A puzzling, yet rather common tactic of the religious is to try and paint atheism as being comparable to a religion, with its members as fundamentalists and the whole basis of it rooted in faith. Many even don’t stop at mere comparison, they declare outright that atheism is a religion. What I find puzzling about this is the tactic is meant to denigrate atheism and atheists, to knock them down a peg if you will, undermining the basis of their position and the most prominent spokespeople of that position but how can accusing people of being like you be a denigration? That’s what I find puzzling.

I would have to guess that despite what’s said about the value of faith, the religious can’t ignore, and ultimately do value knowledge and evidence as well as respect science. Very few will forego medicine for prayer. Fewer still will rely on faith to know when it’s safe to cross the street rather than turn and look both ways. All of us, religious and non-religious alike, understand the importance of observation and evidence. I’ll go on to say that logic is also esteemed, at least insofar as no one would want to be considered illogical, so when atheists claim religion is bunk because it fails to hold up to these standards we all value, it’s incredibly troubling to the religious. I believe that this is the reason why the religious claim atheism is not based on these things and instead based on faith, because they acknowledge the superiority of a position based on logic and evidence. This can be seen in the fervor of the religious when their beliefs are “proved” to be true, be it by an artifact, an alleged miracle or merely a burnt bit of toast that looks like Jesus.

I recently saw this tactic at play in Paul Wallace’s article, “Way Beyond Atheism: God Does Not (Not) Exist.” I’ll focus first on his claim that “Dawkins refuses to examine the ground on which he stands: science itself.” His argument is failure to do so makes one a fundamentalist, but I’d have to return to the issue of looking both ways before crossing the street. Why do we do that? Is our failure to question the value of doing that and not stopping to consider closing our eyes and relying on faith or “the force” to guide us safely across instead make us fundamentalists? No, of course not. The value of looking both ways is demonstrable. Again, observation and evidence are valued because they are the best means of gaining knowledge about our world and navigating through it. This is what science is based on, and ultimately why we, religious and non-religious alike, trust it. It works.

In light of this, some try to erode that trust by either pointing to what science has yet to explain or by listing how often it’s been wrong. The latter is what William Lane Craig likes to refer to as the “shifting sands of evidence”. To the latter, I think it’s important to note that when science is shown to be wrong and thus corrected, it’s not by religion, ouija boards, or crystal balls. It’s by science. New evidence is found, theories are challenged and if they don’t hold up, they’re overturned. Compare that to religious dogma and tell me where the fundamentalists are. As for what science has yet to explain, there may indeed be things that can’t be explained now or ever, but we have nothing else. Faith based beliefs don’t offer explanations, they only offer imaginative tales to fill the void.

One of those tales Mr. Wallace would like believers to grasp hold of is “God transcends the distinction of being and not-being.” He goes further to suggest that language and image are insufficient to describe him. I’m sorry, but that’s intellectually inexcusable, for it’s merely a pedestrian fallacy of logic known as special pleading. You can’t simply say the rules don’t apply to your belief because your belief is special. Although he freely admits such a theology appears to be “content-free and useless”, to argue that it’s not he cites the work of Thomas Aquinas and his use of analogical language to speak of his god’s attributes. Is not analogical language still language? If language is insufficient to describe the god Wallace believes in, then how did Aquinas use language to do it? Sounds like more special pleading.

The religious believer is left with nothing more than a faith based belief, and if Mr. Wallace had his way, a belief in a thing no one can show evidence for nor even adequately explain since, according to him, language and image are insufficient for the task. I think that’s ultimately unsatisfactory to most when we require more for all the mundane minutia of each day. This must be why the religious try so hard to claim atheism is a faith based position, for they’re well aware of how inadequate such a position is.

Tough week for the fanatically religious who believe such things as this world being uniquely created just for us by their god in order for us to exist and live (and of course spend that time praising him and procreating as much as possible to create a multitude of worshippers). I suppose they feel a need to be special, and believing this is the only place in the universe we could live and that their god made it just for us is just so, well, special. It’s a common enough sentiment, and what I believe prompts denying equal rights and claiming special privileges (especially now as we enter December). Well get ready to feel less special and unique, true believers.

