Chariots of Iron

Disaster continues for this fine nation I live in and the forces of the “christian right” (as opposed to the respectable right, the fiscal conservatives) are galvanizing and pushing their religious agenda harder than ever. Shortly after becoming absolutely incensed over Bill-O the clowns remarks concerning the Atheist sign in Washington state (which has now gone missing). We’ve got this revisionist historian airing his opinions in the Miami-Herald.

read more »

Today has been one of ups and downs and it’s not even noon yet. As every morning goes for me I check the blogs of fellow humanists and skeptics, as well as giving a glance over to the dozen or so science news feeds delivered straight to my iGoogle homepage. Today I spot this lovely post on PZ Myers blog, as well as this little gem on yahoo news. The latter is just one of those, “SCIENCE! It works, bitches!” moments that makes me marvel in the achievements achieved in the human pursuit of the workings of the universe. The first though is just another example of a disturbing trend going on in the editorial sections of the nations newspapers and magazines and reflected nightly in the pundit and other “talking heads” programs on cable television. That is “atheists are the cause of just about every horrible thing going on right now”.

Let’s face it folks, Atheism, for what it’s worth, is very “in vogue” at the moment. It is the topic of bestsellers, it is on the cable news shows (usually given a token “few words” in between some outspoken theist’s inane rambling) and, of course, all over the internet. While the Charioteers here are all long-time atheists we’re just jumping on the bandwagon of internet atheist activism, popularized by the aforementioned PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, The Infidel Guy, the Atheist Experience/Non-Prophets, and dozens of others. Atheist videos, and those by more liberal theists, refuting biblical literalism or the problems with god arguments are some of the more popular offerings on YouTube. In a sense, we here at Chariots of Iron are standing on the shoulders of giants (giants we’ve been standing next to, silently, for years).

We are part of a growing wave of atheists, vocal and proud who want our views to share an equal place in the national spotlight as those of theistic organizations. The big issue is, of course that atheism says very little about a persons stance on any issues other than the existence of a deity, thus we’re not a “camp”. I think the one thing most atheists can agree on is that they don’t want to see a public policy based solely on a religious text telling us it is right or wrong. It is not much, but at least it is something. However it hardly warrants the level of reaction coming from the other side, there has to be more to it than that.

For a long time theism, especially in the USA, has had a free ride. Their beliefs not held up to examination and held “sacred” even by those who did not follow them. However it is in this writer’s opinion that one thing changed all that. That thing folks, is the internet. For a long time priests and preachers have been a huge repository of religious information and people could easily be isolated from competing religious views. People would most often only associate with members of their own congregation in social gatherings and the information about their faith was carefully dispensed by the religious leaders. The internet makes keeping people ignorant a nearly impossible task. No longer does a curious individual need to go out of thier way in order to find opposing viewpoints. A theist website could get “pharyngulated” and all of a sudden a once insular community is inundated with opposing viewpoints. While many will reject them out of hand, some will become engaged, and of those some others may also become convinced.

The conversions and “deconversions” to and from atheism happen all the time, we hear about them and both sides like to prop them up as examples. There is a propaganda war going on between the new atheist movement and the established theistic juggernauts. The only thing the atheists have going for them are the facts. The theistic organizations know that demonstrable reality stands in opposition to their teachings so they have pulled out the lowest card they could possibly attempt to play, attempts to change the facts.

Lamar called me up last night, he and a friend had just finished watching one of the most deceptive and despicable pieces of motion picture dreck ever to crawl out of a camera and onto the screen, that is the Ben Stein delusion that is “Expelled”. I personally have not watched the whole thing beginning-to-end. I don’t think I’m capable of doing so, my propensity to shout at the screen, bouts of nausea and constant hair-pulling would make such a task nearly impossible. I think I have seen the whole movie though, in clips and excerpts, thankfully with some kind scientists pointing out the errors of the film along the way for me. The film is probably the biggest swing in the theist arguments against science and atheism. Yes, I said science, this is not just a war on atheism, but a war on science itself.

The theists are taking a Rovian “kitchen sink” approach to attacking atheism, that is throwing everything they can at atheism and seeing what sticks. The most common, and most despicable of this is blaming the horrid actions of Hitler, Stalin to their atheism.

There’s a couple of big problems with this, of course, the first being that Hitler wasn’t an atheist, his actions against the Jewish people were taken directly from his personal interpretation of scripture. This aside they will attempt to pin the eugenics programs of the Third Reich to evolution, and specifically to Darwin. Once again we run into a major problem. The idea of evolution had been around long before Darwin and his theory, animal breeders were using such methods for thousands of years prior to Darwin’s theory. As a matter of fact what Darwin’s theory proposes (and has held up to a century and a half of scrutiny and attack) is that natural competition for survival could produce the same type of results (and even more extreme results given enough time) that breeders produced artificially. While, On the origin of Species was (and still is) a widely popular book that injected these thoughts into the mainstream conciousness and thus inspired such horrid ideas as both eugenics and “social darwinism”, both these phenomenons are quite removed from Darwin’s theory. The truth of the matter is that Hitler himself rejected Darwin’s theory and was a avowed creationist.

