In Response to the Noah's Ark Story

Here is the script for the 2 part video series I did about Noah's Ark. Here, I list 47 reasons why the story simply does not stand up to a single moment of critical thinking.


Watch the videos at the bottom of this blog entry, or here:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYKJw8zc_uk

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5o7VEvfAVM




Script
Voices: Ryan, Heather (PC voice programs)

The Intellectual Suicide of Creationists: Ark Impossible, Part 1.

This material is protected under Fair Use law, section 107. False DMCA claims are a crime.

Don’t forget about Exodus 20:16.

Ancient proverb: “The road to Hell is paved with good intensions.”

This video is a general rebuttal to people who call themselves literalists and use the Christian Bible, namely the book of Genesis, to promote a Creationist world view. If you treat Genesis and other early Hebrew books in this multi-cultural anthology as metaphor, this isn’t directed at you.

Paraphrasing for expediency.

The Bible: Book of Genesis:

Most everyone knows the story. 600 year old man builds a boat, gets two of every kind, then it rains a lot.

Oh, and for whatever reason, there are seven pairs of every kind of bird as well (7:3).

Asexual organisms were just out of luck.

Everyone else, except for his wife, three sons and their wives, dies a horrible death by drowning.

Every alligator, kitten, kangaroo, centipede, and parrot not one of the lucky pairs on the boat, die a horrible death, as well.

The boat was made of gopher (cypress?) and sits at exactly 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, with three decks (6:14-15).

Month 2, day 17: all the springs of the deep burst forth, and the giant door in the firmament opens, letting the rain fall down (7:11).

Then, after every last polar bear, panda, and (according to some) Allosaurus, were secure, God himself closes the door to the Ark.

It rains for 40 days. As the waters rise the Ark floats and rises with it.

There was so much water it covered even Mount Everest by about 20 feet, which would be around 30,000 feet of water on a global scale (7:19).

For one hundred and fifty days, the waters flooded the entire planet with 30,000 feet of water (7:24).

Now, thankfully, the all knowing being suddenly remembered Noah. With a little wind, the waters began to recede (8:1).

The springs in the deep were corked, and God closed the door in the glass firmament above the world.

Month 7, day 17: the Ark hits ground on the Ararat mountains (8:4).

Month 10, day 1: the tops of the mountains poked out from under the sea.

Noah sent out a Raven to look for a place to land, but it couldn’t yet. So it kept flying around until the water finally dried up.

Then he tried sending a dove, but it didn’t have any luck either. After seven days, he tried again and it returned with a fresh olive leaf.

He waited another week and sent the dove again, which did not return. He waited another week.

Month 1, day 1: Noah was now 601 years old, he removed the cover of the ark (8:13).

Month 2, day 27: The earth was dry again, well, where it should be dry at least.

Noah finally gets a message from God to leave the Ark so that he and the animals can get a little frisky and multiply like bunnies in heat (8:16).

In his excitement, Noah takes a few of the “clean” animals and birds, and slits their throats on the alter he built as an offering of thanks (8:20).

And you wondered what happened to the Unicorn, Manticore, Mermaid, and Chupacabra? There you go… they were a sacrifice.

God was beside himself with that pleasing aroma of the fresh butchery (8:21).

The pleasing smells of the burning flesh and sounds of the gushing blood made God promise himself he would never do that again.

…despite that he even knew every child is evil from birth (8:21).

With a decree that every animal and fish is now property of man to eat and do with as man pleases, he makes another:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (9:6).

God makes the Covenant and promises that there will never again be a flood to destroy the world (9:11).

Then God says that the rainbow will be the sign of the Covenant (9:16).

Now the story goes on to the incestuous acts which populated the rest of the world.

*time spent: 4:20

Okay, that is pretty much it. Here are the facts according to that story:

F-A) Noah was 600 years old before the flood.
F-B) The Ark was 450 x 75 x 45 feet, with 3 levels.
F-C) It rained for 40 days, and ended in the night of the last day.
F-D) The 30,000 feet of water remains constant for 150 days.
F-E) The tops of the mountains were visible after 8 months.
F-F) The entire planet was flooded for 1 year and 10 days total.
F-G) Some of the clean animals and birds were sacrificed as burnt offerings.
F-H) Only 8 humans survived, all four males were from the same immediate family.

Proponent (Christian Creationist) Speculation:

S-A) There were anywhere from 16,000 to 50,000 animals on the Ark.
S-B) Some say their math shows only 30% or so of the Ark’s space being used, leaving the rest for supplies.
S-C) Carnivores might have chosen a vegetarian life style to cope with food issues.
S-D) Animals might have all developed and shared hibernation techniques to deal with the long period of time in a boat.
S-E) To account for insects and snails, they could have floated on driftwood.
S-F) There was one supercontinent before the flood, which explains how all the animals got to the Ark.
S-G) Rising magma temperatures boiled away a significant amount of the ocean, which later provided the rain.
S-H) After the flood, the supercontinent broke apart and separated, carrying the animals to their new and distant homes, also pushing up mountains all over the world.
S-I) The Grand Canyon could have been made in a week, or a few days, or five minutes.
S-J) The Ice Age was after the flood.
S-K) Dinosaurs were on the Ark because Genesis says all land animals boarded the boat, and this includes them as well.
S-L) Dinosaurs might have been carried as eggs or very young, not necessarily fully grown.
S-M) Variation in humans, like different skin color or skeletal structure, is a result of one of Noah’s sons being “cursed” by Noah himself.

*time used: 6:30

Opponent (Non-Christian Creationist) Arguments:

O-1) No geologist will state that the world was flooded for a full year and ten days.

O-2) A global flood would not leave the fossil record or geologic column as we find it today.

O-3) No archeologist, anthropologist or historian will say there were 8 people alive 4500 years ago.

O-4) It is impossible for four couples who are related by blood to spawn our entire genetically diverse civilization.

O-5) Scholars and Creationist groups (like Answers In Genesis) agree that this flood was about 4500 years ago (2500 BC). Other cultures around the world survived as normal through this time and didn't drown. How can those older cultures be unaware of a global flood?

O-6) Neolithic Chinese cultures (Hongshan, Fuhe, Machang, Henan-Longshan, Shandong-Longshan, Liangzhu, Shijiahe, Hubei-Longshan, Baodun, Tanishan, Shixia, Nianyuzhuan, Qinglongquan, Hedang, Baiyangcun, Qijia) did not cease to exist 4500 years ago, but instead continued before, during, and after the supposed global flood.