A new study in Nature has just revealed that the total number of stars in the Universe is likely three times bigger. Yale University astronomer Pieter van Dokkum says there are “possibly trillions of Earths orbiting these stars,” dramatically increasing the possibility of finding alien civilizations. Now finding civilizations sounds cool, but finding life like ours in any way beyond this rock we’re currently on would be quite astounding, and would certainly hurt that notion of our Earth being uniquely created just for us. Of course the true believer will likely adapt somehow, perhaps merely denying that life exists anywhere but here or by wondering at the immensity of their god’s creation, now known to be three times larger. Maybe these worlds were created for us as well to subdue and populate with more people to worship their god just like Earth was.

The second bit of news, which NASA should be announcing this afternoon, is the discovery of a bacteria in a lake in CA that can substitute arsenic for phosphorous. Have you ever encountered the believer who claims that the language of dna means it must have been created and therefore their god exists? Well now we have something that doesn’t completely subscribe to that language. So now what? I’m sure they’ll think of something, but that argument will need to be revised. The other thing is a discovery like this radically increases the possibilities of finding life beyond Earth since now our definition of life has expanded. If it’s possible to make substitutions to what we thought were essentials for life, then non-Earthlike planets need to be considered as well as possible homes for life. Couple that with finding out that there are so many more stars out there than we thought, that’s an incredible amount of possible homes for life.

If you ever heard the fallacious argument that the odds against everything being so perfect here that we could exist, then this week shows those odds just got reduced, and if we’re simply talking about any life, then it appears it could be possible almost anywhere out there. Gosh, how does one retool their arguments to maintain their belief of being special? Well in my experience, the religious always manage to figure out how as religions and religious belief evolves, even for those who deny evolution. Hell, if the Pope can say condoms may be ok now, anything is possible, right?

A new study suggests all those bright lights, tunnels and angels you hear people who have had near death experiences describe are all due to gas, specifically too much C02.

“We found that in those patients who experienced the phenomenon, blood carbon-dioxide levels were significantly higher than in those who did not,” said team member Zalika Klemenc-Ketis, of the University of Maribor in Slovenia.

Now it should be pointed out that this is a correlation, not a definite causation. What’s the difference? Believe it or not, there was a time not that long ago (I think a couple of centuries or less) when people still believed in spontaneous generation. For instance, ever notice how if you leave trash out, pretty soon there will be bugs and vermin? Well it was believed they spontaneously generated from the trash. That’s confusing correlation with causation. Now correlation can point to causation, as with smoking and lung cancer, so it’s not necessarily fallacious to conclude a cause from observing correlation, but supporting evidence is still needed.

An example of such evidence would be previous studies involving C02 as well as the mountains of evidence showing that one’s mind is dependent upon their brain, therefore making any effect to the brain an effect to the mind. In recent decades we’ve seen a rise in the use of medication to alter minds, making them less anxious, less depressed, more focused, and to stave off memory loss such as found with Alzheimers and speaking of which, such diseases of the brain clearly demonstrate that affecting the brain affects the mind. Certainly physical damage to the brain can change a mind (ie – Phineas Gage), and who can forget that wonderful brain scene from one of the Silence of the Lambs sequels. Now the C02 levels may or may not be a cause, but it should be accepted that the mind is dependent upon the brain, probably a function or product of it, but yet despite the evidence, many refuse to accept where the evidence points.

The main alternative is that near-death experiences are “evidence of consciousness becoming separated from the physical substrate of the brain, possibly even a glimpse of an afterlife,” the University of London’s French noted. But for him, at least, “the latest results argue strongly against such a hypothesis.”

