500 words or less) per debater.
1 long rebuttal (1000 words or less) per debater.
1 short rebuttal (750 words or less) per debater.
(This dialogue is temporarily suspended after short rebuttal)
3 questions posed for the other debater to answer (the answer to the 3 questions will be in 750 total words or less) per debater.
1 closing statement to end the debate (500 words or less) per debater.

The person who is making the affirmative case (depending on the topic) will make the first introduction while the other will make the last conclusion.

I think this is a fantastic idea. My Co-debater is Mr. Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com and he was kind enough to send a link to his debate introduction which was posted on his blog. A link is provided in my introduction below. We shall continue the debate, posting our responses on our own blogs until the debate is complete. With Mr. Busheys permission, I shall post the debate in its entirety after it is complete.

So without further ado.

I recommend reading Mr. Bushey's 1500 introduction first and it can be viewed here: http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/is-a-prime-mover-necessary/

.... mine is posted below.

Introduction

For centuries, without empirical data, philosophers and theologians have pondered the origin of the universe.  Theists claim that certain philosophical arguments like the Kalam Cosmological are philosophical proof of a supernatural primary mover, that is: an uncaused-cause which exists necessarily, outside of space-time, and initiated the causal chain of our universe.  Most even take it a step further to provide philosophical proof that this primary mover must be a personal being.

The concept of God and evil are incompatible

The age old question: Is the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God compatible with evil?  It has been debated amongst theists and atheists for centuries. I have been participating in a little debate on the subject myself recently. Despite my repeated attempts to reach some type of consensus, my opponent repeatedly dodged my questions, and when one issue was addressed another sprung up, until, he finally directed me to the author of his beliefs: William Lane Craig. Craig is a philosopher who is also a Christian who argues in favor of Gods existence. The essay i was directed to was called The Problem Of Evil, and is a Theist response to the "age old question". I would recommend that you read through the seemingly convincing argument put forth by Craig, before reading my reply. However, i have set up this post as a imaginary dialog between myself and Craig, so the basics are here. Anyone who disagrees with my representation of William Craig's position, can check the essay, and offer a correction in the comment section at the bottom of this rebuttal. 

Response to Rae

I recently received a comment from a Christian reader named Rae. The comment was in response to my creationism refuted post. Rae's comments seem summarize a very typical response to scientist's explanations for the origin of the universe. I thought i would post his comment together with my response for you all to read. Please feel free to reference the original post about creationism if you like, though it is not necessary to follow the debate. Comments are welcome and encouraged. :)

Rae's comment:
I am a believer in God. Here are my thoughts: We are both making basic foundational assumptions. Mine, of course, is that no matter how it was made, the universe was created by a more supreme being. Science, then, would attempt to continually discover more about what was made and how it works. Your basic assumption is that all can be explained through naturalistic means. The problem is that no matter how many naturalistic theories are formed to explain the existence of our universe, something exists - which shouldn't if there is no outside influence. What I mean is this: Okay, what if there is a parent universe, or something outside this universe that spawned it? And maybe there is something beyond that which spawned it. Even if at the very beginning of the chain that "something" which eventually caused this universe is found to be infinite, that "something" contains ingredients. Whether that is matter or some unknown substance is irrelevant. Those ingredients exist. How? Why? Science can never answer how or why at that point. (Not that science usually answers the question "why?") So I am going to conclude that it is logical to believe that a Supreme Being who humans can't fully understand and who is outside of that which contains these "ingredients", outside of nature, caused this universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God created parent universes and so on, but that is because I, for now, have no reason to believe he did. It sounds like those theories are not scientific but instead are purely philosophical, and absolutely based on the assumption that all can be explained through naturalistic means. You may believe I am filling in the gaps with "God" (I disagree), but I believe you are just filling in the gaps with "We'll know later." I also need to add that there seems to be much more evidence outside of this topic that points to a Creator, and when all is put together and considered, belief in God is, I think, quite plausible. For example: the Bible is by far the most historically sound document in existence. To reject the events that occurred, specifically the events surrounding Christ and the resurrection, you must reject it on means other than the historicity of the Bible, which is being confirmed more and more as we learn and discover new information about the past. And I know that is not what this debate is about, but my point is if the resurrection can't be refuted, than it is absolutely logical to start with the basic assumption that God created the universe. With that, I respect your views and thank you for taking the time to read mine! My Response:

Ok Rae, I don't think that I will be able to persuade you into thinking that a natural explanation is more plausible than supernatural. BUT I will try.

I will start with this, which has already been addressed to Barry. Belief with justification by evidence is not the same as belief without justification or evidence. I believe that unanswered questions will have natural explanations because that is what has happened over and over and over throughout the history of human understanding. I believe events have natural causes, because the evidence supports that idea.

Please remember Rae, that any understanding of cause and effect in our world is founded completely on natural, explainable hypotheses supported with observation and evidence. Imagine the massive wealth of understanding about the observed events in this universe: ALL accepted explanations are entirely naturally based. Humanity has observed the confirmation of that fact over and over throughout the history of science. Yet here you are, suddenly reaching the next frontier of knowledge and expecting a different result? How is that logical at all? It cannot be. Furthermore, I do not think it is logical for you to conclude that a supernatural force must exist outside of nature which is the cause of any event. Over and over we have learned that things have natural causes, why would it be logical to expect a different result that conflicts with the past observations? It is not a valid conclusion because science has never observed a supernatural cause and scientists have no data or evidence to suggest such an existence is even possible.


