Hovind’s $250,000 June 18, 2007
Posted by Joe in Kent Hovind, agnosticism, atheism, belief, creationism, ethics, evolution, fallacy, logic, psychology, science, skepticism.2 comments
The inimitable Kent Hovind has had his $250,000 dollar version of The Amazing Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge offered for anyone who can “give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*” available since 1990. (The quoted star is significant, because you have to prove his straw man of evolution to capture the prize.)
Here is how Hovind defines evolution:
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
Absolute Morality? June 7, 2007
Posted by Joe in belief, ethics, freethought, logic, morality, psychology, skepticism.1 comment so far
In a recent blog comment discussion I struggled to explain subjective morality. Here I would like to switch things around a bit and give my thoughts on absolute morality.
My working definition of absolute morality will be a specific unmodifiable set of moral codes that are held to be completely correct and unvarying through time. It has a few advantages.
The big one is the certainty and simplicity. You can easily judge your own or others actions just by looking at the absolute code and seeing if they fit. Most things are easy to figure out. There is no gray area. Everything is either clearly moral or clearly immoral.
But my question is this, can there really be such a thing as absolute morality?
On the Motives of Atheists June 5, 2007
Posted by Joe in agnosticism, atheism, fallacy, logic, psychology.13 comments
I recently read Evolution and the Bible and commented on a few things there. I often hear in religious discussion an attack on both sides of the motives of the other. Regardless of the fact that the appeal to motive is a type of ad hominem fallacy and should not be considered a valid refutation of most impersonal arguments, the motives ascribed to either side are usually inaccurate and in poor taste.
Theists are often characterized as being motivated by an inability to cope with harsh reality, an infantile need for authority, being brainwashed or otherwise unable to think for themselves, or possibly just being too stupid to dim witted to understand the complexity of the real world.
I hope the falseness of these mis characterizations is obvious. There are many intelligent theists that have well thought out and considered ideas and opinions on many subjects. I have had enlightening and interesting discussions with theists and have learned a lot from them.
Despite the feelings of many atheists, religion is not a haven for the stupid and ignorant. Are there stupid and ignorant theists? Of course, but there are also stupid and ignorant atheists, agnostics, etc…
A motive often ascribed to atheists is one I find particularly insidious. It stems from the common mis perception that religion is the source of all morality. It goes something like atheists choose to not believe in god because it would interfere with the immoral things that they want to do. Usually sexual immorality is implied or stated. This serves a twofold rhetorical purpose, it poisons the well for atheism by painting atheists as immoral sexual deviants and it attacks the motives of atheistic belief.
When any of these devices are resorted too, one can presume that the wielder is not interested in a positive discourse, but I think the benefit of the doubt can be given and you should try and cut through the rhetoric.
I believe the only way an intelligent respectful discussion can be had is for both sides to presume that the other’s motives is as they represent. Typically a pure desire to pursue the truth is what I presume, unless I am given signs otherwise by use of the usual rhetorical techniques.
(Edited to fix confusing sentence described by Richard Wade below)
There are no atheists. June 4, 2007
Posted by Joe in agnosticism, atheism, belief, freethought, god, logic, religion, theism.8 comments
When someone tells me they are a Christian, I always believe them. No matter how odd I may find it to walk around thinking there is an omnipotent guy in the sky watching my every move (as if there was much worth watching) and actually caring what I do and say, I still believe when someone says they are a Christian that they really are. Who would know what they believe better than they?
Sometimes when I have told others that I am an atheist though, they have responded very oddly. They told me I wasn’t. They gave me some version of “there are no atheists.” They asserted that no one could truly walk around without believing there was a guy somewhere (whether the guy had to care or not they never specified.) This was always a conversation ender to me. How can I have a reasonable discussion with someone who won’t even believe that I myself know what I believe?
They didn’t believe I was lying. Just pulling their leg to get a good argument out of them and then laughingly spring on them that “I was just fooling” and “how could they be so silly to think that I didn’t believe in god?” N, no, they believed that I believed I was an atheist, but that “deep in my heart” I really new there was a god. Because everybody does, because god made sure of it. To them, an atheist is someone who is lying to themselves, who is denying that there is a god and pushing down feelings that tell them otherwise.
These are rare birds, thankfully. I think most believers would be honest enough to grant that there is room for legitimate doubt. Most people aren’t so arrogant as to believe not only that they are right, but that they are so right that everyone around agrees with them even if they claim not to. Some of us live in a bizarre world of our own creation.