O-7) How can Mesopotamia be united under the Akkadian empire in 2300 BC if there are all dead? Empires do not rise suddenly and inexplicably after only 8 people were alive a hundred years previous.

O-8) The Early Bronze Age is well documented and could not have been propagated by four couples of humans just a hundred or two years before.

O-9) No land plant would survive being crushed under 30,000 feet of water suddenly, much less for a whole year.

O-10) In order for it to rain for 40 days, the air pressure from the water vapor in the atmosphere would create around 13,000 psi (pressure per square inch), which is lethal, instead of the planet’s normal 14.5 psi at sea level.

O-11) The worst rainfall in recorded human history is 3.8 cm (or 1.5 inches) in one minute, from Barot, Guadeloups. Mt. Waialeale, on the island Kauai, Hawaii, gets an average of 474 inches per YEAR, with a record of 683 inches (or 57 feet) in 1982. In order to reach 30,000 feet (or 360,000 inches) in 40 DAYS, it would have to rain at a rate of 750 feet (or 9000 inches) per day, 31.25 feet (or 375 inches) per hour, .52 feet (or 6.24 inches) per minute.

O-12) Given the daily food requirement of a zoo, feeding 16,000 animals, much less 50,000, for an entire year is quite impossible. One Penguin would need a little over a ton of food for a year. Elephants eat 300 to 500 pounds of food per day, making it around 91 tons of food for one elephant for just one year.

O-13) It is physically impossible for 8 people to tend to the supposed numbers of animal on the ark, even if that were one minute a day to feed and clean them. With six hours of that day per person to sleep, eat, and clean themselves, that leaves 18 hours to tend to the animals. 1 animal per minute, 60 per hour, 1080 per 18 hours per person (of which there are 8).

O-14) How long would it take a kangaroo, polar bear, komodo dragon, or capybara to get to Turkey?

O-15) Dinosaurs. A single Brontosaurus, much less two, would have destroyed the Ark simply by walking on it with all of its 35 metric tons of weight onto the cypress wood planks. Some dinosaurs are up to 100 or even 134 feet long. Some are 40 to 60 feet tall. Others, like the Ultrasaurus are estimated to be as much as 180 tons in weight.

O-16) There are about 527 genera of Dinosaur, with 10 to 20 being discovered each year. Estimates are around 1800 in total genera that we could possibly find in the next century or two. Some we will never find.

O-17) Dinosaurs did not live with humans. The Flinstones cartoon was not a documentary. There are no books or reports in any cultures history that refer to town defenses against roaming groups of Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus.

O-18) Mixing the worlds fresh and salt waters would have destroyed marine ecosystems. There is no mechanism for the waters to have divided into fresh and salt water bodies 4500 years ago.

O-19) There is no mechanism to dispose of 30,000 feet of water on the surface of the entire planet, nor producing it in the first place.

O-20) Global population at around 3000 BC was about 20-25 million. In 2000 BC, estimates place global population at 35 million.

O-21) Exodus is placed at 3500 years ago. Bible says over 600,000 males over 20 years of age left Egypt, making it nearly one MILLION people including women and children. Four couples cannot reproduce into one million in under 1000 years, from 2500 to 1500 BC, much less 35 million.

O-22) If you believe in Noah's Ark you believe in SUPER Evolution. The rate of speciation of those limited pairs of animal would require an impossible speed to make up for the known and unknown level of diversity on this planet in such a limited amount of time.

O-23) The excuse of "fossils on mountains" doesn't work. Identifying those fossils will reveal that they are simpler forms of marine life that havn't been around for a very long time. There are no elephant or human fossils along with those marine fossils on mountain tops.

O-24) Admitting the world wasn't flooded for a year and 10 days invalidates the story as factual.

O-25) Admitting the world was not covered in 30,000 feet of water invalidates the story as factual.

O-26) A single Norway Spruce tree has a root system that has been growing for 9950 years. Sitting under 3000 feet in altitude, it obviously didn't suffer a global flood for a year.

O-27) Additional trees in Sweden have been shown to have survived for 5000 to 6000 years.

O-28) California White Mountains has a 5000 year old tree.

O-29) The Arizona Meteor Crater was not formed in the last 4500 years, as a global flood would have erased or filled in much of it.

O-30) The Ark itself has not been found, and the claims by Ron Wyatt have been refuted by multiple governments and agencies who have examined that specific Ark claim site near Dogubayazit with multiple tests.

O-31) Others of Wyatt's team have retracted their support for this claim, realizing they were mistaken. David Fasold is among them.

O-32) Lorence G. Collins, retired professor of geology from California State University, Northridge, published a paper co-authored by Fasold who was heading the last team permitted into the now military zone in Turkey.

"Bogus Noah's Ark from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure", published in Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444.

O-33) Multiple cultural references to their own versions of a flood story when those cultures are supposed to be dead doesn’t exactly stand on a firm foundation of logic.

O-34) If different versions in other cultures for a religious event in a specific faith is some kind of proof, what about virgin births?

O-35) European Project for Ice Coring (EPICA) in Dome C at Antarctica has a three kilometer ice core sample that shows the last 740,000 years of snowfall. This sample describes 8 separate ice ages.

O-36) The Genographic Project, and the data on Mitochondrial Eve, refutes the suggestion that the entire human population came from four couples 4500 years ago.

O-37) Human migration around the world did not start 4500 years ago with one family.

O-38) If the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of a single massive flood, there would be similar geologic formations around the world.

O-39) The Grand Canyon shares no traits or formations in common with any kind of flood, and in fact the meandering of the canyon, along with about a dozen other items, is evidence against such a suggestion.

O-40) Hawaii is a land mass created by a hot spot under the Pacific Plate. The Emperor Seamount chain, the history of this hot spot for the last 80 some million years, is impossible to form in 4500 years.

O-41) The suggestion of the water supply for the flood coming from an extraterrestrial location, like comets, is absurd. They would disintegrate in the atmosphere or explode on impact, vaporizing the water and incinerating much of the surrounding area.

O-42) If fissures opened and released as much water as would be needed to cover the planet, the entire crust of the planet would have collapsed in on itself, destroying the geologic column. This would also eliminate an escape method for all of that water as there would be no place for it to drain.

O-43) If magma boiled off significant portions of the ocean, every single fish and ocean dwelling animal would die instantly, obliterating every marine ecosystem. This would also present serious thermal issues for the rest of the world, not to mention making the atmosphere too wet and thick to breathe.

O-44) There are physical limitations to a strictly wooden boat, regardless of overall design, which would make the Ark itself impossible.

