No, Correlation Really Does Not Equal Causation

This author's claims fall prey to his own suggestive criticism of theism. The reason that higher education in the sciences and philosophy purportedly reduces religious belief has as much to do with contemporary popular antitheistic indoctrination in those fields as any supposed increase in knowledge, much less baseline intelligence.

In other words, you send young, malleable minds away from their social/familial roots when they are wanting to strike out on their own and make their way as independent adults (i.e., college age), and you put those minds into environments openly hostile to religion as most secular academic settings are today, and it is no surprise that the result is the lessening of religious belief amongst those who come out of those institutions.

And because of this phenomenon, it is also extremely socially unpopular to be strongly religious amongst highly educated and intelligent people today (I should know). The amount of ignorant, bigoted treatment religious people get amongst educated colleagues is inversely proportionate to those aspiring irreligious folks who run is less educated, less secularized circles.

In both cases, the argument is fallacious, trying to establish suggestive causation where none exists. He even admits the argument is fallacious ("correlation does not equal causation") but nonetheless moves full ahead suggesting that it does in this case. I point it out in case someone finds the suggestions somehow compelling--the basis for the argument applies equally to its antithesis (i.e., the claims of indoctrination and the desire for social acceptance).

Further, the same can be said of his claims for why intelligent religious people defend their beliefs (i.e., because we want to rationalize what we already irrationally believe). That's just human nature, and it applies equally to whatever we believe/hold dear, be that theism or antitheism. At the end of the day, we are all human beings trying to grapple with problems bigger than we can actually fully grapple with. This means antitheist or theist, you will believe things without good reason, you will rationalize things you already believe, and you will make logical jumps and leaps of faith based on your existing understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

This article is all boring, boilerplate contemporary antitheist arguments that are chock full of both fallacies as well as healthy doses of ignorance and prejudice, and the only way they make sense is if you already agree with his conclusions.

Quantum Physics Proves a Spiritual Dimension

I made the title intentionally provocative, but this is interesting nonetheless. This is my extrapolation on what this scientist is saying in this article about science and free will (also Part 2). At the very least, it seems to make room for a spiritual dimension in reality, i.e., a dimension that is unaddressable through material-scientific means.

It would be interesting if, as we advance in our understanding of the cosmos, that rather than increasing some folks' certainty that God does not exist, we instead decrease that certainty. Of course, for the honest truth-seeker, there is no problem here. As most modern atheists claim to just follow the science where it leads them, then if they are honest, this should lead them in that direction.

Now they would doubtless point out that such a dimension, assuming that it does exist as indicated, hardly proves the existence of God. They'd be right. On the other hand, it does at least to some degree break down the "no scientific evidence" position that seems central to their conclusions. Keep in mind this is not about a "gap" (as in the "God of the gaps" critique) but a scientifically observed phenomenon that indicates an extra-material dimension. Given that science is prescribed by observable material phenomena, the discovery of an extra-material phenomenon indicates that science, as it is understood by most today, is not equipped to account for or explore that dimension. Some other means is needed.

We have that means today--reason and lived experience. In other words, this dimension is in the realm of philosophy and, potentially, theology.

The Life Experiment

It occurred to me the other day that all this hubbub about being a theist or an atheist is misplaced, for your average scientific-minded atheist. The common explanation for disbelief is "there is no evidence." By this is meant, of course, no empirical evidence, no evidence that can be subjected to evaluation using an empirical scientific method.

But here's the thing. The question of whether or not God exists is a metaphysical one. By its very nature, it would be improper to subject the question of his existence to empirical evidence. In order to verify his existence scientifically, we should expect evidence in the dimension appropriate to the problem at hand. So of course we can't prove (nor disprove) that God exists using physical evidence and experimentation upon it, and asking theists to do so is fallacious, a form of moving the goalposts.

There is, in my judgment, plenty of metaphysical evidence based on sound reasoning to at the very least give God a good benefit of the doubt. But hey, let's be scientific about it. Each of us is looking at (theoretically) the same metaphysical evidence and reasoning and forming contrary hypotheses from it. Each of us believes that his hypothesis comes from good reasoning. If we are to be scientific, what is left but to experiment? So let's experiment with our lives.

The theist proposes the hypothesis that God exists. In order to test that hypothesis, he will choose to believe in God and live his life accordingly.

The atheist proposes that God does not exist, or at the very least he remains sufficiently skeptical to be inclined towards that hypothesis. Either way, he will choose to not believe in God and live his life accordingly.

So, when each of us dies, we will find out the results of our individual life experiments, and in the meantime, we're all being scientific about it, right? Plus, it's an eminently repeatable experiment. Every single human being has everything needed to form a hypothesis and test it. And in the afterlife, if there is one, the results will be in.

So Why All the Gnashing of Teeth?
Of course this is all well and good. What is all the arguing about then? The atheist might say, "fine, you can have your religion, but keep it to yourself, in private--don't let it affect me or anyone else in any way." Whereas the theist (and especially a Catholic Christian) says, "sorry, no can do. Part of my life experiment involves letting my belief system inform the way I act and the way we relate to each other, both in private and public life."

There's the rub. What we need to do is find a good balance to let each of us carry out our life experiments as freely as possible. Neither of us should insist on social arrangements that prevent us from carrying out our experiments effectively.

Atheists by definition don't have a common creed. Plus, if their hypothesis is correct, then it really doesn't matter how they act. They could live their life as holy as a saint, and it wouldn't matter. On the other hand, if the theist hypothesis is correct, then how they live their lives really matter. They do have fixed creeds. They do have definite rules they have to live by, some of which do include behaviors that can impact other people (usually for the better). They are bound to share their beliefs (especially with their children). They are bound not to deny their beliefs or to hide them (even if others find them objectionable). They are bound to charity towards everyone (not just people who share their creeds).

So if we were going to be strictly scientific about it, then it would follow that the atheists, not the theists, are the ones who need to accomodate more. Since the success of the atheist experiment does not depend upon any particular way of living, they can freely accomodate theists in cases where the success of the theist experiment depends upon some behavior that calls for such accommodation.

