Rational Response- Why are There Still Monkeys?

I have been inundated with ridiculous responses to my writings lately and decided that I needed to have my say about this "argument".

"If Evolution is true, then why are there still Monkeys?"

This is the second most common argument against Evolution (the first being a fundemental misunderstanding of the word "theory") and I can't sit idly by and listen to it any more.

ARGH!!!!

I just needed to get that out of my system.  Now on to the article...

First let me comment on the logical fallacy in the very question. 

This is a classic Argument from Ignorance (I will cover this in the next Logic-101 series) where someone doesn't know the answer to a question, or a claim doesn't make sense to him and they feel that is enough reason to dismiss the scientific model. 

This is clearly untrue.  It is not something based in a positive knowledge of how the model fails, but based on a persons inductive reasoning not being able to reconcile the model with his experience and knowledge.

This is not how we determine scientific knowledge.

Huh?  It's how I do it!

 We determine it by attempting to debunk it through real and contrary evidence, we test it, we observe the results, we ensure that those results are common by repeating the tests and ensuring the same results every time, and we ensure that those tests produce predictable results.

That is called the Scientific Method folks.

But on to the explaination.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that we didn't evolve from "apes", we evolved from what is called a common ancestor.  This common ancestor would not be recognizable as a modern ape.

They might look more like this...

The next thing to understand is that evolution is a conditional process based on the variations in a population.  That variation is predicated on what attributes of that being help it to survive long enough (in it's specific environment) to have offspring. 

Different populations, and different environments will not have the same variations as both the gene pool and the requirements of the environment will be different (as will it's genetic drift).

Over large periods of time these populations go their seperate ways along the evolutionary path based on the reproductive success of the variations specific to their population.  These variations only produce very minor changes that are practically impossible to see in short periods of time, but over very large periods of time they will produce a population that would no longer be similar enough to the other groups to be able to inter-breed. 

BINGO- Humans and Chimps via Speciation!

TA DAH!!

This is a very short and very basic explanation, which is by no means comprehensive but I hope that you get the basic idea.

The common ancestor of my example doesn't even have to die out.  It could have (but didn't) survive if one group was well adapted to its environment and another developed to be well suited to a different one.  Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

I don't want to get any further into it, as I will end up muddling the explanation.

But I hope that you have gained a very basic understanding of this very common quesion.

I'm still confused...

Rational Response- Vicarious Redemption

This month's "Rational Response" is a rejoinder to the morality claim of Christ supposedly dying for our sins (if there really is such a thing).


It is an oft heard appeal for us to obey God becuase he gave up his only begotten son, or because Jesus sacrificed so much for us.

But is this a moral teaching?

Is this really a good reason to bow down to a being (real or not)?

And finally does this story display God's (and therefor Jesus') good and loving nature?
These are only a few of the questions that we have to ask ourselves when thinking about this.

For me, I have always had a hard time listening to this story (even while I was a Christian) for a few reasons;


1. What did he actually "sacrifice"? He is an aspect of god, and as such the mythology tells us that he can't die. The only thing that "died" was his mortal skin that he adorned in order to appear human. Sure he was in pain, but was it a sacrifice? His suffering was over in a mere 3 days (not all that long in the grand scheme of an infinite life) and he rose to be the ruler of the universe. Sounds more like a hazing ritual for a promotion than a sacrifice.

2. Did he die for US? He died because the other part of himself (we won't get into that bit of irrational nonsense here) decided that he needed blood entertainment in order to forgive his creations. Not just any blood would sate his wrath, but the blood and torture of his son. There was no choice. He wasn't told that we would suffer unless he took our place, nor did he plead for us not to be tortured in such a way. He just went along with God's decision to kill him. He chose that method of forgiveness. He could have chosen
anything, but he chose torture and blood. So he was just participating in a play of his own writing. There was no outside agency that was going to harm us if he didn't act. It was his choice, so there really is no component of heroism here.

3. Is it a moral teaching? NO! It is exactly the opposite for many reasons. It espouses the idea of vicarious redemption and that is about as lazy and immoral an idea as they come. You are no longer called to be responsible for your own crimes, because someone else will pay for them in your stead. Where is the
concept of personal responsibility, the very ideal upon which morality is based?

4. Does this show God's mercy and goodness? This is the crux of the argument for me. As I said before, there is no outside agency coming to hurt those whom Jesus loves. So there is nothing requiring him to stand before us to save us from the pain of whatever punishment we have coming. There is only him, and he makes the rules. He decided that we were immoral, he decided that the only way that he wanted to forgive us was to torture and kill someone, and he decided that someone would be his son. That is like getting robbed, and then in order to forgive the thief, stabbing your own mother in the face saying "that feels better, I can forgive you for robbing me now. Want to come back to my place for beers?".