Granted, I know that I cannot prove that god does not exist, but hopefully at this point I have clarified why “God did it” is not a logical alternative hypothesis to explain issues that “Scientist cannot yet explain”.
It is acceptable to believe that all problems have a solution. It is acceptable to say: “I do not know the answer to this problem.” It is not acceptable to say: “The solution to this problem is a supernatural concept, which I have no evidence to support.” It conclusion, I say history, observable and documented evidence compiled by over two hundred years of research lends credibility to the concept that these problems have natural solutions. There is no data, research and or observable evidence which supports the notion of a supernatural anything. Rae, you are more than welcome to try and prove the existence the supernatural if you like, I will gladly comment on your thoughts.

The old question: “If god created the universe, then what created god?” is usually answered in a similar fashion to your comment “God does not need a creator, because he “has no ingredients”, or “God exists outside time and existence”. But these are simply word play answers and have no real meaning. Both of those concepts are unjustified notions which are not supported by evidence. To make such a claim valid one must prove that a thing can exist outside of time, or that a thing can exist with no ingredients. I could very well propose the concept of a non-thinking, indifferent super-force, with no ingredients, which exist outside of time. I could also say that this force caused of all the matter in our universe to exist. This super-force caused our matter and universe in a way that was accidental, like a by-product of its existence outside of time. I could suggest that when the by-product of this super-force (matter) was created, it was actually the big bang. This super-force, being non-intelligent, was not aware of what it has caused and had no further influence, so after the big gang all of matter ran a natural course which can be explained through natural processes which are documented and observed by science.

WOW! What an interesting concept, seems to have the all same “clutch” arguments as your god argument. Yet, I’m willing to bet it sounded ridiculous. It should, its totally unjustified word play, yet you and everyone on the planet cannot prove my theory false. Should we be inclined to accept it a plausible explanation for the origin of matter? My position is that we should not.


It can’t be proven wrong so…..“That means there’s a chance!” (A chance it’s true)
Your right Rae, but that is not how humans decide what to believe in any other area of life.

For ex: You cannot possibly prove that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden, but you can prove that the PROBABILITY of that being true is slim, and that is based on the observations and evidence, which give no reason to conclude that fairies are real.
A satellite could fall from the sky and crush you as you leave for work. It’s possible, but so unlikely to happen, so based on the probability that it won’t, you don’t think twice about it when you step outside. When someone IS afraid to go outside because they are scared of falling satellites or garden fairies, we call them crazy or neurotic. Because unjustified beliefs are a characteristic of an irrational person.

So Rae, with all due respect, do you still feel your beliefs in god are justified by some evidence or observable data, or any testable concept? Because before we talk about the bible or resurrection we must first establish whether or not the notion of GOD is a plausible concept. I look forward to your reply.

Morality does not come from God

I've ran into this debate so many times recently, or rather I've ran into the wrong answer to this important question several times in debate. My opponents state that morals come from God, scripture and holy books. Which are basically the supernaturally inspired writings of men. I have heard time and time again that without these holy guidelines in society, man will become his own god and choose his own individual interpretation of morality. The religious feel that without holy books to follow, people will do whatever they desire with no regard to anyone else including stealing, murdering, committing adultery etc....

NOTHING could be further from the truth. Our moral compass, has no origin in scripture. I will attempt throughout this post to intellectually destroy the concept of morality derived from religion. I will also try to present a logical alternative to the origin of our human morals. The purpose of this post is to provide a source for atheist to reference when confronted with similar religious arguments as those mentioned above, as well as for religious persons to perhaps reevaluate the credibility of their beliefs. The proof of this argument is longer than what is usually considered courteous for a comment reply in the blogosphere, so whenever the issue comes up please feel free to reference a link to this post to drive your point home. This post shall be divided into a two separate arguments.

Arguments against moral origin from holy bible

All one need do is look through the old testament and there you will find countless examples of deplorable moral instruction. In Deuteronomy we are instructed to take our disobedient children and bring them forth to the elders of our community to be publicly stoned to death. 21:18-21
If a man is found lying with a married woman they shall both be put to death. 22:22
If your community worships another god than that of Christianity, God will instruct his people to proceed with a thorough extermination of all inhabitants of your community, including your children. 2:33-36, and 3:3-6. (there are many more examples of Gods love of genocide.) One need only look to the story of Lot and the Sodomites in the book of Genesis to find some wonderful accounts of morality. "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."-God

I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32 Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8 God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

Many Christians today feel that Jesus did away with all this barbaric morality in the New Testament, However Jesus himself can be found to show his complete support for old laws on several occasions throughout the New Testament. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."-Jesus from Matthew 5:17 Also see Matthew 5:18-19 and Timothy 3:15-17. Christians will argue that these statements reflect Jesus' comments on how he will change the law after his Crucifixion is complete, pointing out his last words on the cross to reflect this notion. Yet if such reworking of old laws was coming why wouldn't God allude to this at all in the Old Testament? God, being omniscient and knowing the future could have specifically said- " Someday I will send my son who is also me, to the earth in human form, and whatever he speaks of law shall be the new law, and if it contradicts my word, you shall take his and follow his there after." Why did he speak so adamantly about preserving his word, and offer so much warning to changing his laws, if he knew he would someday undo it all through Jesus? Take for example passages in Deuteronomy 12:32 -"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. " and 12:28-"Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. " The part For ever, stands out the most to me, clearly this god had no intention of changing his mind at any point in time.