I would not even humor such nonsense with the word “hypothesis” when speaking in a scientific sense since it’s pure speculation based on nothing and with no way to seek evidence for or against it (by that I mean you can’t disprove the idea (see falsifiability), but evidence for a rational theory can be evidence against the irrational one). The idea that mind and body are two separate things is called dualism, and one manifestation of this belief is in most religions where some life energy (ie – soul) is believed to exist and within that is the mind, or it is the mind. Not only is there nothing to support such folly, the evidence of affecting brains affects minds at the very least forces such believers to have to account for that. How or why would the brain affect this thing which not only is independent of it, but supposedly survives, intact, after the brain and the rest of the body is dead and gone? I’ve yet to hear that even attempted, but perhaps there are some creative “hypotheses” out there in Jesusland and the rest of the religious world. No, what you usually get are challenges to whatever scientific theories arise which challenge their unsupportable beliefs, as if defeating such theories magically would prove them correct but that’s not how it works. Of course they’re not REALLY concerned with proof. In religion, faith is a virtue afterall, isn’t it? No, what they want is permission to indulge in their belief, like any junkie, alcoholic, or even anyone with a sweet tooth wants permission to indulge their insatiable needs, so objecting to what discounts their belief in an afterlife or divine creation is merely an attempt to retain permission to believe what they want to believe.

So is seeing a glowing light and angels when having a near death experience a sign of an afterlife, or that you have too much gas? Well that’s still unknown, but there’s nothing aside from wishing that suggests the former, and there’s at least some evidence for the latter, so which would you accept?

I came across this ridiculous essay by some local jackass in response to the theme of this year’s Edge.org dinner, “A New Age of Wonder.” It seems Mr. Dreher would like to remind us that we’re all wretches and would be much better off remaining as ignorant as we can, fearing technology and trusting in religion. He takes us on quite a journey as he attempts to sell his idea, and I would like to be your guide along that journey, pointing out the best parts. I’ll start where he starts, with Marry Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Here’s where these techno-utopians lose me, and lose me big time. The myth of Frankenstein is important precisely because it is a warning against the hubris of scientists who wish to extend their formidable powers over the essence of human life, and in so doing eliminate what it means to be human.

Indeed Mr. Dreher, you are lost. The warning of Frankenstein is a warning against precisely what you are arguing for, continued ignorance, reverence for that ignorance, and fear of new knowledge and applying it.

Immediately after Dr. Frankenstein’s creation breathed its first breath, the doctor was overcome with remorse and revulsion. Why? Because of these ridiculous fears ingrained in us by the ignorant, usually a religious source. After having been abandoned at birth, the creation stumbles through the world where he’s met with nothing but fear and revulsion at what he was. He eventually spent a year observing a family from afar, learning what it is to be human, but then once he tried to befriend then he was met with fear and revulsion again. This continued until he eventually decided to seek revenge from his creator. He did, and Frankenstein eventually died, we’re told that his creation later went off to destroy itself, so that no one would ever know of its existence.

Now Frankenstein’s creation is generally referred to as a monster, and indeed it performed monstrous acts, but it did so from a lack of guidance and as a reaction against unfair treatment. Had Frankenstein not fled, and instead guided his creation, the story would have been much different. The ignorant like to say that Frankenstein’s tragedy was due to his hubris, but it was due to his irrational fears and abandonment of his responsibilities. Knowledge is not the evil here, nor is the pursuit of it and subsequent application of that knowledge. Ignorance is the evil, an evil which triggers fears which in turn prompt actions which are harmful. The cautionary tale from Frankenstein then is to both not fear what’s new and to behave rationally and responsibly.

The thing I don’t get about the starry-eyed techno-utopians is that they don’t seem to have taken sufficient notice of World War I, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima… The two wars and the Holocaust should have once and forever demolished naive optimism about human nature, and what humankind is capable of with its scientific knowledge.

Indeed! For instance the geniuses behind personal computers and the internet should never have gone forward with their work knowing that with human nature being what it is, their efforts would be used by jackasses like Mr. Dreher to perpetuate the reverence of ignorance and fear of technology. I mean, am I the only one who sees the irony of a man bemoaning the dangers of humans having technology via the internet? So aside from Hiroshima, personal computing and the internet, was there any good that occurred in the 20th century due to the hubris of humans seeking and trying to apply new technology? Do I actually need to make a list?

Scientists, the Promethean heroes, tend to chafe against any restriction on their curiosity — which is why some of them (Dawkins, et alia) rage against religion. The best of humankind’s religious traditions have been thinking about human nature for centuries, even millenia, and know something deep about who we are, and what we are capable of. How arrogant we are to think the Christian, the Jewish, the Islamic, the Taoist, and other sages have nothing important to say to us moderns! What religion speaks of is how to live responsibly in the world.