O-45) The excuse of a “super continent” doesn’t work. Continents don’t move, the Tectonic Plates do, and slowly at that (50 to 100 mm a year). A super continent would take several hundred million years to spread apart, not 4500 years.

O-46) Plain water freezes at 32° Fahrenheit (0° Celsius). Ocean water does freeze, but it depends on the salt content. At 30,000 feet, the temperature gets to about -50° F. The surface water would have frozen, entombing Noah and all the animals to a slow death by freezing.

O-47) There is 1/4th the amount of oxygen at 30,000 feet than at sea level. Normal humans cannot reach 5 miles in altitude without assisted breathing tanks (1980 -Reinhold Messner is just amazing), much less survive for 150 days while tending to tens of thousands of animals.

Lecture Response - Howard 1

"The Dishonesty of Atheism"

Bill Howard, Associate Professor of Chemistry

Faculty Adviser for Bible Campus Ministries.

UAF, Reichardt. Monday, 11/15/10.

The lecture hall had been constructed recently, for universities, which lent to the impression that this was indeed a hall of intellectual pursuits. The auditorium seating was angled steeply, and the chair and desk spacing was designed to be comfortable and easy to use while allowing for an extremely efficient use of space. The lighting and technology that had gone into the hall was impressive, and of special note was the individual directed lighting over the chalk boards, even. Everything about the event location sat in sharp contrast to the topic of the evening, and as Bill Howard later demonstrated, this pristine facility of modern science and education would be sullied by the messy intellectual suicide from one of its own.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks club, Bible Campus Ministries, was hosting an aggressive lecture which was presented by the group's faculty adviser. Doctor Bill Howard, Associate Professor of Chemistry, had been planning and practicing his lecture many times over and seemed to hold a great deal of passion on the topic itself. As most of the audience had settled and were waiting for the lecture to start, Dr. Howard faced the wall clock and watched the seconds tick by until the appointed hour had arrived, precisely. One of the astute members of Dr. Cole's History class pointed out that Dr. Howard was indeed wearing red pants. The significance of this was amusing as an inside joke, but it became an ironic and very accurate representation of the utter failure to come.

After the brief overview, Dr. Howard starts into a very slow paced parable of his own design. In this story, a vacationer in an unfamiliar country stops to refuel his vehicle and asks the station attendant for the location of hotel so that he might rest for the night. The friendly attendant goes so far as to even draw a map for the vacationer and sends him on his way. In attempting to follow the directions, the vacationer takes a wrong turn and ends up somewhere completely different. It is important to note here that the vacationer does indeed actively try to find this hotel by following the directions on the map. He pulls over, gets out of his car, and looks all around the area for the missing hotel. Next, he is greeted by a farmer slowly passing by on a tractor, who asks if he could be of any assistance.

The vacationer complains to the farmer that the station attendant had lied to him, to which the farmer assures him that the hotel does indeed exist and the map is indeed correct. In attempting to tell the vacationer that he had simply taken a wrong turn, the audience is slapped in the face by the punch line of the parable: "I will never find this hotel because I am an A-Hotelist". At this point, the lecture fractures on its logical axis and completely derails the rest of the night. A simple yet unspoken question rises from the quick glances around the room: "A traveler would ask for something he would need yet simultaneously believe that it didn't actually exist?". This, however, is just the beginning.

Dr. Howard, speaking through the parable of course, assures the audience that "there is no such thing as blind faith. If faith is blind, then its not faith". One thing that continually exposes even the most devout religious followers as less than honest is when one simply compares what is spoken by the proselytizer and what is written in their books. In the Christian Bible, the book of John, chapter 20, verse 29, the character of Jesus Christ speaks to the Apostle Thomas: "because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." This is the story that has become the Doubting Thomas story that emphasizes belief without question, belief in the Word without doubt: blind faith. This alone stands in stark contradiction to the words of Dr. Howard and his assertions about his religion. As he mentions later on that night, when confronted with a question about a conflict between science and his religion, "my understanding is that I go with the science unless the bible says something specific". How can this apparent contradiction exist with a devout Christian follow who should most certainly know the words of his god by heart?

Continuing with the examination and definition of faith in the parable, the farmer tells the vacationer that "faith is the substance of a thing hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Again the audience is presented with the contradiction between faith being a statement of something unseen-something a person is blind towards. Finishing with his own parable, Dr. Howard presents another example of faith and following directions. This example is one of his own travels with visiting his son for dinner at a restaurant. The audience is again presented with a laughable assertion: one wouldn't know if a restroom would exist at that particular dining establishment, therefore it took faith to follow the directions of the waiter in order to locate it. Analogies like these fail completely when realizing that there are such things as building codes and even organizations like the American Restroom Association that concerns itself with such issues and standards that relate to restrooms.

What is an honest skeptic, and what is a dishonest skeptic, according to Dr. Howard? An honest skeptic is defined as someone who can check the claim, ask for evidence, and follow a procedure. This is an admirable definition of a mentality that should be shared by any scientific mind. In Dr. Cole's History class, the Ferris article on science and liberalism mirrors this definition quite well. A dishonest skeptic is someone who has prejudices and doesn't want to check something that might prove those prejudices are false. Once more, right from the start, Dr. Howard seems to forget a basic trait of human psychology: every human has bias and prejudices in various degrees, and that is something that cannot be changed. Thankfully, Dr. Howard adds the qualifier of reluctance to check to this statement, otherwise it would be completely unconvincing at any level. Beyond that, the argument of "you just dont want to know the truth" does not have any logical strength as it requires many assumptions about this "truth" being asserted.

Keeping the definitions of honest and dishonest skeptics in mind, one should reflect back on the opening parable presented by Dr. Howard with the vacationer and the map. Should the audience be surprised that Dr. Howard seems to confuse his own story with poor logic as he tangles both of these definitions with the vacationer? At the start of the parable, the vacationer does indeed genuinely try to find the hotel by using the map. The vacationer only pulls over and looks around when he is frustrated by being unable to find the hotel. Ignoring the amusing holes in the parable that imply the vacationer not only knew what a hotel was, but actually desired to stay at one, consented in using the map given to him by the station attendant, and actually seems to know or have some idea of what he was looking for, how does this even remotely apply to the definition given for a dishonest skeptic?