Ironically enough, though, this is the exact opposite of what the self-proclaimed "scientific" atheists demand. They demand to control how the theists are allowed to carry out their life experiments. They demand that theists cannot freely exercise their religion. Some even call for the outright extermination or suppression of religion.

That is hardly scientific. It is hardly the mark of an open, freethinking scientific mind. It is, rather, a very unscientific and prejudiced jumping to conclusions, a short-circuiting of free scientific experimentation. It is, in short, everything that a good scientist should abhor.

Big Lies About Religion from Your Atheist Friend (Redux)

Thanks to a (non-atheist) friend on G+ (Thomas Sanjuro), I came across yet another instance of typical atheistic ignorance of religion/religious people yesterday. I suppose that the motivation for this post could be avoided if people wouldn't conflate religion with creationism. The false dichotomy of science and religion is the source of much ignorance and stupidity in the world, both from creationists and atheistic evolutionists, who act as if this one issue determines all that is good and right in the world.

I'm a strongly religious person, a devout Catholic; anyone who questions that has never met me. Yet my wife and I teach our kids about evolution and all the other sciences--in homeschool!  I have a suggestion: Let's stop with the silly, ignorant, half-baked, false notions--hateful caricatures, really--about religion and religious parenting. People have done and do dumb things, mean things, smart things, and nice things in the name of all sorts of ideas, religious and atheistic.  Being a mix of dumb and smart, mean and nice is just part of being human. Neither religion nor atheism has the corner on being human. 

You are lying to yourself if you pretend that, as a parent, you are not inculcating your children with your beliefs and values; it's impossible to do otherwise and be a parent. It is irresponsible to do otherwise.  That you happen to not value religion, as an atheist, does not make it stupid or dumb that a religious person does. You claim "neutrality" in regards to religion--not teaching your children about it and "letting them decide for themselves." Your neutrality is not neutrality at all; it is a positive negative. 

By your own practice and what you teach your children, you are indoctrinating them to think that religion is how you see it is--something ranging from a harmless hobby to the source of all evil in the world (depending on your atheistic sympathies/where you learned it from). You teach them that religion is just some fancy that they can take up and change like a pair of jeans (but of course, no smart person would wear these jeans, according to you). Those are values. Those are beliefs.  So stop pretending that you're not teaching your children your own personal values and beliefs. Stop lying to yourself and treating other human beings (that is, religious parents) like they are stupid and sub-human for doing exactly what you do, only within the bounds of their own belief and value system instead of yours.

The poster also ignorantly asserted that religion has contributed nothing of value to the modern world, asking "What has religion contributed to the modern world?" 

Only people devoid of anything more than their sophomoric history class taught by "coach" who uncritically imbibe New Atheist authors' claims so ignorantly assert that religion has contributed nothing to the modern world but "War. Hatred. Anger. Discrimination. Separation. Ignorance."  Here's a short list off the top of my head, but there have been books written (for instance) that document, substantiate, and elaborate these and others. It is evident historical fact:
- government and laws based on inherent human dignity; the very idea of justice
- the motivation for and eventual realization of abolition of slavery
- the idea and most of the instances of the hospital
- the idea and most of the instances of humanitarian work
- the idea of selfless charity and a bagillion concrete instances of that which happen in boring, everyday life
- the idea of treating another person as you would treat yourself, and acting accordingly
- the development of science as a discipline and the desire to make the world a better place through it

- the ethical restraining of science

...

Can you have a lot of these without religion?  Theoretically it is possible, but chances are that we wouldn't have "evolved" to them without it. It isn't by chance that civilization and religion grew up together, hand in hand. Historically, these things in the West developed out of religious, mostly Christian roots. That we can now, from our vantage point in time and in a culture that is based on these religious foundations, come up with theoretical frameworks devoid of religion (secular humanism) to rationalize how we already are inculturated to think and feel is no evidence that we would have ever gotten here without religion. 

On the contrary, humans tend to be remarkably brutish to each other by nature, as is well documented by history. One shudders to think where we'd be were it not for the civilizing influence of religion; we are bad enough with it at times, although we got a glimpse into what it'd be like in the 20th century thanks to the triumph of atheistic philosophies in some states.

Certainly, undoubtedly, and absolutely no scientific theory would give us any of these things that are, far more than scientific advances, essential for human flourishing and which give human life so much beauty and meaning. I love science; I love that it does contribute to our well being, our comfort, even our intellectual advancement as a whole, but science doesn't give us humanism, much less humanitarianism. It doesn't give us justice or government by laws. It absolutely doesn't give us charity. And it doesn't give us the whole story about life, the universe, and everything.

The blind worshipper of Science--the one who inflates Science as the answer to all human needs, progress, and future--is no better than the ignorant religious bumpkin. They have both chosen to see with only one eye open.

Evolutiondidit

Every time I see someone explaining why something is the way it is based on "evolution," I smile inwardly. It's amusing to me because it is so similar to the accusation against theists that every time we need to explain something for which we don't have evidential explanation, we supposedly say "Goddidit."  (They smash the words together to make it sound and look silly and worthy of scorn by the intellectual elite they know themselves to be.)

Now, before evolutionists go all apeshit batty on me, let me say that as far as evolution is concerned, my current position is that I am inclined to grant that it is possible, perhaps even probable. My problem is that I simply do not know enough about the requisite sciences to make a truly informed decision, so I am forced to rely on authorities and argumentation that I can understand. (I think I'm in good company in this situation, too; even some of the most belligerent and devout atheists doubtless fall into this category.)

So far, I haven't really felt a need to really dig deep into the sciences related to the theory. I have read this or that book, talked to this or that person, on both sides of the issue. Both sides have their array of purported evidence (which I personally cannot verify) and both have arguments, objections to arguments, and answers to objections (and so on ad nauseum). Both sides seem utterly convinced that they are right and that others (often) are at best ignorant and at worse deviously conniving in the service of their ideologies. Given that I was raised in a "young earth" environment, that I am willing to give evolution the benefit of the doubt is some evidence of my open mindedness.