Some will point out that Jesus was a large advocate of the Golden Rule, which is a wonderful advancement from the old testament brutality. Christianity, like most religions, repeatedly claim to be the only way of morality and most all ironically claim to be written under the authority of the true creator of the universe. Yet advocates of the Golden Rule, can be found in all religions, some dating to much earlier times than that of Jesus. Check out this list of religions advocating "the rule" Such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism. So how does one decide which moral doctrine to follow?

This leads us to a very important question: By what criteria do you decide which passages in the bible to follow? What criteria did you use to decide that your religion is the best representation of morality? All religions have their own claims to superiority, so one cannot logically, refer to the bible for guidance on which religion to choose. The statement "I used the bible for moral guidance in determining that the bible is the best source of moral guidance.", is circular reasoning, and totally irrational. Even if the previous statement was accurate and a humans moral compass can only follow Gods words in the form of ancient text , then all passages would have the same credibility. God certainly made it very clear that not one passage is to be neglected. It is obvious to me that we have moral intuition contained within ourselves that allows us to decide (without gods help), what is right and wrong. The fact that you choose one doctrine over another proves that you are using your own moral intuition to determine what you feel is the best doctrine of morality. You are also using your own justification to support your choices. Moral intuition cannot be connected to scripture by any reasonable arguments. It is noteworthy to point out that there is no correlative data to suggest in any way, that atheism is linked to bad morality. However, since over 80% of America identifies themselves as a Christian, and with our high ratio of criminals per capt, it is quite easy to find correlative data to suggest that religious affiliation has nothing to do with morality. Of course that is not the basis of this argument since correlative data can be easily misused. (One might even try and argue against my moral intuition argument by stating that our high rate of crime is proof that we are inherently immoral. I will show that this is untrue later in this post.)

It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the teachings of Christianity are so muddled with moral contradictions, that ideas like slavery, burning of heretics, torture of heretics, oppression of women and child abuse have been happily endorsed by the Church for the past twenty centuries. Today's Christians feel that all these past atrocities represented a skewed version of their faith. Yet Sam Harris points out how strange it is that today's Christian feel that they finally got it right in the last 50 years, despite the fact that all the saints and most predominate figures in their religion somehow got it wrong for 2,000 years. It seems either very arrogant, or more likely that their present moral opinions have nothing to do with the words of religious doctrine. Scripture is fixed, and yet morality has advanced in a slow upward trend. The only way to explain this upward trend is to look outside of religion. And so we shall.


Argument for a natural cause of morality.

I am convinced that like all dead gods and deities explained away by science, society will ultimately come to the conclusion that all things have natural causes, science has already disregarded the supernatural hypothesis, now it is time for the masses to toss aside the mythology that is crippling our minds. I will do my part by trying to spread some of the ideas that i have read about, ideas that could offer natural explanations for our moral intuition. Unlike the morality from religion theory these explanations are consistent with the progress of our moral development throughout our history.

The most convincing explanation is the theory that morality evolved from altruistic behavior in our ancestors. Before i begin this argument i would like to acquaint you with some terminology. Altruistic behaviour can be defined as- 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. Examples of altruism are found in a broad variety of species on this planet. I will only list a few to illustrate the point that it does exist in nature. Worker bees, which sting potential honey robbers, and do so at the expense of their own lives. Their vital organs are torn out, and they die soon after from the damage. Why would an organism give its life to save a food supply that it will not be around to enjoy? Why do many species of birds sound an alarm to warn the flock when danger is spotted, when making sounds puts them at a higher risk of danger than the bird who flies off silently. At first glance the concept of survival of the fittest seems to have gone backwards. This is just an illusion, once we consider the knowledge we have about genes, the picture becomes clearer.

The truth is that every bee in the colony carries the same genes. The selfish worker bee could fly away, and leave his colony to be pillaged, while saving its own life. If it did, the potential for its selfish survival traits to be passed on has been almost completely ruined, since most of its genetic descendants have just been squashed in a honey raid. By contrast, the altruistic bee who self sacrifices, and gives his life for his colony, has averted the destruction of his genetic decedents. The altruist gene prevails in almost all scenarios. The same holds true in humans. I am not implying that we evolved from bees, i am simply saying that natural selection favors altruistic behavior. This is most certainly so in humans. Early humans lived in small tribes, members of which, are likely to be carriers the same genes. The survival of my genes are not entirely based on my own survival. If i live and have two children, i have replicated some of my genes twice. If i die protecting my tribe of 20 humans, and those humans go on to have have 40 children. By giving my life to save my tribe i have ensured the replication of some of my genes by 40 times. Odds are that many of the tribe members would have similar altruistic tendencies. Thus the altruist multiplies even in death. The concept is of course, more complicated than is being presented here on this blog. Yet the idea remains the same, basic math shows the self motivated gene to have replicated twice, while the altruistic gene has replicated forty times. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to envision our ancestors slowly building our internal moral compass, through evolution. Morality can be explained by this type of altruistic evolution down to the smallest concepts like trust. Individuals who are trusted have an advantage in survival compared to the deceiver. Deceivers, thieves, murders, are all outcasts in tribal communities. If they are expelled from their group, their survival is hindered. While those who help, tell the truth, defend family and tribe members, are favored by the group, and for obvious reasons, their genes are more likely to be passed on. Once this concept is understood, there is little about human psychology that cannot be explained by evolution.

