Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
"You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means."
I like a good ghost story as much as the next guy. Always have. Have even had some fun with such at the expense of friends.
But there is a difference between enjoying and believing.
This past week the San Fransisco Chronicle had a piece about a para-normal conference held in the city titled "Investigations of Consciousness and the Unseen World: Proof of an Afterlife." From the article:
These academics take their paranormal work seriously; they also risk ridicule on campus and struggle to find sources of funding to investigate what happens after we die. One of the issues they face is whether an afterlife is provable by scientific method. Some, like Julie Beischel, who co-founded Arizona's Windbridge Institute for Applied Research in Human Potential, think it is.
"This is how science works," Beischel said. "There's a question and science investigates it. You can't draw a line and say, no, that's outside of science. Science doesn't have any boundaries in what it can investigate."
No complaints from me so far. That is how science works: investigate a theory to see whether there is evidence to support it. That's called research.
Here's another excerpt:
Forever Family Foundation member Diane Kaspari of Portola Valley attended the conference with her husband, Bill. They lost their son in a car crash when he was in college. After that happened, she said she started researching, reading and paying attention to "lots of things that weren't pure coincidence."
***
But for as much anecdotal evidence and data as the presenters gave, there was recognition that believing in the paranormal is difficult without a direct experience.
"I feel sorry for the skeptics," said Kaspari. "They're the ones who've already made up their mind."
OK, did you catch where Ms. Kaspari made a wrong turn? It was in her use of the word "research". She used the common meaning of the word - as in digging around to see what information is available on a given subject. Like how I do some "research" and find on Wikipedia a good discussion of the term paranormal. Or how I use Google to find out information about the Forever Family Foundation. But that is hardly scientific research. And scientific research is what us poor unfortunate skeptics want: hard, reproducible, testable data.
I see this mistake constantly, in one form or another. Someone who is a true believer of religion, or UFOs, or psychic ability, or whatever, will accuse a skeptic of having a closed mind, when all the skeptic really wants is verifiable evidence. Take a look at this exchange in the comments to the Chronicle article:
innerpurpose wrote:
I have never read such hateful comments:( Those egos who commented so poorly, are afraid. You are afraid of what you don't know. You grew up fearing what you could not explain/control. This is typical, and Okay. If you could only see that your anger of these people has nothing to do with them and their beliefs, but you and your anger of people who hurt you in the past. Everything exists in both material and non-material form. You are nothing but consciousness inside of cosmic dust. Science is of the mind. It is heavy and has it's purpose in life. The mind likes to explain things. It feels safer when we do so... Yet we are making an evolutionary step to go beyond mind. People have 'out of body' experiences all the time. To be completely in the body is a rare thing, it's called enlightenment. Most people are trapped in their minds, fearing the unknown. It's okay... You can come out and play. I think most of us fear death. We live on. Our bodies die, but what is essential in us lives on:)
Posted 1/29/2008 11:11:15 AM
benw wrote:
People ask for proof and reasoned evidence for improbable assertions about ghosts and afterlives, and immediately the quacks and loonies come in with crying and making personal attacks about "anger". You have some hypothesis you wish to advance? Some theory you wish to put forward? Do so, do so sensibly, provide evidence, submit a testable theory, and then let's proceed. But gibbering incoherently and crying victim is useless and counterproductive and just demonstrates that you have nothing of substance to say.
Posted 1/29/2008 11:27:08 AM
innerpurpose wrote:
Mr. Benw, I'm sorry that your ego has taken control of you. This message is for you, not your ego: It is your ego that is angry, not you and I know that. It is your ego that is trying (desperately) to protect itself. I'm just pointing out that the hatred comes from our minds, and it is destroying us. You're not angry about what these people have to say, but your ego is... It is the ego of the mind that seeks proof of these things, or seeks to attack what it doesn't know. It's okay. It has gone on for centuries. We are slowly changing because we know it doesn't work. I wish you no harm. It just makes me sad. It takes enormous strength to admit that our anger comes from the past. There's good reason for it no doubt, but we have to rise above it. We all struggle with this every day. Go in peace
Posted 1/29/2008 11:46:52 AM
How often have you seen just that sort of exchange play out here, or on any number of other sites? There's a reason why Brent has his motto at the top of this website: "I'm not angry, I just don't agree with you." It is because when you ask for some kind of evidence, some kind of proof, from almost any believer, they will spin on the spot and accuse you of being angry, or hating, or dissin' the thing in which they believe.