It's this consideration of questionable motives that makes me hesitant to trust either side, because both sides seem convinced that if they can just prove the other wrong in this scientific question then the other's belief system will come crashing down around their ears and, simultaneously, make their own belief system the only viable alternative. Because so much ideology is entrenched, it is difficult at best to tease out the truth. Both sides have relatively cogent argumentation, so the only way to certainly resolve it would be to be more than we are, to be able to directly and personally observe the evolution of the species over time, or at least to be able to reliably reproduce evolution on the scale that it is supposed to have happened in a controlled scientific experiment. Otherwise we're left with extrapolation, not verifiable experimental evidence or personal observation/experience.

Given that we can't do these things, the best I can offer evolution in terms of assent is that it is possible, perhaps even probable, but I remain skeptical. And when I read argumentation to the contrary (for instance this), the doubts are renewed. My position is not driven by a fear that my belief system is at stake; I've written about this elsewhere. I don't feel threatened by the theory at all (actually, I find it intriguing--it opens up some interesting theological speculation as well). Disproving evolution alone does not necessitate a young earth/literal creationist position; it doesn't even necessitate belief in God. But it certainly does provide the foundation for much contemporary atheism, so it's no wonder that atheists feel threatened by challenges to it and respond to such challenges with much vitriol.

So it is from this position of tentative assent that I guess I am more skeptical than others when someone attributes some cause to evolution. I've seen it often enough, in this or that program on TV (that have little to do with science or evolution as a subject), in explanations of spirituality, even in explanations in favor of this or that diet (interestingly, different dietary theories use evolution-based theories to justify their claims).

My latest encounter was this morning, as I was beginning to read Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole, I (perhaps predictably) ran into this statement right in the beginning of the book: "We evolved in an environment containing many agents— family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce."[1] Ah, the old H.A.D.D. hypothesis...


Things like this are often presumed based on relatively paltry evidence. We look at this or that bone fragment, this or that physiological similarity, this or that genetic similarity, and we deduce grand narratives on the origins of species. And such a general theory may indeed be true (I do not treat it as a conviction, personally). But then like a jazz player, people start riffing off this general theory, embellishing the narrative here and there to tell a story about why this or that thing is the way it is. In reality, scientifically and objectively speaking, we have little to no ground to stand on for such embellishments. We cannot employ the scientific method for these cases, often because the environment we are investigating is lost deep in the past.

But by enlisting the general theory of evolution (which again itself stands on relatively paltry scientific grounds--compared to other scientific endeavors like technology, experimental physics, medicine), people feel entitled to derive all sorts of interesting stories.  In reality, these stories are more akin to ancient mythologies than science. They employ just enough of what contemporaries believe to be true about the world and apply that to the past to build a narrative believable to contemporary ears.  The difference for our contemporaries is that where in the past people would have attributed causes to a God or gods, today they attribute the cause to evolution. Evolutiondidit. And thus, my aforementioned smirk. Even a very well educated and thoughtful guy like Law falls into the enticing trap of constructing (or at least giving credence to) such evolutionary myths.

Another interesting analogical observation is that the relative credence one seems to be willing to give such myths is directly proportional to one's conviction in the supporting broader narrative. Evolutionists want to believe that evolution (or some other natural cause) is the explanation. Theists want to believe that God (or some god/supernatural cause) is the explanation. The mental processes and proclivities are the same--we are all human and subject to our prejudices.


One last observation about evolution in general. It seems to me that a lot of ink, time, energy, and money has been spilled over this issue, and I'm not sure I understand, from a scientific point of view, why it is so important. Evolution's primary focus is the past, offering a rationale for why the biological world is the way it is. As a theory, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of practical applicability, certainly nowhere near as much practical potential as other sciences, and in terms of insights that might lead to practical advances, they seem limited at best (such as the occasional hypothesis that can be tested and results in some practical application). In my eyes, this is further evidence that evolution is less about science that "works" and more about ideologies. On that ground alone perhaps one could question whether or not it should be taught as core curriculum in science.

1. Law, Stephen (2011-05-19). Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole (Kindle Locations 157-158). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.

Give It a Rest

In comments on my musing on conservatism and ignorance, one anonymous poster (one of my atheist fans, I think :) ) goes to town on me. I might have ignored it, but I gotta do my post for the day. ;-)

First, simply incorrect assertions:

• That I said Krauss is a journalist. -  This is minor, but I didn't. I can read, and I saw he is an academic. However, he was writing an opinion in a periodical, and I did lump him in with journalists because they are comparable in the ways I was speaking of, and he gets fairly lumped in by writing his oped in a periodical just like the journalists.
• That I'm doing insufficient fact checking. - I am not sure what is expected on this point. I simply responded to the evidence offered by Krauss and took him to task on it. I called Krauss on the evidence he offered. If Krauss was relying on other evidence for his assertions, he should have shared it. He did not. I can't possibly keep up with every quote that, for example, Rick Santorum has given the media; neither can Krauss. But he offered links to supposed evidence for his outlandish claims, and his evidence did not support his claims. That is what I was criticizing.
• That I am arrogantly calling others arrogant. - I don't see it, and no evidence was offered for this critique of me. The commenter used the word arrogant more than I did. Here's where a form of the word appeared in what I said: "The problem is that too many educated people end up forgetting those skills and instead just assume that prevailing liberal ideology is de facto more reasoned and less ignorant, which leaves them in the same ignorance and arrogance that they deplore in conservatives, blindly following the opinions of their peers."
  
  How is this arrogantly calling others arrogant? I'm talking about some segment of "educated people" who 1) assume that their ideology is de facto more reasoned and 2) blindly follow the opinions of their peers, all the while 3) deploring the supposed arrogance and ignorance of their ideological opponents.  Wouldn't you agree that doing 1-3 would imply arrogance and, indeed, ignorance? You can insert name of ideology, and it is equally arrogant. How is it arrogant to say this? I don't get it.  