The vacationer in his parable, after speaking to the farmer for a time, is proclaimed to be an A-Hotelist suddenly and inexplicably by stating he doesn't believe such things exist. This was utter nonsense, and demonstrated the continual abuse of demented logic throughout the presentation that can be easily found in most religious arguments. To exasperate the problems, Dr. Howard made sure to tie in a critical element of catastrophic failure into the map, which is obviously a representation for his particular version of one of the Christian Bibles, in having the farmer say to the vacationer; "you are interpreting this map literally, I think you should interpret it allegorically. The very definition of faith is belief in something that can't be proven". Single handedly, Dr. Howard had laid a fatal mistake in the parable meant to be the foundation of his presentation, while at the same time contradicting many of his points and assertions, such as what was said on blind faith.

The overall message of this lecture was one of following directions, and claiming that people who didn't do so were dishonest and liars. As these parables and definitions have been demonstrated as fallacious, so too has the message been framed with a self-defeating foundation. The element of catastrophic failure in this entire presentation was the assertion that examining the map/bible literally was not the correct way to interpret it because such reading must be done allegorically. If the vacationer, or any other kind of A-Hotelist, sees a straight line on a map drawn by a station attendant that should represent a road, apparently one is to interpret that straight line based on the alignment of the stars, the persons mood, or any number of external or internal influences that would change the meaning of a line into anything else besides a literal representation of a road. As Dr. Howard continued to demonstrate, this is utterly and completely absurd.

The Five Steps in Dr. Howard's Procedure to Find God were listed for the audience. The first step was to move the priority of finding his god as the number one focus on one's life. This comes before food, money, mates, housing, everything. Right from the start, the logical structure of Dr. Howard's map fails. Asserting that one must believe in this particular version of an Abrahamic god of the main monotheisms in the world is a logical fallacy called Begging the Question, Circular Logic, Fallacy of Redundancy: an argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises. Stating that you must believe in a god in order to find a god is an amazing statement coming from a respected "scientific" individual.

The second step is to "hate sin", and to acknowledge that everyone "truly deserves eternal suffering in the Lake of Fire". Indeed, there are a number of disturbing implications in this step as well. Preaching hate is not normally considered a positive thing to do in any situation, especially in an educational environment. Sin, in this case, is anything that leads to disobedience to his god and that leads to unbelief. If a person is taught to hate someone or something that causes offense to their religious views, what are those people entitled to do in the practice and venting of that hatred? Aside from the issue of requiring hatred, Dr. Howard instructs the audience that everyone is a worthless individual that actually deserves the worst punishment he can imagine. Unless a person accepts that they are filthy liars and that even the smallest infraction during their moral life condemns them to an eternal punishment of torture, they will never find Dr. Howard's god. It is a good thing every snake oil salesman has exactly what one needs in order to avoid the problems they just finished describing.

The third step is another Circular Logic fallacy that requires belief in order to believe; to believe in Jesus Christ as the "only begotten son of God". Additionally, there is a qualifier specific to the death of this character in the Christian Bible that paints a picture reinforcing the hate and anger the believers seem to cherish (being followers of a religion focused on martyrdom) "that he died a horrible death on the cross in your place". The underlying assumption in this death is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of other people: substitution atonement and salvation through blood sacrifice. Ignoring the absurdity of an all knowing and all powerful being sacrificing itself to itself in order to create a means for atonement that is required as a result of the condition of "original sin" originating from the actions of the first creations of this perfect god, the obsession with the death of their god/part of their god/the son of their god, and the symbolic cannibalism of their god in specific events such as "the Lord's Super", further demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills.

Finally, the fourth and fifth steps again abuse the same logical fallacies of requiring belief in order to find a way to believe in a god, this time through prayer and reading the Christian Bible as a "token of your belief in Jesus Christ". Every single one of these steps requires a violation in the rules of logic. How can this map of Dr. Howard's design possibly impress or convince any student or individual at a higher learning facility designed to educate students? As Dr. Howard implied before with his particular version of the Christian Bible, should his list of steps to find his god also be taken as allegory, leaving each individual to interpret these steps in their own way?

The last segment of Dr. Howard's presentation described his own journey into his specific branch of theism. As he had stated previously, prayer was key. Lots of prayer. When he was a child and had finished a long session of praying on his porch, he went inside to the living room of his house where the television was tuned in to a local lottery game. As Dr. Howard described it, his god placed an image of the winning numbers in his head moments before the numbers were revealed, and since he had just finished his prayer sessions he chose to view this as nothing other than a sign from his god. The alleged winning lottery number itself held significance for him. Being the number 613, he later found out that his was the number of commandments in the Jewish Torah, which is the foundation of Christianity. At that point, he counted himself among the religious.

Prayer is another common theme running all throughout the presentation. However, Dr. Howard asserts that "God often does not answer prayer until a person has prayed exhaustively". Again, the audience is left with a nonsense statement that completely stands against the very scriptures in the Christian Bible. In the book of Matthew, chapter 21, verse 21, " And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen."" Obviously, there are some blatant contradictions and fallacious statements that have completely crippled Dr. Howard's presentation.

The final segment of the presentation concluded and the Question and Answer session began. Among the questions, one of the better questions asked seemed to define exactly why Dr. Howard cannot be taken seriously as an intellectual elite. When asked about other religions, he replies: "I havn't tested any others. If there is a god different from the god in the bible, I have no knowledge of that god and I have no desire to know that god". Using his own definition, Dr. Howard is a dishonest skeptic, a liar, a hypocrite. Regarding the specific claim that non-believers are dishonest liars, Dr. Howard tried to emphasize this with a simple idea: "If a man is given directions to find something, but doesn't follow the directions, he has no legitimate right to claim it doesn't exist". At face value, such a statement certainly is true. However, as demonstrated, Dr. Howard is anything but honest when it comes to outlining any aspect of his religious views with what he believes of his gods as well as what he demands of others. With final statements such as "I will go to heaven because of the righteousness of Jesus, not because of anything I have done", he has undermined everything he could have possibly hoped to achieve, given the event topic, and especially the audience.

In relation to examining this presentation in terms of the Ferris article from Dr. Cole's History class on science and liberalism, it should be incredibly obvious where Dr. Howard stands. Ferris asserts that science can only flourish in a liberal democracy for a number of reasons. What is science? Simply put, it is the methodology used to observe and participate in our environment towards the goal of attaining knowledge about that environment. It is a structured practice that demands specific procedures.

Science is anti-authoritarian, which is to say it asks impertinent questions. Dr. Howard's views strictly forbid such questions when it comes to his religious views and the steps prescribed to find his specific version of an Abrahamic monotheism. Without being able to ask questions, and by demanding blind faith, the power resides in the self-proclaimed leaders of the religion. This is very authoritarian theocratic. That aspect also destroys, or at least severely limits another aspect needed for science to flourish: promoting growth. Little or no growth or change can occur in a stagnant system written in unchanging words and ideals.