I would like to take a second to point out something about evolution. This next point is an obligatory response to my creationist opponents who might say something like: "YA, well i think evolution is just a bunch of lies, so i don't believe any of this altruistic evolution crap explains our morality." Unfortunately, there are two kinds of evolution. Micro and Macro. Macro evolution is the development of new species through a series of mutations. The theory that men evolved from monkeys is an example of macroevolution. Microevolution explains variations of adaptations within a species. For example dogs that adapted to colder environment by developing thicker coats of fur. Microevolution explains every variation that occurs within a specific species of animal, just before the point in becomes so distorted that is no longer the same species. Creationist acknowledge that micro occurs all through nature, but hold the view that no species has ever become so distorted that it became a new species. In other words, creationist think macroevolution is false, but micro is true. With this in mind, the concept of morality derived from altruistic evolution is still compatible with microevolution, and even a creationist will have to entertain this possibility. Morality could have evolved entirely in the human species, and does not have to originate in monkeys in order to make sense. That is not the opinion that i hold, but for the sake of argument, simply disregarding evolution, is not an option. ( I would like to point out that chimpanzees have a moral code that is more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. Of all the animals in the world they behave in a way that is most similar to human social behavior. I am quite sure it is not by coincidence.)

Explaining our upward trend in morality

The upward trend in morality can be described as a bad ideas repeatedly being embraced by the public as acceptable, only to be disregarded as immoral after a period of time. Often in our history, humanity has taken many centuries to recognize the errors of our ways. Though it seems to be a repeating pattern that all bad ideas will be righted in time. Slavery, justified by biblical passages, took centuries to fix. Heretics are no longer burnt, at least by western cultures. Women rights, have made much progress in the west as well. The western cultures have repeatedly overcome bad ideas, or rather immoral ideas, time and time again.

This trend shows that we have an natural desire to create and live in a moral society, but it also poises a larger question that must be answered to truly understand our moral origins: Why does an organism with an internal moral compass developed through evolution, repeatedly embrace bad morals? I could take the route of many atheist and simply right it off as the fault of the worlds many religions and their conflicting agendas. This is very tempting to do since most atrocities in human history have some religious origins, but that argument only hits the tip of the iceberg. The question still remains: why would we follow an immoral scripture, if it goes against our altruistic intuition?

The answer is found in another of our evolutionary traits. Our desire to follow a leader. Natural selection favors a desire to follow someone whom we perceive is more intelligent than ourselves. This trait would be beneficial to any group of early humans. Our genetic information would be more likely passed on, if we trust and follow a human that we perceive as more intelligent than ourselves. Based on the likely possibility that an intelligent human will lead us a safer direction than could be obtained by following our own perceived lesser intelligence. No doubt the "leader role" can be found in many species that live in groups throughout our world. In most lower mammals the leader is chosen based on a show of strength. In the case of humans, our survival was not based entirely on our strength. Intelligence played the larger role as our brains became more useful than our muscles. The end result of this process is an instinctive desire to follow an intelligent leader.

What this means for our moral development is that an individual, or group of individuals could easily lead the masses in an immoral direction. Our desire to follow the smarter fellow, temporally blinds our judgement. The more people that embrace an idea, the more desirable it becomes. Our ability to stray from the pack, also goes against our evolutionary hardware. When the group runs, you don't question why, you just start running. This served a function at a point in our evolutionary history, but today the function manifest itself by not allowing the individual in society to honestly question ideas that are commonly held.

There have been many leaders in human history and sure many of them were good, but on more that several occasions our leaders have lead us in an immoral direction. One might ask in a very similar way: " Why are we so easily lead in immoral direction if our instincts are to create a moral society?" Good question, it seems that humanities altruism and good morality toward strangers is almost certainly an afterthought in every case of our history. This phenomenon could be explained by another evolutionary trait called the hierarchy of needs. Self-preservation makes up the 1st level of needs, the foundation. (altruism for genetic descendants is a form of self-preservation). However altruism toward strangers only occurs after the physiological needs to self-preserve have been met. And so on and so on. When one priority of needs is met, we try to meet the next level filled with less priority needs. All the way up until people start worrying about irrelevant ideas like "is my dog depressed" or "is my cat happy."

I strongly believe that most leaders who have lead humanity in an immoral direction did so based on some aspect of our needs not being met. When our needs are not met, our ideas about morality are often bypassed. To illustrate this point one need only look at the high crime rates in impoverished communities. This does not mean we are immoral by nature, it means we self-preserve at the expense of morality. Moral ideas only occur in times when our lower level needs are met, at that time our altuistic nature kicks in and we re-evoluate our actions and the immoral ideas are rejected. It is no suprise that as our technology advances and our basic phisiological needs are quite easily obtained, our society rockets to a moral standard never seen before in human history.

The upward trend in our morality is summarized like this: At some point in history an event or change took place which made our basic needs appear to be threatened. We identified a leader, whom we felt was intellegent and trustworthy. This person might have had ideas which were immoral, but would help us obtain our needs. Our evolutionary hardware told us to follow. Immoral behavior may have taken place, and would be embraced by the masses as a justified means to and end. At some point another change or event takes place, sometimes centuries later maybe its an invention or discovery of a new resource. Our physiological needs become fufilled and our altruistic hardware kicks in. Whenever our physilogical needs are met, our altruistic hardware trumps our desire to follow and we "re-group" in a positive direction. This does not mean that ones need must be met for our altruistic side to shine. The above summary is just the more frequent route of moral advancement.