Next, the commenter takes me to task for defending Santorum's remarks on evolution. Let's look at the facts at hand. 

Krauss accuses Santorum of saying that "evolution... has no firm basis in fact." I called him on it because in the evidence Krauss himself provided, Santorum says no such thing. Strangely, the commenter offers the same quote Krauss offered, in which Rick says that he doesn't agree that evolution is an incontrovertible fact. Go read it for yourself. Even most followers of Scientism admit readily that even so-called scientific laws are not incontrovertible--they're just our best understanding/models based on the best science that we have right now. So what's the big deal when Rick says the same thing? Oh, right, because he follows up by pointing out, correctly, that the way that evolution has been presented, including in the classroom, is that it implies that God does not exist. 

Look, I know there is a long history of bad blood between those who believe in some form of creation and those who adhere to evolution. The atheist evolutionists are as much to blame as the creationists in perpetuating this unnecessary feud. If materialist atheists didn't champion evolution as, essentially, the God-killer, more or less saying that if you accept the science of evolution that you cannot believe in God, I strongly suspect we wouldn't have had all the trouble we've had. On the other hand, you have literal creationists and others of fundamentalist tendencies who are too quick to dismiss the actual science underlying the attached atheistic philosophy.

What Rick seems to, and I definitely, object to is that because evolution has been challenged, the evolutionists have dug in, pushed evolution as even more certain than it is, ignored and downplayed evidence that causes problems for the model, unnecessarily attached philosophical underpinnings to the science, and knee-jerk react to any questioning of the theory.  In short, they've created a religious dogma out of something that should be science.

After evolution, the commenter moved on to global warming. Again, I made what shouldn't be a controversial statement--that with complex systems like the climate, the best science can offer is thoughtful guesses, i.e., theories. They may be theories based on science and evidence, but they are theories nonetheless. As I linked to, there are plenty of scientists who dissent from the current mainline global warming theory, in multiple ways. But here's what happens in scientific communities--the same thing that happens in most human communities: if you don't follow the popular notions, you get ostracized. It's quite a recurring pattern in the arts and sciences--people who don't align with the popular notions are shouted down and ostracized by the narrow minded. 

If manmade global warming is indeed caused by the factors that are currently held in the majority opinion (consider me an agnostic on this point), I'd suggest that it makes that issue the "evolution" of our day. You have people who take the science, and then they create a philosophy around it--environmentalism. The philosophy becomes confused with the science, and people who reject the attached philosophy are more inclined to be skeptical of the science. At the same time, the adherents become ever more vitriolic and dig in, refusing to hear out or consider the problems with the theory, downplaying the contradicting evidence, and perpetuating an epic conflict that should have no place in science. Add on to this that governments are being employed in the service of this theory to blow tons of money during the one of the biggest global economic crises in history, and you have a recipe for all kinds of stupid, on both sides of the debate.

What's sad is you'd think science, which should train minds with objectivity, rigor, and indeed a certain amount of skepticism, would produce less of this kind of tribalism, but history shows this isn't true. Sadly and ironically, a generation or two down the line, when people have come around to the dissenter views, they arrogantly look back at their predecessors thinking, "how could they have been so blind to the science that was right in front of them? The gall!"

And that brings me to the next point--Galileo.  This commenter actually seems to think that Krauss should have brought up Galileo and goes on to do so. He laughs off the reasonable observation that the Church hierarchy of the day was working with the knowledge available to them at the time, anachronistically saying that the best knowledge of the time was right in front of them. I have a few observations on this.

1. It is rather simpleminded to not understand the very basic historical truism that you judge the people of an age by the standards of the age. A more common expression of this is that hindsight is is twenty-twenty. A scientific mind would have no problem grappling with this truism and applying it, and I think given a lack of serious prejudice bordering on bigotry against the Church, this particular commenter would take it as a given that this is true.
2. In point of fact, the case of Galileo was based more on personal animosity than anything related to religion. In this case, there were other advocates for heliocentrism at the time who were both priests and lay educated folks who were not persecuted. The pope at the time happened to not be convinced and wrote a personal treatise on the subject; it was when Galileo publicly humiliated the pope that action was taken. I'm not defending it--it was wrong, and it was right of the Church to apologize for its treatment of the G-man. Using the power of the Church for a personal vendetta is wrong. We all know it.
3. The fact that this is still being harped on after so many centuries is actually telling. If the enemies of the Church can't find any better evidence of our supposed vendetta against science than this one, centuries old incident, I guess that pretty much disproves the supposed vendetta.

The fact is, the Church is not nor has ever been an enemy of science. The Church is bigger than this or that priest, bishop, or pope. It is bigger than any individual or group of individuals who happen to be in power in the Church at this or that particular point in time. Members of the Church established the concept of university. They participated and fostered the development of the sciences, and they actively participate in them today. Many of them are leaders in their fields. My own Order tends to prefer individuals with advanced degrees in the sciences as postulants to become friars. The Jesuits are also another well-known academically inclined order. The list goes on..

What enemies of the Church don't like is that we hold science to our ethical standard, and sometimes that means presumed progress gets slowed down. We have very high ethical standards, in fact, and having been around for two thousand years, we know that we shouldn't rush in and do things just because we can, but that we need to seriously consider the consequences of our actions, not just on individuals today but on human society and history as a whole, a global whole. And the Church is the only organization positioned to do this, given its care for over a billion souls globally. We take a historical perspective on things. We don't forget or conveniently ignore the recent history where science was abused in the service of fascist and communist regimes, in the service of eugenics, and more recently in the service of the slaughter of millions of innocent human lives and the terrible damaging of women and families. The life of the mother does not inherently trump the life of the child, so excuse us for standing by that principle. 

We can debate the ethical principles; that's fine. We can and should debate the science and its implications. We can and will come to differing conclusions looking at the same evidence. But it's just plain ignorant or dishonest to perpetuate the myth that the Church is opposed to science. Any thoughtful, educated person should feel ashamed for doing so, not just because it is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant but also because it damages the effectiveness of an organization that indisputably does immeasurable good for humanity in health, social, and charitable services--more so than any other organization today or in all of human history.