(Don't worry my mother is tough, she'll only spend 3 days in the hospital).

I can't imagine the robber extolling your moral fiber to his robber buddies. He wouldn't be saying "His mother got stabbed so that I could be forgiven, what a great gal!". He would be saying "What a crazy bastard! He did give me beers though, and never stabbed me even once, so I guess all's well that ends well.... But let's not cross this crazy guy again, OK?"

I find the teaching of vicarious redemption and the cross to be morally reprehensible and intellectually impossible. Can we actually pass on our own responsibility to others for our wrongdoings?  The very concept of moral absolution degrades our morality as it deprives us of the opportunity to discover ethical values, and relieves us of the intellectual and societal responsibility to do so.  Thomas Paine once said that we can take on another man's debt, or even his place in prison, but we can never take on their crimes as though they were our own. That is an impossible action that would rob him of individual culpability for his actions and his responsibility to others and thus rob him of his morality as well.

So do we really think that you can take on another person's crimes as though they were your own?

Would we even want to live in a society where you could?

Rational Response- Governor Bentley

Separation of church and state.


Let that sentiment sink in for a minute…


Separation of church and state.

What does this term mean to you? It can bring forward some pretty intense feelings on both sides of the argument but, just to be clear, let’s outline what it means.

It means to have a secular government that is concerned with the rights and concerns of all individuals and groups regardless of their creed or culture, while not espousing the beliefs and concerns of only one thereby setting that belief on a higher level of importance.

It means to have a government that does not endorse one religion over another as its official religion or as the core of its value system.

It means to have a government that doesn’t “de facto” exclude a portion of its population by supporting as official doctrine a religion that is contrary to many of the segments of its populous.

NOT separating religion and politics violates freedom OF religion because it inevitably supports one over another and relegates other religions to second class citizen status.
Leaving your religion at home in politics is MOST important because it protects everyone.

It PROTECTS religion and everyone’s right to observe their own beliefs within the confines of the law of the land.

The point is that for a government official to purposefully exclude or single out one (or a few) segments of his constituency as unworthy by his religious standards is not only unethical since it was (at least partially) those same people who got him elected, but it is a violation of the principles that many modern nations were founded upon.

Enter Alabama Governor Robert Bentley

I represent you all equally, even more equally if you love Jesus!

In his inaugural speech he said all the right things and displayed all the traits that got him elected in the first place.

He said very clearly that he wanted to be a leader who represented every single one of his constituents as fully as any other.

"(I am) Governor of all of Alabama; Democrat, Republican and Independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor."

Sounds great! It has been far too long in political discourse that a politician has come along who wants to forget the partisan divide and represent everyone equally.

So where is the problem?

The problem began only a few hours later when he was reported by the Birmingham News to have said-

“If you're a Christian and you're saved, it makes you and me brother and sister," and "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters, So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

And now we have entered into the realm of the politically unethical. Gov Bentley has raised some eyebrows with these remarks and rightly so.

Certainly the religious organisations were outraged by his singular display of kinship with only one portion of the population and his dismissal of all others. He tries to maintain the high road by expressing how much he desires those who are not his “brothers” to become so.

How can they do so? He is very clear that the only way that he will accept all others as his “brothers and sisters” is if they betray all of their deeply held beliefs and join his, one true religion.


TERRIBLE!!


How can a politician, in all good conscience, betray a large portion of the people who trust him to represent their interests fairly by telling them, in one breath, that he will treat ALL Alabamans equally and then in the next that he feels a special kinship with only a certain portion?

How can he reject all Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Sikhs, Pagans, and everyone else by telling them that he will only fully accept them if they agree with HIS ideology?

The answer is because he doesn’t care about those groups. He has fallen prey to that failure in moral imagination that allows him to forget how people will be offended by being told that they are not good enough.

Now I will say this;

He may actually be able to fairly represent those that he feels are not his “brothers and sisters” but, after being so summarily dismissed, how can anyone who is NOT of this family ever trust that he even wants to?

Are you SURE that I am welcome here?

A message to the Governor-

Sir, you are the representative of a large body of people whose beliefs are varied and far reaching. You have also taken on the responsibility to be guardian to them ALL equally. Not just to represent their interests equally but to always carry the appearance of recognizing their equality.