We are internally good, so long as our needs are met. Humanity in our modern form takes this concept one step further by creating precautions to preserve good morality even if the future brings an era of hardship. Morality is enforced by police. It is worth noting that police are representatives of laws that are inspired by our societies good intentions. Many laws are voted on by public, because we live in a democracy designed by the very altruistic instincts that make moral preservation desireable. We take the precautions to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have a safe and moral environment with abundant resources. Our moral origins are not the result of ancient scriptures instructing us. Morality has only existed because it was benifitial to our species survival. It certainly exist today only because it has been programmed into us by natural selection through many generations of altruistic behavior.

Religion in Politics

I used to find comfort in knowing that my political representatives were on an invisible religious leash. What i mean by that is this: I thought that a believing person, who had the fear of Gods judgement would be more honest in a position power. However, i no longer support the position in favor of religions ability to control a persons morality. I have found no correlative data to support the idea that religion has control over the individual to self-govern. Sure there are probably people out there who genuinely feel afraid that god is watching and judging their every action and thought, and behave solely because of that fear. To those people i would like to ask this: If you knew there where no God, would you turn to a life of crime? Would you suddenly disregard the feelings, rights and suffering of your fellow humans. Hopefully the answer is no, and I would bet, that even ones feelings of pride when helping someone in need aren't diminished just because there is no subsequent reward by God.

Back to my original point, i was examining the requirements for holding a position of political office. For the most part, the only restrictions were put on age, and time spent as a citizen. You can even be a convicted felon and still be a U.S Representative. This is very scary to me. My daughters teacher in kindergarten needs at least a bachelors degree and a clean record. Aside from the specific requirements noted in the constitution, there are several requirements that are not written, but useful to persons with an interest in a political career. Professed affiliation with certain religious groups, such a Christianity, is certainly important in a country with a population that is over 80% Christian. It is a well known fact that in most areas of this country, if a potential candidate were to identify themselves as an atheist, the public mass disapproval would be the equivalent to political suicide. In order to be a member of government in a modern superpower, one is not required to be a student of political science, economics, law, civil engineering, military history or international relations. One need only be an expert fund raiser, look good and carry his or herself well on television, and profess a belief in the popular mythology. In our present political setup, a well spoken actor with knowledge of the bible, would defeat a quiet genius with a Nobel peace prize, who doesn't accept supernatural doctrines.

This brings me to my point, and my rather recent change of heart. I would support an Atheist candidate just on the idea that he is likely to be more honest than a religious one. While it is true, that we can never know the true motivation of any politician, any man or woman can claim to be religious to gain the upper hand in an election by supporting a popular idea. But only an honest person would claim to be an Atheist knowing that releasing such information would only hinder his or her campaign.

On a final note, i would also like to point out that any politician who claims to act on the authority of God, is the most terrifying person that i can imagine to be in control of a modern superpower. If you consider the strong possibility that God does not exist, you have to wonder, where did that voice that our leaders mistook for God come from? When someone prays for guidance, and then imagines that they heard an answer, they hold that answer to much higher degree of validity than that of their own opinion. They may disregard all reason, and act on whatever advice they imagined came from god. A religious person would certainly feel that the divine advice they received should not be subject to the same scrutiny as advice from a friend. Maybe it was the wind, maybe it was someone in the next room, maybe it was their own internal monologue, maybe it was an imaginary man whom they feel is infallible. Whatever the possibility, it is a truly frightening notion.

The Concept of Self

I am currently working on a thorough and complete argument against religious claims to humans moral dependency on God. It is an important piece of writing for me, because as I've said before, Religion can only attempt to claim jurisdiction in a few areas of understanding, morality and creation. My up coming post is my best effort to put the nail in the coffin on the subject of morality. In the mean time please enjoy an interesting perspective on the human soul that i came across a few years back while visiting The Agnostic Mom. Great debate has been made in the past about possibility of the souls existence. However, science has made such enormous progress in mapping the human mind and is close to a full understanding of how our mind works, the debate is over as far as I'm concerned. We have matured intellectually, and allowed science to eliminate all supernatural hypothesis to describe our world. The concept of the soul has washed away with the rain of science and understanding, but for some reason, a circular debate amongst believers will continue. On the atheist side of the coin, here is a fantastic analogy from Dale McGowan, taken from an interview on http://www.agnosticmom.com/ on the subject of what happens to our "self" when we die....

"Whatever sense of self and personal identity we have springs entirely from the constantly recomposed electrochemical symphony playing in our heads. Some find that horrifying; I find it utterly amazing. And asking where our “self” goes when that electrochemical symphony stops playing is just like asking where the music goes when an orchestra stops playing."
- Dale McGowan

The Easter Story

Sir Lionel Luckhoo is the Guinness book of world records "Most Successful Lawyer", with over 245 successive acquittals for persons charged with murder. He is also a Evangelical author of several famous christian propaganda booklets. In one of these booklets Sir Lionel uses his persuasive lawyer skills to "prove" that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, and such a fact would hold up in a court of law. Quite an impressive feat no doubt, and yet doubt is my speciality! The reason is am posting this is for two reasons:

1. Today is Easter.

2. I have recently been reassured by a friend that the evidence proving Jesus' Resurrection is very compelling because the most successful lawyer ever is says it would hold up in a court of law.

The first thing that comes to my mind when i hear about a man helping people to be acquitted in over 245 straight murder cases, is this: Statistically some of these people were guilty, and were set free by this alleged pious man. This only goes to show that this mans orator strength is not found in his ability to tell the truth, but rather, his skill is to persuade ones opinion in spite of what is truth. Not a very noble man, in my opinion. Ultimately the claim that "Because a really famous lawyer says the Resurrection story is true, it must be true." does not prove anything. A trial has been famously summarized as 12 people trying to decide who has the best lawyer.