Seriously. Give it a rest. 

Be Careful That You're Not God

So a guy I'm thinking about dubbing "my atheist friend" (hi, Daniel :) ) shared this YouTube video he came across on G+ the other day.

A few things struck me in the vid. Obviously, I don't agree with the fella's conclusions about his observations, but one area I did--the danger we have of assuming that our opinions are God's, in effect shaping God in our own image.

Humans of course have that natural proclivity. The Garden of Eden narrative illustrates how early on in human history this tendency was recognized, the temptation to want to become like God, being the judge of what is good and evil. And the pagan deities offer more evidence, very obviously crafted through anthropomorphizing.   (Interestingly, this guy in the video acts like this is some insightful, new revelation. :) )

The history of the Judeo-Christian God, however, is a persistent message from God that we are in fact not God. To the Jews, God reveals himself as "he who is," as One, Ineffable, Unrepresentable, Just--Infinity far above us. Then God becomes Incarnate, revealing himself in Christ, illuminating his Trinitarian nature and, thusly, his nature as Eternal Love, and culminating his revelation of his Mercy in the Redemption.

Theologians take up God's revelation of himself as Infinitely beyond us with the negative way: God is Not Us, Not Limited in Power, Not Limited in Knowledge, Not Limited by Time, Not Dependent on a Cause, Not Limited in Being, Not Limited in Love, Not Limited in Goodness.

The Christian faith is very clear about this--God is not us; we are not God. There is an infinite separation.

True, God revealed that we are in some way created in his image.  True, God took on our nature in the Incarnation and thus gives us some greater share in his Being, his Love. He did give us some knowledge of himself in this way, through his Revelation to us.

The Catholic faith, the unabridged Christian faith, holds that God Reveals himself to us in the communion of the Body of Christ, the Church. We are not free to reinvent God in our own image. We accept the faith as it has been handed down to us (Tradition, from the Latin traditio--to hand on) by word of mouth (through Apostolic Succession) or in writing (Holy Scripture). We understand God through and in the Church, the living Magisterium, which is beholden to Holy Tradition.

When we speak of God, we do not speak of ourselves, we speak of what has been handed down to us, from the Apostles in unbroken succession, from generation to generation.

And this God makes demands of us.  Unlike the "God" hinted at in this fella's vid, our God doesn't always agree with us. He gives us hard commands: "Be perfect." He tells us we must fight against what we want to do at times, what our corrupted nature inclines us to do. He tells us to forgive. He tells us to love.

If I were going to invent a god, it would be Bacchus/Dionysius. My imaginary god would make no demands of me. If I changed my mind about something, so would he--he wouldn't prick my conscience and tell me that what I am thinking or doing is wrong. He wouldn't tell me to help other people; he would tell other people to help me.  He wouldn't demand that I obey. He wouldn't demand that I submit my opinions to the judgment of his Church.

But to this guy's credit, how many Christians--how many Catholics!--speak or act in accord with this Tradition? How many of us are quick to align God with our opinions, dissenting from the Church? How many are quick to put our political party's opinions ahead of those of our bishop's? How many humbly submit and obey? Not many, I suspect.  So it's no surprise that an atheist would see in so many theists that God is more like them than any believable conception of God.

It's important that we are careful to not ignore Christian Tradition and instead remake God in our own image. Such a God is not worth believing in--the atheist is right about that.

Towards a Fully Human Epistemology

As I noted yesterday, Daniel Nairn shared what I thought was a good, thoughtful response to my earlier post on The Faith of Atheism. Here I respond to him in kind.


I'm not sure that the behavior Daniel describes is necessarily peculiar to skepticism. "Evidence" probably needs more definition, and that may be at the heart of the disagreement between folks who lean towards atheism/skepticism and those who lean towards theism. I would say that evidence (the available body of information) comes from both of the sources I identified, namely both from personal experience and those whom we trust. And this is again where I think that in practice we all behave as if that were true, but it's only when reasoning about this that some (incorrectly in my view) limit the meaning of "evidence" to mean something like "material evidence."  

Belief in God is not something we are born with. Throughout our lives we are presented with the evidence of our personal experience (again, including material/scientific observation) and what others tell us about theirs, and their reasoning/conclusions about the world. We use our minds to reason about those things and come to conclusions about things, including the question of the existence of God. 


The process offered by Daniel ("evidence should come before faith") is in my understanding a Catholic view of things as well, because it is reflective of human nature. Faith is not contrary to reason but is the act of the will that picks up where reason leaves off. For us, truth all comes from one and the same Source, no matter how we discover it, so there cannot be a real conflict between faith and reason but only apparent ones that we have to resolve, to understand how they are not, in reality, in conflict.


Those who conclude that God exists are coming to their conclusion using the same human faculties as those who do not. It is a choice (and not, as some would have it, the only proper way to think) to say that you require material evidence or not in order to draw a conclusion about God's existence. To say that one should form conclusions about reality based only on material/scientific evidence is not only not practicable (as I have tried to show), but it is also, I would add, undesirable and untrue to human experience or nature. In short, I would say it is not allowing yourself to be fully human. 


Note that I am not suggesting that being fully human in this way necessarily implies theism--this is not an argument for the existence of God but an argument for acknowledging a fully human epistemology and leveraging it in one's efforts to answer the question of God's existence, among other things.


Daniel seems to say that he thinks that changing ones conclusions based on new evidence is peculiar to skepticism. I don't think so. Theists can become atheists, and it is through such a process that this happens. Theists can have doubts--indeed, it seems to be a common experience. That not all theists become atheists does not imply that they therefore would never do so; it only means that they think that despite their doubts, the evidence taken as a whole, in their estimation, is still in favor of God's existence.