Yet it’s religion which put stem cell research on hold in this country, held back the development of biology and medicine in the West due largely to its prohibitions against human dissection (for centuries, the drawings of Leonardo, incidentally made by illegally obtaining and dissecting cadavers, were the only anatomy references permitted) and should I invoke Galileo? Religion does indeed reflect something of what it means to be human, but often it’s something which is ugly and destructive. Anyone who doesn’t scream out loud at the line about scientists who “chafe against any restriction on their curiosity” should have their heads examined. If religion’s contribution to humanity is to retard its curiosity, then THAT is why any rational human being should rage against it.

Lastly, I’d like to address both an essay he cites by Wendell Berry, and his contribution to it. First, Berry, who himself quotes poet Edwin Muir…

The nineteenth century thought that machinery was a moral force and would make men better. How could the steam-engine make men better? Hitler marching into Prague is connected to all this.

It also connected the United States, and ushered in the Industrial Revolution, which I’m guessing these religious types still haven’t fully recovered from. Now this is indicative of this nonsense which Mr. Dreher is espousing, which is essentially that human nature is evil and we humans are wretched things. That’s a fairly common idea across multiple religions, this idea that you are wretched. Why? Well then you need help, “salvation” if you will. How do you get that? Ah, through the religion. Marketing 101 states that a product needs to satisfy a need, and in lieu of a need, create one. Every religion follows this, telling you you are wretched or by exploiting tragedies like the recent disasters in Chile and Haiti by serving up their product to people who clearly are in a wretched state. Anyway, the point Mr. Dreher is making is that because we’re so wretched, we can’t have technological advances because we’ll ONLY use them to do wretched things, but even the most cursory look at humanity’s history would show that that is not the case. Now Berry’s words…

Scientists who believe that “original discovery is everything” justify their work by the “freedom of scientific inquiry,” just as would-be originators and innovators in the literary culture justify their work by the “freedom of speech” or “academic freedom.”

The hard and binding requirement that freedom must answer, if it is to last, or if in any meaningful sense it is to exist, is that of responsibility.

There’s a saying which goes, “science is a cold bitch, and I love her for it.” I would change that to truth, for the truth doesn’t care about whose delicate sensibilities are offended, whose life’s work suddenly becomes meaningless, or whose long held beliefs get exposed as false. The truth simply is the truth, and it owes no responsibility to anyone or anything. It is we who have a responsibility to it, to not try and hide or distort it out of irrational fears or other selfish reasons, such as trying to perpetuate something as antithetical to human development as religion. Dreher goes on to further quote Berry and his descriptions of the “mourners” who mourn the loss of their ignorance in light of knowledge…

What did they mourn? Without exception, I think, what they feared, what they found repugnant, was the violation of life by an oversimplifying, feelingless utilitarianism; they feared the destruction of the living integrity of creatures, places, communities, cultures, and human souls; they feared the loss of the old prescriptive definition of humankind…

Again, the truth cares not for your delicate sensibilities. The truth is simply the truth, and I for one would prefer to know it than to delude myself. I’d like to believe I can fly, but I’d best not act on that belief. Hell, millions acted on the deluded belief that they could afford a home in this country, and look what happened. It would have been nice if someone was dolling out the truth over the last decade to these people, but instead you had bankers and realtors all selling a delusion for personal gain, much like Mr. Dreher here is doing, what Mr. Berry seems to be endorsing, and any dealer of religion does.

And finally, back to Mr. Dreher…

What Berry identifies as “superstition” is the belief that science can explain all things, and tells us all we need to know about life and how to live it. In other words, the superstitious belief in science as religion. He is not against science; he only wishes for science to know its place, to accept boundaries.

First, the pursuit of truth cannot have boundaries, but where Mr. Dreher is implying that science shouldn’t go is where science doesn’t go. Beyond advising us that we shouldn’t be smoking or eating those deep fired, bacon wrapped blocks of butter, science doesn’t tell us how to live. It makes no moral pronouncements, and the suggestion that it does is pure bullshit and meant to invoke fear just as invoking Hitler and Hiroshima was.