I do get angry sometimes with this - just out of frustration. I honestly don't care what someone chooses to believe - but unless they can provide something resembling reasonable evidence for their beliefs, there is no reason that I should take their belief as having anything to do with reality.
I know, I know, I'm beating a dead horse . . .
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I'm not angry
"I'm not angry, I just don't agree with you."
I love the fact that Brent put this phrase up under the title of the blog. I'm not sure how the subject came up, but on Christmas day my sister accused me of being angry with god. She honestly believes that in fact, I do believe in god, I'm just angry at him and that is why I call myself an atheist.
At first I tried to get her to think logically about what she had just said. I asked, "Lisa, do you believe in unicorns?" "No" she replied. I then asked "does that mean you are angry at unicorns?" "No, that's not the same thing" she answered.
That's when it dawned on me to have her look at UTI. I remembered the phrase was right at the top and wanted her to see it. It's so common for atheists to be accused of being angry at or hating god, that Brent decided to put it right at the top of his blog so that phrase is the first thing any visitor sees.
Good thinking Brent. Disarmingly clever and handy, I must say. When Lisa saw that, she was speechless for a moment and said "well, I don't know." Bingo. I just got thru to her and made her think instead of react. That's about the best I can hope for. Maybe later she thought about it and agreed with me? She'd never admit it to her older brother, though. We're both far too stubborn and after a 30+ year sibling rivalry, I didn't expect her to all of a sudden, say "you're right brother, I should listen to you more often!"
So true. If you've been an atheist for more than 5 minutes, chances are someone has accused you of being angry.
I won't speak for you, but...
I wonder how many become atheists from an anger at...?
The one friend of mine that I watched definitely went through the transition fueled by anger and disappointment - not from a totally independent thought process, but as a reaction to the failings of his church's teachings and the reactions of his christian friends towards his life experiences.
Is this common, or an exception?
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
House of cards
Rich-
Are you sure that's why your friend lost his god delusion or is that your interpretation? Are you sure it was anger that caused his change of mind? I would ask the person if I were you. Don't assume you understand what goes on in someone else's head. In my experience, enlightenment occurs not because of one particular incident, but because of the accumulation of many experiences and ideas.
I can't speak for your friend or most atheists. I can tell you why I don't believe in god anymore. I became an atheist sometime around age 14-15. I grew up going to church and Sunday school, summer bible camp and finally two years of confimation classes every Wednesday night. I can't really say that any one event or any one thought made me reject the notion of god. Instead, weighing everything I had learned and experienced, I came to a logical conclusion that the whole god thing was probably just a big scam or if there actually were such a thing as a god, it could care less about us.
I really have no way of measuring how each individual decides not to believe in god anymore. I have no idea if such things can be measured? All I know is that, at some point the house of cards came tumbling down. One minute I was convinced god was real, the next I knew it was all bullshit.
In his case it was...
Are you sure that's why your friend lost his god delusion or is that your interpretation? Are you sure it was anger that caused his change of mind? I would ask the person if I were you.
I did, and it was.
Don't assume you understand what goes on in someone else's head.
That's why I was asking - I don't want to make an assumption needlessly.
In my experience, enlightenment occurs not because of one particular incident, but because of the accumulation of many experiences and ideas.
Well, in (I'll call him...) Ken's case, he was in a church as an enthusiastic young adult, then his finances and marriage fell apart and he became disillusioned by a 'prosperity and success' teaching - that didn't work.