I also think that we need to apply that same measure suggested to other beliefs we hold and to realize that it is not a peculiar experience in relation to the object of belief (i.e., belief in God or anything else). By that I mean that we hold beliefs more or less strongly, we are more or less easily swayed to change them, based upon the prior evidence and reasoning we have for them. Politics is a great example of this. But we also hold more mundane beliefs more or less strongly, such as what constitutes good health and how to achieve it, whether owning a house is better than renting, whether this or that computer programming language is better, the best way to make software, what constitutes a "real" professional in a field, and so on.


People who argue for beliefs are often characterized as being more or less "religious" about them, which is a pet peeve of mine because of course what what people really mean by that term is that they think people are irrationally clinging to beliefs and unwilling to change. And this is really the heart of my contention--to hold a belief about something based on a fully human epistemology is not irrational; quite the opposite, in fact. It is being rationally honest about ourselves as humans and how we know things.


This does not imply, however, that all beliefs are equally valid in terms of their respective conformance with reality as it really is. God forbid! The measure of the truth of an idea is precisely in how well it conforms with reality as it really is. Our job then, as humans, is to first do our best--using our full human faculties--to best understand what the truth is and then to act accordingly. 


And human nature being thus limited to our individual exposure to evidence and our varying reasoning about it, this means we inevitably will come to different conclusions about truth and morality, but living in a society, it is impractical to just leave it at that. And that is the underlying theme in the history of humanity--the working out of our disparate understandings of truth and morality together. 


The more mutually respectful we are, I believe, the better chance we'll have for effectively working toward that good end of thinking and acting most in accord with the truth. The more we lose this mutual respect, have scorn, disgust, and ultimately hatred, the more we resort to violence in thought, word, and ultimately deed, effectively preventing ourselves from fully realizing that end. The more we acknowledge our human nature and our fully human epistemology, the more we will be inclined to have this mutual respect and be able to build on that as a shared foundation for discovering--using all our sources of information--the truth together. Then we just have the hard task of living according to it!

The Church of Arrogance

As I noted at the beginning of my recent post on The Faith of Atheism, I tend to have more problems with atheists than with the -ism itself. The reason for that is it seems that nearly every interaction I have (not every, to be fair) with atheists involves them desperately clawing to the top of an imagined mole hill to somehow prove that they are more intelligent and reasonable than those silly theists who of course believe in the big cat in the sky or the spaghetti monster or whatever petty, puerile analogy they try to make for God. And in response to a rather straightforward attempt to suggest how that's not the case, I was predictably tongue lashed for even suggesting that theists are on equal footing intellectually. It seems that more than anything, atheists can unite in their arrogant belief in their own intellectual superiority. The Church of Arrogance.

Where to start. With the title, "Learning from a Catholic what atheists think." Right, that's what I set out to do--to tell people what atheists think. I didn't quote from an avowed atheist. I've never read anything atheists have said or written before forming my opinions on atheism.  Oh wait, yeah, I did. Did I ever claim to speak for atheists? No, I paraphrased an atheist and talked about how, judging from that and my reading and listening to atheists, I have a ("a" not "the" or "only"--"a") problem with the atheist perspective. Please, by all means, do not listen to me as an authority on atheism, if for no other reason than that they don't believe in taking things on authority. Oh crap, there I go again, telling you what atheists think. (By the way, the irony involved in an atheist complaining about a theist misrepresenting them I hope does not fall flat on you, dear readers. At every turn, atheists seem to make it their duty to misrepresent what theists think, and lavish scorn upon their caricatures.)

Next, he associates me with a book that he has discredited in his mind, saying that I'm not even saying anything original. Okay, so where did I say I was trying to earn a PhD in atheism studies? I guess he's suggesting that I'm disingenuously disguising my own ruminations on the subject as my own thoughts while, in reality, I am secretly just trying to rehash a clearly disproven canard. Or maybe the truth of what I was proposing was simply evident enough for others to also see on their own.  Not to mention, I have read (yes, sorry no link on this one--feel free to think I'm lying if you want) an atheist admit that atheists can't indeed not live without the sort of belief that I described. I actually think it's pretty obvious--obvious enough to be covered in a short post, not requiring a whole book.

He then goes on to educate us that all atheists do not believe the same things. Oh wait, where have I heard that?  Just about every religion on the planet. Why? Because as I was pointing out, we all form our beliefs (yes, beliefs) about reality based on the information available to us and our reasoning.  (There I go again, daring to suggest that atheists and the rest of us riff raff have similar reasoning capabilities and basically the same human nature. Bad, Ambrose!) Atheism doesn't have some special corner on the market in this regard, and I never claimed to say "what all atheists believe."  Again, I quoted from an atheist, and I was talking about my own conclusions based on that and other interactions with atheists I've had in my life. It was essentially a personal reflection based on my own experiences/exposure, offering up the reasons behind my thinking for others to consider and draw their own conclusions.

After revisiting the canard (ooh, that word is fun, no?) that I am telling people what all atheists believe (and, don't forget, after telling me that all atheists don't believe the same things), he goes on to tell me what all atheists believe.  (Not without missing an opportunity to put the smack down on my lack of "scientific literacy.")

Now, if you could wade through all that bullshitting, he actually says some interesting stuff about his thinking on things like entropy and ideas. The thing is, we could talk about those in productive and mutually constructive ways, if it weren't for all the surrounding crap. Am I responding in-kind? Yes, I've had about enough of just taking it and being the bigger person. I'm not going to take this arrogance any longer, and I will call them out on it every time I see it, until they quit trying to set themselves up as inherently intellectually superior to everyone else who hasn't come to the same conclusion about God as them.

Frankly, I was this close to not even responding (as I've let this kind of thing go so many times). But I am the inveterate optimist; I hold out hope against hope that I can have mutually respectful dialogue with atheists. I know all atheists are not this incorrigible. I've seen the occasional posting on message boards here and there, and a new fella I met by posting this, Daniel Nairn, seems to be an exemplary atheist in this regard--no pretense to superiority in his response.  And to be fair to Bertrand, he's let his humanity come out here and there in our many disputes, although he does have a habit of falling back into it when I somehow make his blood boil.