Here is an excerpt from a book called: Losing Faith in Faith, by Dan barker. In this excerpt, Dan shows some of the discrepancies in the gospels accounts of Jesus' Resurrection. I will ask you a jury of my peers, a similar question that has been asked by Dan Barker: Try to decipher some type of story, that would hold up in a court of law, based on the bible.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Special thanks to The Atheist Revolution for the link to Dan Barkers fantastic website.

Obama Speaks To The Muslim World

A few days ago president Barack Obama addressed Turkey with promises of peace, declaring that "The U.S. is not at war with Islam." What a wonderful concept: a Christian nation and a Muslim nation working together for a common good. I wonder if anyone in Muslim audience at the press conference regrets that Barack Obama will burn in hell. That is the accepted belief in Turkey, not about Obama specifically but about all Christians. IF true how unfortunate for the 81% of Americans that feel that 86% Of Turkey will also burn in hell. Apparently our political representatives feel this is a minor obstacle.

While noting this insane viewpoint, its even stranger to watch politicians tip-toe around each others religious viewpoints, both sides feigning respect for each others dogma. I have to question the political sincerity of our efforts. American political policy is riddled with disdain for apparent sin agendas of the pro-choice and homosexuals. I wonder what is considered worse in the Christian mind: Aborting your unborn child, or raising your child Muslim? It would seem that from a Christian perspective, an unborn child would at least have a chance at heaven. Yet from that same perspective, raising a child to worship a false god would seem to be far worse, considering that instilling a child with Muslim beliefs is the christian equivalent of a ticket straight to hell . Why don't Christians openly fight Muslim parents who are sentencing their children to hell?

I wonder..... if turkey was a homosexual nation, would Obama fall under heavy criticism from the right-wing Christians my for his show of diplomacy? I could almost certainly say yes. Would America even attempt diplomacy with a homosexual nation? Probably not, such is the warped perspective of religious logic. Obviously "a homosexual nation" is just a made up concept to illustrate a point. The Christian political agenda, should put more effort into fighting false idol worship, since going to hell is the worst possible thing that could happen to a person. Yet this is not the case, and only further illustrates the inconsistencies of religious views in America. As much as i detest Islamic extremist (or religious extremism in general), at least they are logically consistent in their warped moral beliefs.

I only hope that before the "perceived" end of the world comes, we can overcome these pointless obstacles. I fear that if something were to happen, which humanity thought was the start of the end, Christians certainly wouldn't aid the damned, for fear of damnation themselves, and Muslim nations certainly won't offer any support to infidels. I know Christians won't wanna be caught showing support for the apparent Muslim anti-Christ and his nation if they strongly believe that God is about to make an appearance and reign down fire on the sinners. The same is probably true for Muslims

This whole scenario is not a long shot so long as religion is the primary guide of our action, yet it is so pointless that it makes me disgusted. Perhaps someday people from two different nations can meet and unite together with no imaginary boundaries to lead us to hate or disagree in policy. Disagreements which are based on two incompatible pretend ideas, that shouldn't even be a consideration in matters of great importance.

Great atheistic accomplishments

Recently i was challenged by a friend and fellow blogger, to take a different approach to my debate tactics. Instead of pointing out problems with religion and diminishing its value to mankind, (which is not what i was doing anyway) why not write a piece pointing out all the wonderful things atheism has given humans. I suspect that this fellows request was based on the assumption that i would be hard pressed to find accomplishment that could be directly attributed to atheism. Though he is quite wrong, i feel his comments represent a common misconception about atheism. A misconception that atheist don't carry or possibly even recognize. Maybe this is why atheist don't feel a need to write about this topic very often. The religious or perhaps even agnostics however, do not see what atheism has contributed to society, or why we so proudly promote atheism. I shall do my part to put this concept to rest, and explain why proving atheism's importance is not always the focus of our atheist vs. theist debates, as it is truly common sense, yet unrecognized by mainstream society.

Before i offer some examples of atheistic accomplishments. I must try to define what an atheist is and what an atheistic accomplishment would be.

Atheist- One who believes that there are no supernatural entities.

An atheist looks at all things, as having natural causes. Now having said that, it is possible that many people who believe in a god may still take an atheistic approach to life. Will god help me win the game? Or will practice, hard work and dedication help me? If you feel that practice is more important, then you've taken an atheistic approach to winning. Will god maintain my health? Or will proven things like diet and exercise? If you feel the latter is the correct way, then you've taken an atheistic approach to health. To summarize: An atheistic accomplishment is an accomplishment that can be directly attributed to not-believing in supernatural entities. Now all of a sudden atheism doesn't seem so uncommon does it?

Lets start with all of science: I would like to remind you that everything unexplained was once attributed to God. Learning that hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes are not the result of Gods wrath and truly have natural causes, has allowed humans to make very accurate predictions about the "how and when", which I'm sure has chalked up a few saved lives. Then of course there is all of modern medicine. I would like to remind you again, that for thousands of years demons or angry gods made people ill, not viruses. Prior to medicine only religious rituals could aid the ill.

I'm sure you could argue "hey many of the people who made these scientific discoveries were religious." True, yet despite whatever beliefs they held, they took an atheistic approach for solving problems, or rather a scientific approach that does accept the supernatural as a plausible hypothesis. I feel its safe to say that all breakthrough advances in science would be left in the dust if mankind had persist down the religious path and clung to theistic hypothesis to explain our world. In matters of science, atheistic accomplishments are the only accomplishments.