You violate these principles by publicly identifying your favourites.

You violate the principles of your office by bringing religion into the public forum, and you display for everyone how little you understand the concept of the separation of church and state.

Freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion.

If you can’t understand how this best protects everyone, atheists and theists alike, or even why it is important to appear to have everyone’s interest at heart equally and to keep your religion to yourself, then I am afraid that you have taken on an office that you don’t deserve.

This should concern everyone, most of all you.

You owe the people of Alabama an apology and you owe your own office and position far more respect than you have shown it thus far in your very early gubernatorial life.

Peace



Edit- He has since apologized for his remarks.  Is this a case of too little too late or has he already revealed himself?

Rational Response- "Freedom From Religion"

In my last article I wrote that referred to a public freedom from religion, in order to enable a true freedom OF religion with respect to the term "Merry Christmas".

I received a lot of critical and sometimes hateful comments about how I was trying to deny people their beliefs, and how it was intolerant to take people's religion away from them or how it was the "PC movement taken too far". 

This is a clear misunderstanding of the term "Freedom From Religion"

So this month's "Rational Response" will deal with this term, what it means for everyone, and how it is the only way to allow the most freedom for everyone to practice their own religion without interference.

In its most simple terms, no one has a true freedom OF religion if they are required to adhere to the dictates, terms, and/or practices of another religion or even if they are required to "respect" them.

In removing all religious influences from official public discourse we allow people to practice their religious beliefs unfettered (except sometimes where those practices break pre-existing laws) and to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. 

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Let's say that you want prayer in schools.  If the government allows this for one religion, then it must allow it for all religions.

You might be OK with the Jewish child (I will forget, for the moment, about the immorality of labelling a child with the religion of its parents) praying beside your child.  That is most likely because it is the same God, very similar beliefs and a related religion to your own, but what happens when the child is from satanic parents?

Are you still OK with that child praying out loud beside your own? 

Likely not, because it violates the precepts of your own beliefs. 

What about handing out religious pamphlets to children at Hallowe'en?

It's ok, as long as they are from religions that agree or are congruous with your own, but what happens when a Wiccan starts handing out pamphlets detailing moon rituals?

Still OK?

Likely not, because that goes against your Christian morality.

How about the Muslim who wants to bless the town hall meeting for everyone with a prayer facing Mecca?

Still OK?

Likely not, because you would feel your religious freedom was infringed upon by being made to pray in a manner that is diametrically opposed to your beliefs.

What about public funding of Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Druidic, and Satanic school boards?

That OK?

Most people would say no because some of those religions stand in direct opposition to their own.

What if a law was passed allowing nudity in public on solstice days?

Starting to see the big picture?

This is the issue.  The only way to truly have freedom OF religion is to have a public freedom FROM religion. 

Remove it from public policy altogether and make it a private issue.

It is only this separation of church and state that can allow the unopposed practice of an individual's religion without encountering the influence of other opposing religions.  In order to be free to act as our concience urges us to, we must be free of laws sanctioning and condoning the adherence to ANY religious dogma.

We like to file this thinking under "Political Correctness" but that is because the majority likes to think that it has the monopoly on the "one true religion" and respecting other religions is merely a matter of an uneasy tolerance of their existence as long as it doesn't interfere with their own.

People of one religion voluntarily accept the doctrines or standards of their own religion and they don’t expect to experience conflicts with government edicts or endorsement.

This is a failure of moral imagination:

These people are unable to imagine themselves in the shoes of those in religious minorities who DON'T voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through governmental endorsement of religious concepts.


The fact of the matter is that even the majority can't be free to practice as they choose as long as religion is a matter of public concern.  It will always run into conflict with the beliefs of others through the problem of government sponsorship.

If you want to have full freedom to practice your religion, then keep it at home. 

Others will do the same, and then the chances of having your religious "rights" infringed upon by another religion are minimized.

No one is pushing for a total removal of religion within the confines of "Freedom From Religion", only for a removal of it in public discourse, lawmaking, and governmental policy.

No one is calling for churches to be torn down, nor for well wishes (like "Merry Christmas") to be eliminated, or even for bumper stickers to be outlawed, just a public separation from the official endorsement of, and adherence to religious dictates.

This way everyone can believe whatever foolishness they want, and not have to complain about how someone else's foolishness got in the way of your own.

Religion is like genitalia:

It's OK to have it,
Its even OK to be proud of it,
Just keep it to yourself, and out of the faces of our children.