I would agree that human nature has it’s dark side, and that humanity does need moral guidance, but religion is a terrible source for that guidance and regardless of our technological advancements, without moral guidance and empathy, we’d be in dire straits. I mean, Cain merely needed a rock, right?

I have to say, this is pretty embarrassing for him. Seriously. He’s playing into that age old stereotype of the absent-minded professor, brilliant at what he does while inept at anything else. The blatant disregard for the variables of “the human condition” – bitterness of say a Clinton supporter skewing the poll results he’s working from, the unpredictability of what may happen between now and November to influence public opinion, and of course the complete lack of polling data from when there are JUST TWO OPTIONS – further bolster that ugly stereotype and the animosity towards scientists and intellectuals in general. Cold, calculating, and completely out of touch with humanity. Fucking great! Nice job there, Neil. To the comments…

Stick to astrophysics. it’s a long time until November.
— David Scott, Bethesda, MD

…the math is only as good as our understanding of the underlying processes. Physicists may have a pretty good understanding of atoms, but they sure don’t understand people any better than anyone else.
— ZLN, Chicago

What I think you are missing is that both Obama and Clinton are included in the polls. When it is only McCain and Obama and people understand the true differences I believe they will choose Obama.
— MI Voter, East Lansing MI

While Dr. DeGrasse Tyson is a very intelligent man and a commentator i enjoy reading and watching on television, his analysis here overlooks many important variables, not the least of which is that no matter how the poll questions are structured, the polling is still being done in the midst of a three-person, not a two-person race.
— David T., Chicago

What this complex mathematical calculations say about the delegate selection system is that the system is not based in astrophysics.
— MF, China

…astronomy and the heavens are ruled by the laws of physics and mechanics; elections are not. Elections are ruled by chance events (9/11), emotions, hatreds, biases, prejudices and misinformation.
— GenotheGreat, Pictou, Nova Scotia

I don’t remember the former races having their supporters stating inanely that if their candidate didn’t win, they would vote for the other party out of spite. Most call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
— Joe, Seabrook, SC

Dewey beats Truman.
— ray1, usa

This failure to grasp the human condition with its intangibles is certainly what the anti-science crowd always point to, which the religious take to another level by equating that to spirituality and souls and all that crap. This just feeds those ridiculous arguments of “there are limits to our senses…” which allow for faith in various woo, from religion to psychics, to seem justified. Limits to science, limits to what can be known through math and logic, limits of scientists to look into the heart, blah blah blah. Awful. Once again, nice work there, jackass.

Then of course let’s not forget the OTHER ugly opinion in this country, that those damn scientists have an agenda. What is it? Well that varies depending on which group you talk to but what all these haters of science and “elitist” intellectuals agree on is that agenda is evil and they’re sneaky in their ways to make it come about because, you know, they’re smart. You see this in the comments, too…

Mr. Tyson has taken a statistical model and spun its results in order to shill for his candidate.
— Chris, based in Estonia

Whew! Double talk worthy of the shameless Clintons!
— Leeza Coleman, Manhattan

This piece is intellectually dishonest, and therefore quite disappointing, particularly so because I “used” to like and respect Mr. Tyson.
— Richard, Brooklyn

If this methodology truly produces such compelling results, why not offer some more concrete examples of how it would have worked in prior elections? Why publish this incredibly biased piece (Obama “can’t” win??) days after Obama clinched the nomination? Why not even mention shortcomings with this methodology/theory?

This is a shameful piece, incredibly biased, clearly erroneous, shamefully timed.
— Susan, Greenville, SC

You know what, I can probably come up with another system of prediction that will make Kermit the Frog the most likely candidate too.
— Jon, IL

And remember, these are commentators at the NYT! Imagine how this would play on a more mainstream site, where those so-called “low info” voters lurk. Yeah, I’m sure those comments would be priceless. But you know, even if this was just an opinion piece and not something cloaked in so-called statistical analysis, it still would be a failure and play to these conspiracy theory idiots because science and scientists should not be appearing to side with one politician, one political group, one political ideology over another. Science is supposed to be apolitical. How can you foster a love of science in those red states if you give it the appearance of being political? This was a bad, bad play by Tyson.