So isn't everyone by that definition kind-of an atheist?

Sure, but not totally, this is what i mean: Today's definition of atheist states that all hypothesis' have a natural origin or explanation. Here's where the total atheist of today and the scientific atheist in practice deviate. While many scientists might take an atheistic approach to solving a problem in biology they still go home and thank god for their life and and many blessings. This is the only difference. Atheism is predominate in all of modern society, it is directly responsible for all advances in science, and yet is completely unrecognized for its contributions by the religious and religious supporters.

Today the domain of the supernatural clings only to morality and creation. That is the difference, when someone today says 'I'm an atheist' they are really only atheistic about two extra subjects than most religious. So why should modern atheist be identified as radical for trying to put a natural hypothesis to explain morality and creation? Great scientist throughout history who refused to accepted the god hypothesis have been viewed as radical. The best example of atheism is our society was pointed out by Richard Dawkins who said: "We are all atheist about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Perhaps if the atheism in all of us was recognized, those of us who push atheism one step further wouldn't seem so radical.

With regard to my thoughts on the atheistic approach I have been told to "Remember, Secular (atheist) scientists fought hard to keep the Big Bang Theory out of the classrooms because they dismissed it as religiously based." This comment was supposed to show how the atheistic approach could hinder science.

I would like to remind everyone that all new idea's in science are dismissed at first, not because of credibility or context, but rather, because the old ideas have so many supporters. Scientist have dedicated there lives to supporting theories, written books, based subsequent theories upon said theories, and are not so quick to have their pride and life's work tossed out. Further, the big bang theory is still in direct contradiction with the genesis version of creation, which states that all of existence was created in six days. Trust me there are a lot of people who still hold this view. The fact that the big bang theory was put forth by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître only proves that the religious often take an atheistic approach to science. Had he represented the theistic approach he would have directed his efforts to proving how the universe was created in a day, which took place only 6,000 years ago as the holy bible clearly states.

Atheism is an approach to problem solving, its not anything other than that. Those who try and state that atheism is new kind of religion are way off. Such a statement could be compared to calling the scientific method a religion. For truly that's all atheism is; It's just an unrecognized step in the scientific method that rules out supernatural explanations. I'm grateful for atheism, and so should anyone who appreciates the level of knowledge and understanding that we have today.

Biblical Giant Ears.

While listening to Christian radio as i often do, i was fascinated by a discussion about the extreme ages of biblical figures like Noah. I don't feel the need to try and refute these claims of extreme longevity in this post (but maybe in future post) because a ridiculous idea has me completely distracted. It is a well documented fact that the human ears and nose never stop growing. When this fact is applied to a biblical figure like Methuselah who was supposed to have lived 969 years, i started to wonder just how large the human ears might grow if given such a life span. Here is a list of a few biblical figures and their ages according to the bible:

Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5)
Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8)
Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27)
And Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29)

I did a bit of Internet research to try and determine if there was a documented growth rate for the human ear, and as i turns out there was not at least in the form that i was looking for. However, i did find a site that posted a documented average of ear sizes for different points in human life. Unfortunately the website i found only dealt with metric but i will do the conversion for the end results. The male ears yielded larger results in all ages of life, and since the bible mostly deals with the ages of males i will post only the male results to illustrate my point.

The average male ear size at birth was 52mm at birth, 65mm at adulthood (20 yrs old) and 78mm at 70 yrs. By taking this information i have created my own formula by assuming that after reaching full physical development at the age of 20, within the next 50 years our ears grow an average of 13mm per fifty years of adult life. I would like to point out that i feel this is at least mildly accurate for this concept and would not even bother trying to defend my formula since it is scientifically irrelevant.

If we take the formula: Age at death minus 20years of pre-adulthood divided by 50 with the result multiplied by the known growth rate of 13mm plus 65mm (average ear size at 20yrs) it should yield a number that we can determine how large these biblical figures ears were. Here is the formula if you don't like story problems.

[(Age-20)/50] x Growth rate} + 65mm = ear size

And here are the results:

Adam's ear size at 930 years old: 301.6mm or 11.87 inches

Seth's ear size at 912 years old: 296.9mm or 11.86 inches

Methuselah's ear size at 969 years old: 311.74mm or 12.27 inches

Noah's ear size at 950 years old: 306.8mm or 12.07 inches

The results of this research are completely circumstantial and irrelevant, yet still totally hilarious! To imagine these biblical figure and their giant ears makes me chuckle every time. Yet still it brings a larger question to mind: Did these giant ears, enable these religious icons to better hear the voice of God? While this is certainly a preposterous notion, it could explain why my prayers were never answered, by suggesting that my ears were simply too tiny to hear Gods voice! If it were true this problem would be of no concern to famous televangelist Pat Robertson and his tremendous ears, and would definitely confirm the means by which he stays in direct communication with God.

Creationism Refuted....Again: Star Distances

As i have mentioned before i am making it my personal mission to combat the pseudo science of creationism. Though creationism is not an excepted theory in the scientific community, it is widely excepted in society amongst the religious. While i would not try to dictate what an individual chooses to believe, i would like to help keep information available to atheist and agnostics who might encounter similar twisted logic in in their daily lives and conversations. I would like to repeat that i do not wish do dictate what one should believe. However when such beliefs as creationism try to "move in" on what my children are taught in school i draw the line.