No one says you can't HAVE genitals, just that you can't expect public approval when you pop it out and ask others to "respect" it.

You have to remember, that other people may not share your views on genitals and they wouldn't appreciate any law that would allow you to let it hang wherever you please!

Make sense?

It's the same with religion.

Separation is the only way to stand for the rights of everyone and to get the freedom that we all want, and that we all deserve.


I will leave you with this thought about standing up for EVERYONE'S religious rights.


They came first for the communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me (a Christian pastor)
                         and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Martin Niemoller

*Picture is of Bono and it is called "Coexist"

Rational Response- Evolution and the 2nd Law

A very common argument against evolution is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.  Now I don't want to conflate evolution with atheism, because atheism has nothing to do with evolution.  There are many theists who accept evolution just as it is possible to be an atheist and not accept it. Many creationists try to do equate one with the other though and argue against evolution and then cry to the stars that they have defeated the atheists and evolutionists.

So lets put this one to bed while trying not to overstep my laymans boundaries in the process.

I am going to start to respond to some of the false assertions that Creationists make about science and evolution in particular.

This one goes- "Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything goes from order to increased chaos or entropy, evolution must be false as it goes from chaos to a more ordered state.  This is impossible, and clearly goes against the 2nd law."

Let me just say first that I am incredulous that creationists would attempt to use solid science to disprove something when it is science that they have an issue with.  Science is OK when it seems to serves your agenda?  Hypocrisy.

In any case...

This argument fails from the beginning.  The 2nd law states that entropy which is not in equilibrium increases over time in an isolated system.    How does this differ from the creationist claim?

One phrase....

"Isolated system"

Evolution is not an isolated or closed system.  Energy is injected from outside systems in many ways.  Even sunlight adds energy to that system.  If there is even one source of energy that is not from that closed or cyclical system then their argument fails.

Sunlight
Food
Water
All of these are sources of energy that come from outside the human body, but yet there is more.

The next point is that it is a societal shift in the species and not an individual change per se.  Since evolution doesn't happen at an individual level, there are many individual systems to consider and therefor each single system wouldn't relate to another as far as the 2nd law is concerned.

Evolution is driven by the survival of individuals in a species that share an environment.  Eventually, if a random mutation happens (that assists in the passage of the allele by giving that individual a survival advantage) frequently enough, more and more of this mutation will appear in that society.  As that mutation helps each individual to survive, individuals with that mutation appear more and more frequently until it becomes the norm and the species no longer resembles what it once was.

This is speciation.

It is a process driven by a multitude of systems.  None of them closed.  So if no one single organisms "systems" can have an direct effect on the process, and the whole of the process encompasses not only open systems, but a multitude of open systems, then the 2nd law is left inviolate.

I hope that I have made it reasonably clear, from a layman's perspective, how the theory of evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I am not claiming to be an expert by any means, but it is pretty obvious that this argument is based on a fallacy, possibly even a lie since it is so clearly false.  

Please Creationists....I am not asking you to change your beliefs (because of this anyway) but I AM asking you to stop using false arguments against things that seem to contradict your dogma.

Science is how we progress and it is important to humanity at large.  I am not saying that you should accept it without thinking, but I AM saying that you should stop fighting it to the point of blinding yourselves to the consequences of confirmation bias.

You hurt yourselves
You hurt your children
You hurt our schools
and you hurt progress in our society.

Find a new battleground.  Preferably one that is supported by evidence.

When you find that battleground, then lets talk.


Peace

Rational Response of the Week- July 19, 2010

This week’s rational response will tackle another common theist accusation.

That atheism is a religion.

This is patently wrong, and on more than one level.

It fails as an argument first, and as truth second.

As an argument it is used to discredit atheists from taking a neutral position on theism. It is the “But you are the same as us” argument.

Not a very convincing statement, as it almost appears to concede the harms of religion but disallows you to comment on them, because of your investment in another religion (Atheism).

Not useful to either side really as it doesn’t address the issues, it only throws out straw-man arguments to distract from them.
It accuses us of dogmatic behaviour so as to excuse their own.

So it fails because it refuses to address the concerns head on.

The second level is the level of truth in the accusation.

Is atheism a religion?
Free Online Dictionary/Dictionary.com -Religion; (def) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

In order to be considered a religion you have to have three things;

Common Dogma
Common Doctrine
Common Practices

Can anyone name anything that all atheists have in common?

Is there anything that would preclude an atheist from identifying himself as an atheist other than his rejection of the theist claim?

No.

Nothing.