As demonstrated by Dr. Howard, his religious views are anything but self-correcting, which is another point Ferris brings up as a boon to real science. Even when religious texts are written, sometimes even in stone, supposedly, they are still not literal-since they must be taken as allegory, according to Dr. Howard. There can be no self-correction when opinions change from person to person. There can be no self-correction with the "perfect and unchanging" word of a god. And to that end, very few are chosen to be the spokesmen for this "Word of God", which necessarily excludes another requirement of good science: unrestricted inclusions, no discrimination.

In conclusion, it is clear that Dr. Howard lacks a great many critical thinking skills when it comes to dealing with and promoting his religion. As the early French uniforms of World War I included red pants out of pride in a sense of tradition and of "fighting the [previous] war", so too did the irony of Dr. Howard's red pants relate to his methods of threats, hellfire and brimstone, personal experience, and failed logic, to the concept of "fighting the [previous] war" of street preaching by ignoring the intellect of modern non-believers. In this age of instant and global communication and advanced science, personal stories and threats from on high have exceedingly little effect on the educated. Dr. Howard made a strategic error in believing that he could use centuries old arguments in waging this new cultural war. By ignoring the logical and scientific advancements of the current age, he has ensured defeat at his own negligence and pride.

The question now becomes one of Dr. Howard's sanity and credibility as a person instructing young college students. Without even attending the event, every non-believer in his particular version of an Abrahamic monotheism passing by the fliers for the lecture were greeted by an accusation of being dishonest, of being a liar. This is incredibly poor taste, especially given that these fliers are being placed in an academic setting where honesty and hard work is a key aspect to success. As demonstrated in great detail, Dr. Howard continuously butchers the rules of logic during his lecture. Almost every aspect of the presentations promotes a mentality and ideal that is utterly contrary to a strong scientific and free thought environment geared towards an expansion of knowledge and understanding of our surroundings. Dr. Howard tried to present a passionate and moving demonstration of his faith to those who chose to listen, but instead he committed intellectual suicide in front of a shocked audience. This display was shocking, not for the content of what was said, but for who was saying it. For some students, they will never respect Dr. Howard as an intellectual for the poor performance at the Reichardt lecture hall.

Exploring Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacy. There are two words to this concept; logic and fallacy. Let us first define what those are using the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1983, because that is what I have on hand).

Logic: log-ic (loj′ik), n. 1. the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inferences. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness: the irresistible logic of facts.

Logical: (loj′i kəl), adj. 1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference. 2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person, the mind, etc.: a logical man; logical thinking. 3. reasonable; reasonably to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats. 4. of or pertaining to logic.

Fail: (fāl) 1. to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: The experiment failed. 2. to receive less than the passing grade or mark in an examination, class, or course of study: He failed in history. 3. to be or become deficient or lacking; fall short; be insufficient or absent: Our supplies failed.

Fallacious: fal-la-cious (fə lā′shəs) 1. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony. 2. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. 3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

Fallacy: (fal′ā sē), n., pl. -cies. 1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy. 2. a misleading or unsound argument. 3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness: the fallacy of our trust in such methods was soon apparent. 4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. 5. Obs. deception.

Now, put all that together into one phrase: logical fallacy. In my own words, it is a self-refuting statement. Here are some others:

http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy

* A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed, essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire argument, invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

• a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu

• Clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.
• A mistake in reasoning
• Logical fallacy is an incorrect conclusion derived from faulty reasoning. See also post hoc, ergo propter hoc and non sequitur.

So, now that we have reasonably established what a logical fallacy is, why is it a bad thing to use in an argument? Quite simply, if you use a logical fallacy to support an argument, you are using a weak foundation that fails and your argument has no logical foundation, no standing, no grounds, etc.; it only serves to discredit you and remove yourself from serious consideration on the topic. Logical fallacies ruin the one using them, and everyone else will just point and laugh-depending on the crowd, of course: most might just laugh. Because logical fallacies are failures of logic, you do not have to actually know the name of the specific logical fallacy being used in order to fall into their trap. It is, first and foremost, a failure of logic.

Here are some of the most common with definitions from all over the place:

Straw Man

• A misrepresentation of an opponent's position
• A fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

Reasoning:

• Person 1 has position A
• Person 2 doesn't agree in part or in full with position A, but then presents a superficially-similar position B.
• Person 2 attacks position B, declaring that position A is therefore false/incorrect/flawed.

Example: "Evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Example: "Evolution says everything came from nothing."

Ad Hominem

• Attacking the person rather than the argument.
• Using irrelevant personal distractions about the presenter to avoid the argument.

Reasoning:

• Person 1 makes claim X
• Person 2 says/creates something objectionable about Person 1
• Therefore claim X is false

Example: "You are fat, therefore you are wrong about the heliocentric model of the solar system."

Example: "You must be a Cheeto loving slob living in your mother's basement."

This argument is close to a Red Herring, which is another diversionary tactic.

Caution:

This fallacy does not mean people are free from being offended. The failure of logic is in attacking something personal rather than the argument because the physical condition of the presenter has nothing to do with the intellectual argument. This fallacy does not take effect unless an insult IS the intended refutation of the argument presented. If a logical argument is presented to refute the initial argument, this fallacy does not apply to any additional insults that are not part of the argument itself: that is called being rude or belligerent.

False Dichotomy / False Dilemma / Either-Or Fallacy

• Asserting there are only two answers to a question which, in fact, there are many more.

Reasoning:

• Person 1 makes a statement or question in which only alternative A or B is offered.
• Person 1 ignores solution C through Z.

This is also known as a Morton's Fork: a choice between two equally unpleasant options.

Fun fact: An opposite of Morton's Fork is the Buridan's Ass paradox.

Example: "If you are not with us, then you are against us."

Example: "Are you a Christian or an Atheist?"

Example: "If you dont follow Christ, then you believe everything came from nothing!"

Shifting the Burden of Proof

• Placing the responsibility for validating a position on the wrong party.

In debate, the one who makes the positive claim must validate their position. If someone states their position as fact, they must validate that position. A common misconception is that non-believers must validate their own argument before the believer is supposed to validate their argument. This is generally not the case for the main reason that non-belief in a god is not a factual statement of denial of a god, but a statement of opinion in the lack of belief of a god. It is also impossible to directly prove a negative statement. This goes to the very definition of "atheist" vs "theist.