I find myself in that very same church today, but the "health & wealth" teaching has faded, and I keep warning people not to be gullible and that they have a responsibility to THINK.
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
Sure, there are some.
Hard to say, and I doubt if there has been any kind of systematic study worth citing. Then you'd have to distinguish between those who were angry at a church's policies/leadership as opposed to being angry at 'god', in what lead them to become non-believers.
There are lots of people who just took a step back, looked at the notion of a deity, and said "Wha?" And a fair number who were not raised with any kind of god-belief and never felt the need to go looking for it.
But whatever was the source, most atheists who have been without god-belief for a while are like the people you find posting here: we're really not angry at god, just as we're really not angry at Zeus, Thor, the FSM, or Pink Unicorns. We just see them all as fantasies, some of which have been taken more seriously by large groups of people than others.
Sure, you will find some anger directed at religionists, and at both political and cultural manifestations of religion. Simply think how you would feel if you lived in Saudi Arabia, with your religious beliefs so very much at odds with the prevailing culture, and you'll get some idea. But that is different than being angry at a fictional entity, if you see what I mean.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Paranormal
... or string theory, or inflationary theory of the big bang, or multiple universes, or representative democracy, or the existence of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all have some sort of 'paranormal' belief that hasnt been verified by evidence. :-)
Paranormal
Maybe the "existence" of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness hasn't been verified, but the VALUE of it sure has. The U.S. and the USSR were real-world test cases. The one created incredible invention, creativity and growth. Its opposite created colossal misery and stagnation.
I don't see scientific postulates like string theory as paranormal. They're ideas on probation while people look for corroborating evidence. If they don't pan out, they're abandoned.
Neither of these examples is in the same category as mystical beliefs. They're just not.
Neither do I
Nor do I. That's why paranormal was in quotes. UFOs and psychic ability either. Theyre ideas or phenomena on probation while people look for evidence. I was tempted to assign the same promissory note to mystical beliefs, but on closer examination, youre correct; I dont think theyre in the same category.
I believe in them. I believe in the value of believing in them and living as though their existence were verifiably true based on scientific evidence. But the context of Jim's post was one of scientific verification and I dont think science can test for value scientifically. Value is unfortunately subjective. Im sure there are communists who still believe their way is superior and there is no scientific way to convince them otherwise.
Pretty soon?
Re: psychic ability… ideas or phenomena on probation while people look for evidence.
They’ve been looking now for over 125 years. how much longer do you want to look before you’ll consider that there’s nothing to find?
Time limits
I didnt know there was a time limit and these things. I mean how much longer are we prepared to look for evidence for multiple universes for example? Or for the assumption that the laws of nature are the same throughout the entire universe? Even if we eventually lose interest, Im sure someone else will pick it up. Psychic phenomena is testable and falsifiable. "There's nothing to find" is a valid scientific theory and the way to falsify it is to find something. So people keep looking.
I didnt know there was a
When we’ve been looking for over 125 years, and when we’ve found no evidence, and when we might reasonably expect to have found some evidence if these things existed, I think we have got to the point where these ideas are no longer “on probation while people look for evidence”. We've looked. It's not there.
Nice false analogy - we haven’t been looking for evidence of multiple universes for anything like 125 years. Try sticking to the subject.
How long?
So anyone who's interested should stop looking? I would understand your objection if, say, I were asking for limited government grants for said search. There are a lot more important things to look for like a cure for cancer or the common cold which we've been looking; I would imagine for over 125 years. But other than that, why would anyone who wants to look for evidence (and is willing to foot the bill and not ask for scarce government grants) stop?
Is it really a false analogy? How long should we be looking? That was the subject. Your limit seems to be 125 years.
So anyone who's interested
Up to them. They can keep looking if they want. But my point was that after 125 years and nothing, you are probably wasting your time. You are the one who said the idea was “on probation while people look for evidence”. I say that’s absurd: the probation period is over. If you want to waste your time, up to you. But don’t tell me we haven’t had time to find some evidence yet, or that the jury is still out. It has gone beyond that.