I would love to claim that all atheists believe in the power of science, but that isn’t true.
There is even a group called atheists against evolution.

Or that atheists all “worship” reason and skepticism.

But, this would be a false claim. Many atheists fall prey to such snake oil sales tactics of homeopaths and other false “holistic” medicines.

Or even that all atheists eschew dogmatic thinking, because as much as I would love this to be true, it simply isn’t. Nationalism has brought dogma into many an atheist’s life.

You don’t even need to believe there is no god to be an atheist (although the evidence would certainly suggest this).

All you have to be is unconvinced.

Atheism is a religion?

Hardly

There is no atheistic dogma, no doctrine that we must observe, no common belief system, and no institutionalized “atheist” morality.

In fact I would challenge you to find a single common thread between us other than our universal dismissal and unconvinced attitude towards your god claim.

Anyone?

No?

Well lets consider that one settled then.

Rational Response of the Week-15 June 2010

Here is my week’s rational response to a common Christian meme.

“God can’t be understood intellectually, only spiritually”

Or here is another permutation of that statement;

“You can’t use physical evidence to prove god, only spiritual evidence”


I have had recent encounters with theists who use this (along with many others) as a way to escape the burden of proof that is on the shoulders of every person making any claim. They use it as a way to show how they shouldn’t be expected to have evidence, and they leave it at that. With no evidence for THAT claim either.

What exactly IS spiritual evidence?

Is it anecdotal? Because you experience something, the explanation that you ascribe to that experience must be real?

It is pretty clear why that argument can’t be held as absolute truth.
Our experiences are affected in many ways, and sometimes they alter our perceptions of things in such a way as to affect the information that lends itself to our beliefs.
This creates a vulnerability to false beliefs.

“Elvis is alive”
“I was abducted by aliens”
“I saw a ghost in my room”
“I am the reincarnation of Napoleon”

These are all claims that we could all agree are based on misinformation of some sort. They are very often created by experiences that we misinterpret. Circumstance is also important when considering the level of delusion that we can enter into. So are mental state, emotional wellness and social factors as well.

These factors can be ignored if we just inject one more….

Commonality

It is easy to ascribe fantastical explanations to certain experiences when we are in the company of those who will verify your belief by not responding with incredulity but with acceptance and relief that you see “it” too.

As comforting as that might be to accept, if the explanation doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, or if your explanation defies the laws of everything that we know about reality, you should rethink your conclusion.

There is a saying;

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

Doesn’t stand up to examination?
Then it’s back to the drawing board, just like any other claim or hypothesis.

Do you not even allow the possibility that your experiences could mean something else?
That is called confirmation bias.

Do you really think that you can develop theories on the nature of reality based solely on personal experiences and with absolutely no collaborating evidence in a universe so large?

Or do you believe that the commonality of your experience with others lends it enough credence to allow your claims to contradict all of known science?
That is called an argument from popularity, and it is just as false. Many people once believed the earth was flat too.


If it isn’t anecdotal, then is it perhaps there IS a spiritual plane in which things can dwell outside what we see as reality.

Can this explain things?

Not really.

If something exists in reality, then it manifests in reality, if it manifests in any way then it can be observed and studied.

If something doesn’t manifest in reality, then it is either irrelevant (because it can’t affect us until it DOES manifest) or it is non existent. I have heard the answer to that, and it is even less satisfying.

“He only manifests in the hearts of his believers”

Not only would that STILL be a manifestation, but it is a cop out. It is akin to saying “You can only see this dragon if you believe he is there BEFORE you have any reason to do so.”

He exists as a manifestation of belief?

This explanation means that he is either a CREATION of our belief (and therefore us), or that he is simply a figment of the imagination of belief.

In the end it doesn’t matter where you say he manifests. You have to have a reason for believing.

If you don’t have a reason to believe, then that belief is just baseless superstition.

That is what we are looking for when we ask for evidence.

Something that will stand up as a reason to believe.

Something that will point directly at the existence of a creator being.

Something that is grounded in reality, and not just pretence of knowledge about something that you don’t understand.

We are open to hear your reasons, and to consider them in the interest of intellectual honesty.

If you don’t give any, then you can be comforted by knowing that you deserve all the ridicule that you get for making baseless and undefended claims.
If you don’t give any, then you can be comforted by knowing that you have entered into the realm of belief where Elvis sightings are regular, unicorns run the landscape, and you (or your friend) may just be the reincarnation of Napoleon.

People may laugh, and they might be right to do so.

Get it?

So let’s try again;

Evidence……

Got some?