Stalin was a horrible man, driven by a lust for power and control. Theist and atheist alike are not immune to the corruption that comes with power. Stalin’s murderous rampage was based on many factors many the struggle attempting to being the farmlands into collective control and the elimination of political rivals. Now, there are some killings of clergy in the Soviet Union, however historians agree that those churches in the soviet union were subject to forced destruction were also those that were critical of the Communist Party. In fact in 1943 Stalin came to an agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church which established it as the official church of the state. This was a great boon to the ROS who used its new influence within the party to help remove rival teachings.

For more on hitler and staling I’m going to reccomend a great book, that is Dr. Hector Avalos’ Fighting Words. I’ll also encourace you to keep listening to our podacst as we’ll be covering these topics in depth in future episodes.

So lately i’ve been going back and watching many old debates (mostly featuring two of my favorite people Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens) on the existence of god. More and more I find that the theologians who debate fall back on some common apologetic arguments, and ones that I feel are complete and total bunk. While much of this information may come out on the show I thought I’d give a brief on each of them and tell the readers why i personally feel these arguments are fundamentally flawed. These are my personal stances on these arguments and do not necessarily represent the views of my fellow charioteers, although if they’re willing and have the time I’d love for them to join in and have them post their takes on each of these arguments. The short summaries of these arguments are taken from wikipedia

• Cosmological argument – Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various ancillary arguments from science are often offered to support the cosmological argument.

The age old question “Why is there something, instead of nothing?”. The answer to this one is pretty basic, if there was nothing, we would not be here to ask why is there nothing. This argument is ridiculous on it’s face and it’s support usually falls into a “god of the gaps” argument with the theologian assuming that since science does not have an answer (yet), then the answer must be god.

• Teleological argument (argument from design) – Argues that there is an intricate design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer.

Another classic, and the refutation can be as simple as for the Cosmological argument. But I’ll give this one a little more credit than that, it’s a very interesting proposition. The scientific hypothesis on this one is an interesting one, a multiverse theory where alternate universes exist in which all of the possible “settings” for the physical laws are represented. But once again, I say If the laws of the universe were different enough that formation of life was not possible then we wouldn’t be here to ask such a question. The basis of this argument has gained some momentum as computer simulations have apparently been run where these laws are modified and it seems that the tolerances are extremely low when it comes to fiddling with the universal constants and getting anything we recognize as our present universe.

• Ontological argument – Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.

More patently ridiculous, I can conceive of a wide range of things that do not exist, it in no way affects the existence of such things.

• Moral Argument – Argues that if there are any real morals, then there must be an absolute from which they are derived.

This one always grates on me as it is so patently obvious that the paradigms for moral behavior have shifted radically just within the bounds of recorded history. There is also incredibly strong evidence that instinctual behavior is something that evolved, and much of what we consider “moral” could fall into this category (a revulsion to killing our own young for example). I would easily argue that there are very few “absolute” morals and those that do exist could easily be explained by evolutionary instinctual behavior.

• Transcendental Argument – Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.

I’ve never got this argument, it’s incredibly anthropocentric. it is quite possible that a wide range of species can think and reason and that this is a mere evolutionary development shared by many creatures with advanced brains. The restriction is the bounds in which humans think and reason is incredibly wide, we’ve got the “giraffe’s neck” of brains.

• Presuppositional Arguments – Arguments that show basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition.

I relate this one to the Ontological argument above, it’s flawed at it’s base. Beliefs in a condition do not require that condition to actually exist. People believe in Aliens and people do not believe in aliens does their actual existence affect this belief, is the belief dependent on either condition? What about the earth being flat? Or earthquakes being caused by the wrestling of giant Minotaurs beneath the earth, do the basic beliefs of Minotaurists and non-Minotaurists require the Minotaurs as a precondition?

I would also like to point out that not a single one of these arguments back up any single set of holy texts as an argument, at their very best they could only be used to support a deist-like claim of god’s existence. Of course most theologians will take any failed attempt to refute these arguments as a win for thier specific theology. For a theologian to have any credence for me you must not only win the debate that god exists, but that your particular scripture is the correct one, over and above any other religions scripture. This is where a lot of other arguments fall flat, the Argument in defense of Miracles falls flat when you consider that miracles have been reported as coming from people of a wide variety of faiths, most of which are dogmatically and scripturally incompatible with one another. in fact when this argument is brought up it tends to make me lean toward a polytheistic view as the only possible supernatural explanation.

Of course, the naturalistic explanation always wins out over any supernatural explanation, and “we don’t know” is another acceptable answer. One thing I’d like to see these theologians say is “I don’t know”, they usually tend to attribute things they don’t know to thier dieties in order to cover thier ignorance while attempting to bolster thier arguments.