Again with the false analogy. We know colds exist. We don’t know the afterlife or psychics exist. Again, you should learn to argue with facts, evidence and logic, not with analogies that are usually flawed.
Yes. Ten years or so v 125 years. Also, there are reasons to suppose multiple universes might exist. So false it at least two respects.
It depends. But when there is no evidence, and furthermore no reason to believe there ever will be, I’d say the time has come to an end. For a rational person, anyway.
Up to them
Now there, see? We agree. Up to them. Not up to you or me. And if 300 years from now somebody finally finds something verifiable, we'd have settled the psychic abilities thing. But, alas, we'd be dead.
We know colds exist, sure. (And duh.) But we dont know a cure for colds exist. Youve just misinterpreted the 'false' analogy. But people keep looking for a cure, yes? We dont know the afterlife and psychic abilities exist, but people keep looking for evidence. And I say, by all means, keep looking. Doesnt bother me.
Like what, for example? There are reasons to suppose psychic abilities as well; there certainly is a lot of anecdotal testimony of it. Unfortunately, no one has gone to another universe. But Im glad we have science. Science is about gathering evidence and testing suppositions. And I certainly dont mind anybody spending 300+ years looking for evidence for multiple universes, as long as it doesnt use up the grant money that's supposed to go to finding a cure for cancer or AIDS or whatever incurable diseases are still out there.
Again, fair enough. And again I say it isnt up to you or me. If anyone's interested to keep looking, I say go for it. But you did say there's no reason to believe there ever will be. I'd let you answer what reasons there are to believe so (aside from the fact that no one's verified scientifically its existence after 125 years, which isnt really a reason) and take that as the last word on the topic.
But to reiterate my position, I dont really give that much of a hoot if anybody proves psychic ability or if anyone wants to keep looking. I supposed your objection to someone else's use of their time was because granting institutions' money would be better spent somewhere more useful, but that doesnt seem to be the case. You seem genuinely offended that some schmoe would waste his time trying to prove ESP. I say, go for it and good luck. Who knows? Schmoe's findings would have to be verified anyway.
Thanks, Skeptico.
Now there, see? We
Only because you changed your position. You argued the idea is “on probation while people look for evidence”. It’s not. The probation period is over, and they found zip. I realize you’re trying to change your position to “Up to them. Not up to you or me”. But that wasn’t your point that I replied to. I’m glad you have abandoned your original position though.
We know colds are caused by a virus. We know anti-virals are possible. Ergo, a cure for the cold may be possible. We have no reason to even think life after death exists. Therefore no reason to think we should look for it. Pretty basic false analogy.
Like the math.
But anecdotes that when analyzed are shown to be mistakes or fraud. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Paranormal - Scientific Instruments?
Wow. These people actually think they can demonstrate the paranormal using scientific instrumentation? What have they been smoking?
As far as I know, no paranormal research has yielded scientifically verifiable and repeatable results, nor would I expect them to.
As an engineer, I have to respect the scientific process. However, there are some areas of study that do not fit strict scientific methods - for example Chemistry is measurable, predictable and repeatable, Sociology is not. But Sociology *is* a legitimate field of study (even if I think it is over-rated).
I know I am making myself a target here, believing that the supernatural exists. But I also believe that the vast majority of "evidence" can be chalked up to delusion, hallucination, superstition, faulty statistics, brain chemistry, and even blatant dishonesty. But even a believer, to be honest, must be a bit of a skeptic, and sometimes take the role of "Devil's Advocate".
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
That piece of drivel by
That piece of drivel by innerpurpose was essentially just a long-winded ad hominem – attacking the other poster but not his arguments. When faced with screed like that I usually just feed their comments back at them – just change a few words and it applies just as much to them. For example:
The thing is, you can’t do that when the other person posted reasoned argument, evidence and citations to support their position, only when they post just empty drivel.