If someone defines "atheist" as a denial of a specific god, then they must show a definition of "theist" to be a positive belief in that specific god the anti-statement denies. Such a relationship does not exist. If the non-believer makes a factual statement about the non-existence of a specific entity, THEN they have the burden of proof to validate their statement.

The most common position is: "God is real." This must be validated before it can be accepted as truthful. There has yet to be any irrefutable validation for any god(s)/system of gods yet to be presented for the last several thousand years over the many thousands of gods in human culture.

When a factual statement is presented, it is not the responsibility of the opponents of that statement to prove it is not factual. When such a statement is presented, those supporting the statement have the responsibility to prove it is true.

A common tactic from non-believers is to first get the believer to identify specific beliefs they have/rely on to be accurate representations of their religion. Once those specifics are identified, the debate/argument can proceed. Without specifics, there is little to no possibility of satisfactory debate. Religious statements and debates will often substitute words, like "God", to mean the accepted representation of which ever culture the debate happens to be in/about. In the USA, this is most often assumed to be the Christian god. As there are 30,000 some different sects/divisions of the Christian faith, specifics must be defined for rational debate.

Example:
"God is real."
"I don't believe in your god."
"You must prove God doesn't exist."

Example:
"You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he exists."

Example:
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster put monkeys in Neptune's core."
"I don't believe that."
"Prove the FSM didn't."

Argument from Authority / Appeal to Authority

• Asserting that an argument is true because another individual who is regarded as authoritative said so.

Reasoning:

• Person 1 says A is true.
• Person 1 is authoritative.
• Therefore, A is true.

This fallacy is used quite often. If someone makes a statement about a field of study or situation well outside of their own understanding or familiarity, their status in unrelated fields has no bearing on the validity on that statement. Clergy have little or no credibility on the subject of Evolution or Quantum Mechanics if they havn't actually studied it. Biologists have little or no credibility on theology if they havn't actually studied it. A seventeen year old minor who proclaims to be a "good Christian" is not an authority on Evolution. A fifty year old retired car salesmen is not an authority on Photolithography.

Biologists ARE an authority on biology. Clergy ARE an authority on their specific religion.

Example: "My parents said so, so it must be true."

Example: "My priest said it was true, therefore it must be true."

Example: "Pat Robertson said the Haiti earthquake was due to a deal with the devil by the Haitians, therefore it is true."

Argument from Popularity / Ad Populum

• Asserting that something is true because many, most, or all people appear to believe it is true.

Reasoning:

• Lots of people are doing it, therefore it must be good/true.

This is also known as: appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad numerum.

The old refutation of this kind of argument asks the person if they would join their fellows in jumping off of a cliff to fall to their death.

Another refutation is to ask the person what they would believe at a certain point in history, and place emphasis on the reason they would believe, knowing how absurd some of them are considered to be today. At one point in our history, we believed the world was flat but that didn't have anything to do with changing reality. We once believed demons caused illness, but again that didn't have anything to do with reality. The point is to ask the person if they would be a "sheep" and follow the crowd because everyone was flocking in a certain direction, or would they accept or follow something else based on intelligent reasons.

Example: "Most of the world believes in religion, therefore there must be a god."

Example: "Everyone else is doing it."

God of the Gaps / Argument from Ignorance

• An argument that asserts the divine hand of a god into a current gap of scientific knowledge.
• Asserting the lack of a mundane explanation must prove supernatural intervention.

Reasoning:

• Person 1 points to A and claims their god is responsible.
• Person 2 shows the naturalistic evidence that explains A.
• Person 1 points again to a specific aspect of A, claiming B is the work of their god.
• Person 2 shows the naturalistic evidence that explains B.
• Person 1 continues searching the gaps in modern science.

Reasoning:

• It cannot be shown that A is true
• Therefore A is not true

Similarly:

• It cannot be shown that A is NOT true
• Therefore A is true

This is most easily defeated by pointing out the obvious: just because there isn't a natural explanation does not prove there is no natural explanation.

This is related to the Moving the Goal Posts fallacy, in which the defender of a position continues to demand different or more complex answers in order to be satisfied. The problem with this is that the goal posts will continue to be moved: the statement or problem sets the person up to fail. This is most often recognized by someone asking for "transitional fossils" or asserting that the "missing link hasn't been found". This stance is most often intentionally dishonest because the real issue is about faith. Faith does not require evidence because it is, by definition, not required, and any evidence presented simply doesn't matter. This begs the question: why bother with what is obviously a rhetorical statement in the first place, then?

Example:

Gods were used to explain natural events, like lightening or earthquakes or rough seas. The phenomena that is responsible has been understood. Advocates of a god shift their "proof" to the fringe of our understanding every time a new scientific revelation is founded.

Consider:

Gods used to be titanic creatures roaming the world, influencing everything we see around us. Now, some will say the god(s) are the force that binds atoms together. The supposed power and observable influence of gods have continued to shrink through the centuries in correlation with our ability to understand more and more about our reality.

Circular Logic / Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question / Fallacy of Redundancy

• Stating that the consequence of a phenomena is also its cause.
• An argument that uses its conclusion as one of its premises

While not as common, there are individuals who use this kind of logic to support their belief in a god. See the second example.

Example:
"Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because..."

Example:
"Is there a God?"
"Yes."
"How do you know?"
"Because the Bible says so."
"How do you know the Bible is correct?"
"Because it was inspired by God."

Special Pleading

• Rejecting a premise or set of rules that would apply, without justification.
• Exception to generally accepted rules without justifying the exemption.

This comes close to a double standard, or the famous "just because" or "because I said so" excuse. This is a failure of logic because there is no reasonable justification for the resistance to the exemption that would normally be applicable.

Example:
"Everything must have a cause, and God was the initial first cause."
"What caused god?"
"God doesn't need a cause."

Cherry Picking / Quote Mining

• Citing or reporting specific data to support a claim which ignores a larger scope of the data that may refute that claim.
• Taking something out of context and making a false representation out of it.

This is a very deceptive and intellectually dishonest tactic that basically, and knowingly, lies in order to make an attempt at convincing someone else.

Example:
"Even Darwin admitted the eye was too complex in the first sentence of this paragraph!"
"Read the rest of the paragraph, and those that follow, and you will realize he says quite the opposite."

Argumentum Ad nauseam / Argument From Repetition / Argumentum Ad Infinitum

• Repeating the same thing over and over until the opponent gives up

No matter how many times someone repeats a statement, it does not have any relation to the factual nature of that statement.