I was reading an article the other day and renowned physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking stated that the Large Hadron Collider was essential to the advancement and long-tern survival of mankind. He goes on to reassure folks that it will not end the world, but I’m about sick of the fear-mongers surrounding this thing, it’s merely and anti-science agenda wrapped in a self-righteous cloak.

This all got me thinking though about just why I feel having discussions about scientific advancements and discoveries is valuable in an atheist podcast. in going over this I may say some things that make my fellow atheists wince, I may sound harsh and reveal some opinions that the more “religious friendly” atheists may not share. So be it.

If one looks at the history of religious thought one realized that the development of gods was a “first attempt” at scientific thought. What causes thunder? Well, I can make a loud noise by banging these two rocks together, so someone bigger and more powerful banging something even bigger than these rocks together would make a louder sound. Or perhaps, the roar of the great lion is the loudest sound I know, so some bigger beast, perhaps the roar of a dragon is the sound I am hearing. As an early hypothesis for events it’s a workable idea, however it would fail today’s more modern scientific scrutiny as it would either fail the first test or be found untestable. It’s a small step from this level of thinking to entreating these powerful forces for boons, to using “revealed knowledge” from these powerful beings as a tool of control (for good or ill).

The truth is that advancing our knowledge is what is removing the “god question” from the public conciousness. Human knowledge has certainly eliminated the possibility of a “god” or “gods” as presented in nearly every ancient scripture currently known. This is why creationists creationists fight so fiercely against science eduction (trust me, it’s not just evolution they have a problem with), it’s not that they have some problems with the science as performed, it’s that this knowledge contradicts directly the untestable and privately revealed knowledge that religion bases all claims upon. Their case is hurt more by recent studies breaking apart those testable claims they’ve made.

The knowledge provided to mankind through scientific study is more valuable than anything religion has proposed, it has cured diseases, fed millions of people, and vastly increased our quality of life. Religious thought however has been an easy tool of exploitation to make people happy with thier miserable lot in life. As I’ve studied more and more religions I find that most of them add up to the following statement “Do what we say, don’t worry about being miserable, because when you die you’ll get rewarded”. Science on the other hand is about advancing human knowledge so that our lives, and the lives of future generations are better ones. As an atheist I believe that this life here is all you get so I want to make sure it’s the best possible for me and my descendants.

I am sure that some people will point to the disasters of science in an attempt to detract form this view, nuclear bombs, lab-created anthrax and the like. While some atheists would try to counter with the atrocities of religion I intend to go another route. The line of research that brought about the atomic bomb also gave us solid state electronics and MRI imaging, cancer treatments and a host of other medical diagnostic tools. Bioengineering has cured far more diseases than those who have been infected, from the cheap and rapid production of vaccines to new breakthroughs in fighting cancer and degenerative genetic conditions. Religion and science can both be used for benefit and destruction however it is only through scientific research that suffering is alleviated, diseases cured and the overall quality of life for everyone on the planet is improved. In contrast religious thought that attempts to supersede or suspend scientific advance only gets people to accept suffering, disease and be content with their current quality of life. It is, simply those who wish to maintain the status-quo against those who would like to see progress.

I am, in this tirade, addressing a certain type of religious thought, and it is one that even the late Pope John Paul II expressed. This thought is that there are some questions that should not be asked because they are the dominion of “god”. If you follow a religious mindset that allows for questioning all aspects of reality, for searching deep into the “hows and whys” of the way this universe we live in operates then, of course, this criticism does not apply to you.

A common creationist ploy (and one that angers me to no end) is to apply the trait of atheism to Adolph Hitler, and try to link this with the atrocities he committed. The eugenics programs implemented by some of Hitler’s underlings was more akin to horse or dog breeding than any true evolutionary process. In fact the idea of “evolution” in general had been around for hundreds of years prior to Charles Darwin’s theory which merely gave this evolution a natural mechanism. The extermination of the Jewish people at the hands of Hitler’s regime was turned into a acceptable practice through an appeal to religion. Weather or not Hitler really believed or not may be open to debate, however any reading of Mein Kampf would lend one to believe that he did in fact believe in god as described in the New Testament.

Science is important because it provides reliable and truthful answers to the questions we all have in a way that cannot be used as a tool of control. No one can tell you you should kill X group of people because a subatomic particle reacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics tells him so. Anyone who proposed such an idea would be laughed at (and probably locked up), as we should laugh at, and lock away, religious tyrants who suggest we kill infidels, homosexuals or any other such group.

You may notice I’ve not touched on ethics or morals much in this post. The naturalistic rise of moral behavior is a subject that I have great interest in and I’ll be devoting a future post to the topic in addition to my thoughts about how a positive atheistc view of the world can drive a very high moral standard.