Anyways, both of these two responders suggest that they have a way of granting some sort of meaningful existence to metaphysical concepts using their brains. I can only guess this is something along the lines of Platonism. Bertrand is right to call out that atheism does not, necessarily, imply materialism; however, the vast majority of atheists, especially the militant ones, in my experience seem to adhere to materialism and the concomitant scientism. And besides, that is the prevailing secular ideology, whether atheist or agnostic or nominally theist.

I stand accused of a lack of imagination on the grounds that I suggest that a sturdy atheism does in fact imply materialism (and again, I am in good company with many atheists living and dead on this point). I do acknowledge that people can, do, and have believed in metaphysical ideas without believing in God. In fact, that is precisely what I was saying in my last post--that atheists do believe in such concepts; although some deny them, they functionally behave as if they believe in them. And again, my problem with this particular perspective is that I don't follow the reasoning that leads to either the acknowledged or implicit belief in them without a metaphysical (not "magical") source of their being. It is, as Pratchett essentially says, wishful thinking.

Another claim I've heard many times (not saying all atheists believe this, though) is that as an atheist, they merely believe in "facts" and "evidence" based on science. Science deals with, as we all know (and don't need to be reminded, okay?) observable phenomena and reproducible experiments, that is, it deals with the physical world, not the metaphysical. It is entirely unequipped to grapple with or begin to explain metaphysical realities, assuming they are admitted in the first place (and many atheists I have observed do not, as materialists).

Indeed, it is because of the advancement of science in the last few hundred years that the atheist who believes in metaphysical being has become rarer and rarer. So much so, that I'm not sure I see how scientism and a belief in metaphysical existence makes much sense. The explanation--that of essentially a practical self-interest--does not imply any metaphysical existence. You can't subject justice and love to scientific experimentation, so if one bases his entire view of the world on such scientific evidence, it does not follow to believe in the existence of these things.

After plateauing on the verge of rational dialog, Betrand falls back into those old atheistic tactics of scornful intellectual snobbery and misrepresenting what theists say. He portrays what I said as "[trusting my] personal experience, common sense and gut feelings more than science, ergo Jesus." Leaving aside the implicit worship of science in this statement and leaving aside this is not in fact what I said, it essentially ignores the main theme of my prior post--that we all must, due to our human nature, make judgments based on 1) the evidence of our experience, 2) the authority of others, and 3) our reason.

First, personal experience, common sense and gut feeling are extremely poor indicators of truth.

Duh. This is something we all agree on. As a Catholic, I'm insulted that he would accuse me of saying anything to the contrary. We're big on Truth as an objective reality.

This is a search of my post. I not once made appeal to common sense.

This, also not in my post.



However I did and do say that, as humans, we are constrained by our nature to make our own judgments about reality and truth, and we are bound by conscience to act according to those. Whether or not our judgments about reality align with reality as it is is, of course, the subject of much debate, including this one.

This should not be a controversial position, but it is--because the atheists that I am addressing are those who make the self-deceptive claim that somehow they have a direct line to truth based solely on science. To even the most amateur philosopher, it should be obvious that such a belief is a completely untenable epistemology. Scientists do not make great philosophers.

Folks such as these tend to refer to science with a capital S. "Science tells us." This is scientism, and it is rampant in contemporary society precisely because in school we are indoctrinated to treat it this way--as an Authority. It is talking about Science as if it is a being that can be asked or, indeed, that tells us things. It is an inordinate belief in the ability of science to account for reality and, particularly, to give it faculties that it does not possess.

Oddly, Bertrand moves on to say "even if there is a leap of faith at the basis of all human thought..." Okay, so basically he is agreeing that atheists must have faith to function as humans.  But then he goes on to impute all sorts of things to me (after not failing to take a puerile swipe equating God to a spaghetti monster):

It’s a common claim of theists to assert that because nothing is ever absolutely certain (an assumption that is necessary to scientific thought), then all beliefs, no matter how outlandish, are equally legitimate to hold.

I can't speak for all theists, but I hold and have argued for exactly the opposite. As a Catholic, again, I'm into the whole Truth thing, and I by no means say that all beliefs are equally legitimate to hold. That is indifferentism and relativism, both of which I abhor.

I have merely made the case for what Bertrand apparently admits--that atheists do in fact have faith (just not in God). Daniel suggested something similar as well.  Now we're getting somewhere. If only we could consequently avoid reverting back to the Church of Arrogance, we might actually be able to have some reasonable dialog as to, for example, why Catholicism more closely reflects the truth of reality than atheism. Once we can all agree we share the same means to understanding the world and we admit that we all engage in reasoning and forming judgments about it, then we can talk about the specific arguments for and against things.

Third, the claim that scientific knowledge is a form of argument from authority is infuriatingly ignorant. Scientific knowledge is based on reproducible experiments. No claim is ever accepted before it has been replicated by independent teams. Who makes the claim is almost entirely irrelevant (although not all authorities are equivalent).

Maybe if Bertrand would spend less time getting infuriated and projecting his prejudices about what I think onto what I actually say, we could avoid all this extra silliness. I did not say that "scientific knowledge is argument from authority." What I said was that unless you personally participate in scientific experiments of EVERYTHING that you want to form an opinion about, then you are de facto forced to take things on authority, including those things purportedly discovered through scientific methods.  Ironically, Bertrand then seems to acknowledge this saying "not all authorities are equivalent." So there is authority involved in science?  Which is it, Bertrand??

My point was and is that we all form opinions about reality based on the same sources. We choose to trust different authorities. We have different experiences. We follow different lines of reasoning. Again, this should not be controversial, but for the Church of Arrogance, it is.

Finally, the "dualism" thing (that means something different in philosophy, but fine..) is just a weird line of argument against the existence of the soul. I was just writing the other day how when I feel sick, my perception of the world is altered. Maybe if you think that the soul is entirely distinct from the body (dualism?), the argument matters. But traditional Christianity doesn't see it that way. We believe in the resurrection of the body--it's in our Creed. There is a real connection between the body and soul, and so obviously if you impact the body, you impact the person. It's a no brainer for us, not a scientific revelation.