Example:
Person 1 "God is real."
Person 2 "I dont see any evidence to support that claim."
Person 1 "God is real."
Person 2 "Can you prove it?"
Person 1 "God is real."



References:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

http://skepticwiki.org/

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Reason to Live

I've come by the question from believers (and non-believers too, probably) who ask about the purpose of life from someone who doesn't believe in life after death. I think I've finally articulated something that expresses my response to that kind of question. This was written and developed as I thought of it one day, and while it isn't proper English it does, hopefully, convey the depth of thought I was getting at:

Secular Response To The Purpose of Life Question

Is not unlike a pillar holding up a frame, a pillar of influence that holds the framework of our race.

Through our entire life, we have a sense of doing something important; of being someone of note, to leave our legacy to those who will follow.

We begin with a foundation; the early years in our lives of which the stones of our Pillar of Influence are carved from the mass of potential from our race. We are each restricted and bound in many ways to the types and limitations of those specific stones that we claim as our own, or of which have been set for us. Each stone represents a part of who we are: our sense of humor, tolerance, our will... everything that is us, is shaped and molded and finally placed at the empty spot that is to become our life, our Pillar of Influence.

As we live, we grow and rise in our environment from our foundation to something more. Each moment adds more and more onto our pillar, each moment adding to the history of what we were, what we have done, who we have influenced, and why we have done; each moment helps to plan for where we are going and how our pillar is shaping up. We rely on our foundation for guidance, but we have the potential to exceed and redefine how we build our pillar.

Dramatic events in our lives may change, alter, crack or even completely reshape our pillar. Dramatic events in the lives of others will also influence our own pillars, but never in quite the same way. Some pillars will never be influenced by our own pillars, but will influence our own quite profoundly. We will always be influenced by other pillars, for that is the very nature of our existence: for we are not solitary things, but things that grow when there are multitudes of us. We always see those pillars around us that we choose to see, and some that we don't even know are there, even if we do not want to see them.

When we stop growing, we end the creation of our history by our own efforts, but it is the legacy of our influence that we hope continues on in our place. Even if we no longer grow and influence by doing actions or speaking words, our influence, however small, adds to the history and to that which defines our race: our legacy of individual influence continues to shape that which will be. We are not one. We are many, and our strengths and weaknesses are reflected between ourselves over and over again, unbound by generation or any physical limitation.

We stand as one. We stand as many. We stand as a thing held and supported by that which has come before us. We stand as the inspiration and influence for that which comes after us. By the influence of those before us, we shape the future in front of us. We are nothing more and nothing less than the individual Pillars of Influence which support what we call humanity.



And thus I present my answer to that question: The Pillars of Influence.

Understanding the Prefix

Language and Concept

Language is an interesting thing. While we use it as a tool to convey complex thoughts like how to build something or go somewhere, it seems like it fails at some level to really and fully express abstract thoughts. When we look at something, there are dozens or hundreds of little aspects about that thing which we can draw upon to identify it and its role. When that identification is complete we associate that object and particular attributes with a word or label for future reference. These labels serve us very well, almost all the time, especially when dealing with objects.

We seem to have a communication problem with the more abstract things in our lives. Ask someone to explain their concept of self or creativity, and you might be stuck for a while. And then there are the problems with expressing emotion; "Words just aren't enough", or "words cannot express...", and the like. Philosophers have been playing with this for a very long time I would think, and it almost seems like we are hindered by our own slow and clumsy tool which is the primary one we use, frustratingly enough, for getting those concepts from one person to another.

I also note the irony in trying to talk about the problems and limitations of using language to describe abstract thoughts ... by... using.... language to convey these abstract thoughts. Quite amusing.

Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism

So how does that influence the topic of religion? Well, first off, the feeling theists try to hold up as validation for their continued belief: "feeling the Holy Spirit". How can anyone even try to express what that is when our language is clearly inadequate? Usually they don't, or will say you have to experience it yourself-and that holds true for anything, really: emotional states... like love, or depression or other extreme emotions. That tangent will have to wait. The problem with language and labels as it relates to religious topics can be addressed on a basic level.

The way we try to deal with the abstract concepts in language is to construct labels. When someone mentions that a particular person is very beautiful, we don't automatically start trying to gauge the person's aesthetic qualities to the standards of the commentator-we assess that beauty with our own concept of the label "beautiful". This seems to be one major problem with religious debates, at least on an "average Joe" level with the general public. Defining theism, atheism, agnosticism, and a few other key words (like theory vs scientific theory-another tangent for another time), creates an initial rift or gap between the different debating parties because everyone is using their own concept of the words. Bridging that gap will go a long ways in avoiding misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and probably saving a number of those parties from being frustrated with the other.

So let's examine the words and some of the common arguments I've seen used with them:

Theism - belief in the existence of a god. This is a positive statement-a label that affirms acceptance or agreement with what the label is assigned to: belief in god(s).

Atheism - disbelief in god(s). This is a negative statement against the primary label of "theism" because of the prefix "a". This means that the word is a label founded on the first word to which the prefix applies.

What is a prefix? A prefix is an affix which is placed before the stem or base of a word, which then modifies that word and creates a new meaning that is derived from that first word. The prefix does not make a completely different word that has no relation to the first word because that simply isn't how our language works. Some examples: the "un-" in unkind or "pre" in prefix. In those examples, the "un" means not, and expresses the opposite of "kind" which could also be replaced with other words and labels that are associated with being unkind, like "mean". With the word "prefix", the "pre" means before the affix, which will then modify the affix.

What is the problem?

Many theists claim that those who don't believe/accept their position of belief in a god, and who then call themselves atheists, are making a claim that the theist's god doesn't exist. Why are they taking this position? Primarily, I believe this is an intellectually dishonest tactic to try and force the non-believers into the position of having to validate "their claim", or shifting the Burden of Proof, so the theist doesn't have to validate anything themselves. This is called a Strawman logical fallacy. The theist is misrepresenting (intentionally or otherwise) the position of the other person and then attacking that misrepresentation to make a distraction from the point(s).

The reason this is a misrepresentation is because of what the prefix does to the word. The prefix "a" modifies the word to make a new meaning, but it doesn't have anything to do with making a claim against the base/stem word. Here are some examples:

Symmetrical vs Asymmetrical

The prefix "a" does not imply the non-existence of symmetry, it describes the opposite, or state of being "not", of the affix: symmetrical.

Moral vs Amoral

When someone is described as amoral they are "without" morals, and not claiming that morals somehow don't exist.