Christians who employ Christian science to justify their beliefs cross over to a slightly different plain of argument then someone who simply chooses belief based on blind faith. Blind faith, does not need justification to the believer, Christian science on the other hand attempts uses the sciences to prove that events in scripture are true and provable, thus they feel they have justified their belief in Christianity. If your not familiar, with creationism or creation theory, I'll give you a short summary.

Everything in the bible, including genesis is a literal account of history. God created the earth in six days, the great flood, Noah's ark, the Earth and universe are only 6000 years old,etc.. What creation theory really creates is a whole list of inconsistency's with accepted ideas about our world. For example when did the dinosaurs live? must have been with humans if the earth is only 6000 years old, what about the rock dating that goes back billions of years? Christian science attempts to answer these questions by reevaluating the evidence.

My refutation of creationism for this post (there are many others!!) is a concept that occurred to me after watching a show about astronomy. It is an example of evidence for the true age of the universe that cannot be viewed in any other manor than a solid contradiction of the young earth theory (another name for creation theory).

The proof about the age of our universe is found in star distances. The basic concept is that we have identified that certain stars have a known distance of billions of light years away. All light, including light emitted from stars has a fixed speed that it can travel. That speed is 299,792,458 meters per second. For many practical purposes, the speed of light is so great that it can be regarded to travel instantaneously. However, the finite speed of light becomes noticeable when applied to very long distances. Like in the case of distant stars. When a star is said to be a million miles away, that means that light from that star will take one million of our earth years to reach our eye. When you look at the night sky, you are basically looking deep into history. To drive the point home image this: If a star that is known to be a million light years away, burned out at the exact second you read this, it would take one million years for that star to vanish from our perspective on earth.

I will not go into the exact means of how a star distance is determined, but the accuracy of determining star distances is very reliable. It has yet to be discredited and even if the math was slightly wrong it would still put the creation theory out of commission. For creation theory to hold true all stars must be located within 6000 light years from earth, or their light would not have even reached us yet! This dilemma is so damming (pun intended) to creationism that while researching this topic i found it was even addressed in a post at GodAndScience.org of all sites!! The article points out what a debate stopper this concept is for creationist. The article is very well worded so i will not attempt to summarize, and i will end my argument with the words from that very post.

It is extremely evident from astronomy that our Universe is billions of light-years across, and thus that light from distant stars has taken billions of years to reach us. One method of accurately determining star distances uses Cepheid variable stars, which have a known relationship between brightness and pulse rate. This relationship is explained by physics, and verified (calibrated) by measuring all Cepheid variable stars whose distances are close enough to confirm by parallax. Therefore, the actual brightness of a Cepheid variable star can be determined by its pulse rate, regardless of how far away it is. And, of course, if a star's actual brightness and measured (apparent) brightness are known, its distance can be calculated from a simple equation (apparent brightness decreases as one over the distance squared). This and many other methods verify Hubble's law describing the expansion of the Universe, with the beginning between 10 and 20 billion years ago. Attempts by young-Earth proponents to explain these facts have been unavailing. Norman and Setterfield's proposal of decay in the speed of light is easily shown to be invalid (Roberts, Ross, and Stoner all deal with this), as is Humphreys' attempt at a young-Earth cosmology (see Conner and Ross (1999)). Another explanation, that the Universe was created with "appearance of age" is both un-scientific at its core (if all the evidence that we see for age is fabricated, then why even have this debate?), as well as having theological problems with the truthfulness of God, since in that case we are constantly observing events in the cosmos which in fact never occurred (see Brain Teaser: SN1987a for an illustrative example of this point).

The eAtheist

Well, The Revolution is no more. I have changed the name of this blog to represent the new direction in life that i have taken. As i have mentioned before in my post about atheist charities, i feel that we must undergo a bit of a public makeover order to really gain mainstream acceptance. I am committed to doing my part and is reflected in the name change of this blog. I have already begun to encourage atheist bloggers and readers to put word atheist directly in the name of whatever topic they represent, for example: If you have a blog about cooking and you are a passionate atheist, then how about the atheist chef. Whatever your focus, if you consider yourself atheist, then represent your position. The atheist carpenter, The atheist mechanic, etc.

Why is that important you ask? What the hell does cooking have to do with Atheism? Well it is a simple part of our public acceptance. Maybe your not aware, but there is a huge stigma attached to the atheist label. Maybe you've noticed that there aren't a lot of politicians out there who openly state "I am an atheist and I represent and support the idea of an atheist society." That is partly because atheist aren't viewed as moral or normal by mainstream society. (It is getting better though.) The more frequently we identify ourselves as atheist, the more organized we seem and the more we will hear people saying "Hey, atheist are everywhere, they're just regular people like you and me." This is a notion is a small but important step in getting representation by public officials, and acceptance in society. I'm not saying its the best idea ever put forth, but its the best idea i have so far. I just want to do my part.

An opposite effect applies to negativity. If the best thing you can think to do is ridicule the religious for their beliefs, then please disassociate yourself from the atheist who are actually trying to make a positive change. Unwarranted negativity, and insulting behaviour, only fuel our negative public image and force this movement to take steps backward. No one ought to call a religious person a moron for the beliefs they hold. Odds are that if you were indoctrinated and raised in their shoes you would think and believe very similar ideas. Please swallow your pride, and be civil, your not just representing yourself, your representing all of us.

Now, as far as this blog is concerned, all future post will have a focus on topics relating to atheism, religious debate, educating readers about the lies in christian science, and equipping the everyday atheist with facts that will help disprove religious fallacy. That is the new mission and direction of this blog. The primary audience that for my future posts will be the everyday atheist or {e}Atheist.