I may have "come out a little strongly" in this post, and quite possibly, I've vented some of my general frustration in dealing with those who claim the title atheist on poor Bertrand. At the same time, I want to be clear that the door swings both ways--you give it, you gotta take it, too. I'm all for reasoned dialog, but I don't have a lot of patience for being misrepresented or having my reasoned perspectives made the object of petty scorn, mockery, or caricature. I will stand up for myself and those who share my views if pushed, or maybe I'll just ignore you.

Now if you, dear atheists, care to have a mutually respectful dialogue, let's do it. If you think I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting you, feel free to say so respectfully--it's not my intent. Let's also give each other the benefit of the doubt, eh?

The Faith of Atheism

Being a theist, I naturally have problems with atheism, a number of them in fact. (Oddly enough, I tend to have more problems with atheists than I do with the -ism, but that's a topic for another post.) At one point in my life, I gave atheism a run for its money, but it just didn't work for me. It's not that I think atheism is completely irrational; I just thought the arguments for, first, the existence of God outpaced those against it, and the same for the arguments for Christianity (Peter Kreeft does a good job articulating them).  But today, the problem I want to talk about here is what I'm calling the faith of atheism, and yes, I'm using that somewhat ironically.

One of my favorite authors is Terry Pratchett. The man, unfortunately, is an avowed atheist. And just like all authors, he writes his point of view into his works.  Who knows, maybe that cynical bent helps him to write his characters as well as he does.

Anyways, one of the recurring characters (maybe the recurring character) is Death. Pratchett develops Death's character in such a way to make him likable, but Death is also the character that Pratchett uses to cast his most critical eye on humanity (because, you know, Death is outside of humanity, but he is made in humanity's image). A lot of what Death says is both humorous as well as insightful, and I think I can dare to say that at times Death most closely articulates Pratchett's own views on things.  In fact, I think I saw a DVD extra in which he says as much.

In Hogfather (one of my family's favorites among his prolific Discworld series), Pratchett waxes particularly philosophical. I don't have the quote handy, but the basic gist is that things like Justice are just big lies we tell ourselves that we have to believe.  He says something like "take apart the universe to its smallest particles and show me one grain of Justice" or something like that. It's actually fairly poetic in its own way (I'm not doing the passage justice, no pun intended).

Sadly, I think it does accurately portray what an atheistic, materialistic worldview honestly is left with at the end of the day. No indeed, there is no atomic element of Ju (Justice), nor of Lv (Love), nor any other virtue. In a materialistic philosophy, these things really are lies, and an adherent is forced to have faith in those lies in order to create a reality that is bearable as a human.

This faith in terms of the scientific basis for it and the act of will it requires is not different from that of believers in God--it's just the object of the belief that differs. And I tend to think that in terms of the day-to-day impact, much like for many folks who place themselves in the theist camp, the faith is typically just an assumed substrate in their day to day life, not something they actively engage. Perhaps one difference is that some atheists may try to deny that they have such faith, if put to the test, saying rather that, for example, Justice is only a handy term to represent a reasoned view of moral behavior in society based on mutual self-interest.  But then ask them what they think about having prayer in schools or not redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, and just listen to them go off on how "unjust" those things are.

The point is not to call them out as inconsistent (we are all inconsistent; it's part of being human). The point is just to highlight that on a day-to-day functional level, we all believe in concepts like Justice, and often it goes deeper than functional to a non-rational, emotional level. We just believe in it.

So what is my problem, then, with atheism? Well this specific problem is that if I'm going to believe in things like Justice, Love, Freedom, Happiness, and other ideals and virtues, I prefer to have a rational basis for believing in them. I couldn't bring myself to believe in something that I rationally thought to be a lie, and a humongous one at that.

Not only that, my own human experience is such that I have experienced these things personally. I think it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe that my human experience is only the result of material interactions in my body. On the contrary, every fiber of my being tells me that there is more to my existence than the material--my own, observed and reasoned experience (I tend to be fairly self-reflective). So why would I take it on faith from scientists (an Authority) or atheistic philosophers (another Authority) that this is so, contrary to my own observations of life?

For me, that would take a lot more faith than to believe in what seems obvious to me based on my own experience and reason, namely that there is a Prime Mover in and from whose very Being these ideals and virtues immutably subsist in eternal perfection, that this Being created the universe, including humanity, to have some share in those, and that it is because of this that I innately recognize them as real and not a lie we have all agreed to tell ourselves.

----

P.S. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that what I've said here is somehow a proof for God or even that there's no way to be an atheist and be rational. My view is that we are human and that means we are more than only rational intellects (and more than only bodies). We're all partly rational and partly not, and frankly I think our personal experiences factor into our choice of worldview a lot more than pure reason.

I do think that it is self-deceiving to say (as I've heard some atheists proudly proclaim) that one can live his or her life strictly on "facts" and "science." One would have to be paralyzed (intellectually and, ergo, physically) to do that; it's just not a practicable viewpoint to take--you have to build up a worldview based mostly on three sources: 1) what you have experienced personally (this would include any scientific experiments you've done), 2) the authority of others whom you trust (for whatever reason--this is where what is functionally faith comes into the picture), and 3) reasoning about these two basic sources of information.  You simply can't practicably live by only (1) and (3), and you can't effectively even develop the ideas of "facts," "science," "scientific method," or leverage "peer review" without (2).

P.P.S. Note that I am using the term "faith" loosely here. Generally I prefer the traditional approach of reserving it to mean that belief specifically applied to God, especially as applied to the theological virtue of faith. But I use it here intentionally to illustrate that in human terms, the movement of the mind and will towards a materially unverified (and sometimes unverifiable, in any practical sense) object is functionally equivalent regardless of the object. Hence, the "faith" of atheism, of which I have only scratched the surface in this reflection.