There are many other examples to demonstrate this relationship, but that should do. Validation comes from the origins of the word itself; the Greek prefix "a" means "without". With regards to the base/stem word "theism", the prefix "a" modifies that word to mean "without god" or "not believing".

The word "theist" breaks down to "theo" (meaning "god") and "ist" (suffix that means "one who practices").

The word "atheist" breaks down to "a" (meaning "without") and "theist" (one who practices/follows a belief in a god or gods).

Theism/Atheism vs Gnostic/Agnostic

Another misconception about these labels is a basic understanding of what they actually represent in a position. Theism and atheism are statements of belief, not affirming knowledge of one thing or another. gnostic and agnostic are statements regarding knowledge. Most people will recognize that their religious or non-religious position is a combination of both of these statements: a gnostic theist affirms that they believe in their god because they know it is real, while an agnostic theist would say they believe the proposition of a god is true but do not claim they know it for sure. The agnostic atheist does not believe in gods, but allows for the possibility of such entities, while the gnostic atheist doesn't believe in such things and further affirms that they do not exist.

Richard Dawkins expanded this concept a little more in his book The God Delusion by making a numerical scale of seven. The first being a "Strong Theist " who knows gods exist, fourth being a "pure Agnostic", and seven being "Strong Atheist" that affirms with 100% certainty that gods do not exist.

Regardless of which position is taken, there must be a statement of opinion/affiliation, and to what degree to form a foundation for any debate or argument. For that, we have two labels for each aspect (belief and knowledge) that defines the person's identity.

Conclusion

Every time someone says atheists must validate their position, or asks how atheism can be true/proven, they are either mistaken or deliberately trying to use fallacious logic to deflect/distract the argument.

One great example is a notorious YouTube user by the name of "ShockOfGod". He has a question he always asks: "What is your proof that Atheism is accurate and correct?". This is the kind of thing that promotes intellectual dishonesty and it spreads like cancer among a people who are used to not questioning or validating anything. Belief or non-belief in something is a statement of opinion, not a statement of knowledge-which means proving an opinion is a meaningless and impossible proposition. That question needs to be addressed to the individuals who claim gods do not exist because they are actually making a positive claim that requires validation.

As with any other hot topic of "our day", which ever generation/culture/location that may be, understanding one's position is a combination of belief and knowledge statements. Once there is an understanding by all parties, the discussion can be all the more productive.

Defining The Question

I first created my youtube account name, ThatOneQuestion, with a purpose. I didn't really have a good way to express that reason, really, and didn't bother with it until I decided to try and make a "video intro" that explained a little bit about that. So, I've only recently articulated that question into something more meaningful and thought provoking, but I think it does a great job.

"The concept of our world view is founded on the answer we define for one question: What is religion?"

I believe that when you answer that question you will have a deeper understanding of your own concept of religion. That may or may not help you with what you currently believe, but at the very least, that will help you define yourself.

If you find that religion is some kind of truth about reality, then it will take you down a certain group of explanatory terms to define reality.

If you find that religion is something like a psychological aspect to human nature, then that conclusion will similarly guide you down specific paths.

Introductions

Hello! I've started this blog as a tool for myself to share, examine, and save inspired and detailed discussions and topics for myself in the general category of religion.

I've spent most of the last three years of my religious exploration on youtube-but before you roll your eyes or facepalm yourself, think about it for a moment. Youtube is a global communication tool that connects billions of people in one common point of reference. Just one quick search, and you can find thousands and even millions of people who actually share the same ideas, tastes, desires, etc, that you do. That is something local communities can not offer.

Communication is very important. Its even more important in broadening your own experiences and understanding of things. And as I am expanding into another facet of global communication to "put myself out there" as it were, I am looking forward to seeing what all it can do for my growth as a person and as someone with a few things to say on what I find important.

Personal Story - As It Relates To The Topic

The most significant aspect of my life that has defined who I am, when it comes to religion, is the early passing of my father. As I have very few memories of the man who was my father, I have had to rely on what I have been told. This has presented an interesting problem for me in how to relate to others who have both parents and how that influences their development, but thankfully I've usually had a male father figure around most of the time (grandfather and uncle).

I have been told that my father was devoutly religious. He would read from his particular Christian Bible every morning. I do have early fragmented and fuzzy memories of what I think is Catholic church mass on Sundays, doughnut social events afterwords, but not a great deal more. My father's cancer claimed his life just around the time when the important religious questions should have started to come up. Given the very strong religious conviction of my father, I often wonder how I would view the world now had I been guided by his words. Would I still have rejected the notion of a supreme being? Would I still desire to learn about science, or would I spit on it as "blasphemy" like a fundamentalist and close my mind?

My mother was not as devout as my father, but, from what I can remember, still stands firmly in her beliefs of a divine being. I do get the sense that she, like many moderates I have come to be familiar with, do not accept or even like organize religion. That, however, does not sway her (nor should it) in the reasons she has to or not to believe what she does. While not seemingly religoius at all, a better term to describe my mother would be "spiritual" (and yes, as labels go, this is still fairly useless because it is far too vague-and there is much to be said about social labels some other time). As the calm and cool intellectual influence on my life, I have her to thank for what she has had to teach me.

My brother and I seem to have shared our view of the world since I can remember. Oddly, or not so oddly, the question of religious affiliation never really presented itself to our family because of my father's cancer. That was the focus of our lives for a long time, and thing like religion took a back seat to more practical concerns. In recent years, my brother share occasional jokes about the silly things religious fundamentals tend to do and say.

My uncle and aunt, whom I lived with for a number of years, seemed to have also kept religion at a fair distance. It is because of this continued benign influence from the religious world that has left me to explore it on my own. That freedom has lead me to develop my own concepts of a world view in peace, without harassment and indoctrination from "the home".

So Where Does That Leave Me?

While willing to entertain and seriously consider claims (at least the first time around) in favor of such things, I dont believe gods exist. Through everything that I have read, seen, heard, and experienced, I think the best explanations for religion can be described by human psychology. Intellectual tools, such as defining logical fallacies, have helped me specifically identify why certain aspects of religion have failed to convince me.

The most important thing to me is intellectual honesty. Making claims about one thing or another is perfectly fine, but what matters are the reasons you make those claims; the underlying foundation to a claim will determine everything else about it. In a word: evidence.



I think this should do for a quick introduction. I will enjoy writing more, and I have a great deal to "put out there", if only to read it back to myself and develop those ideas even further. If it can spark some good debate/arguments/flamewars, hey, all the better. Hopefully I can entertain some of you, and intellectually challenge others!