Is ‘Freethinker’ Synonymous with Nontheist? Well, no. It isn ‘t. Atheists need to drop the sham; I am a freethinker by definition, and am positive that there have been numerous deists, theists, supernaturalists, pantheists and polytheists that have come to their conclusions on metaphysics as freethinkers. There were long expanses of time when pre-scientific answers were reasonable (case in point, animism at the ‘Dawn of Humanity’) or when the existence of a philosophical First Cause/Unmoved Mover God as ‘essence’ (think deism at the turn of the 18th century) just worked. Of course, being an atheist, I think those arguments have been undeniably refuted as science has continued to explain much of the mysteries of the universe. But still, if you embrace theism as a freethinker and can demonstrate how you came to your conclusion, I salute you. Isn’t that a good part of what this site is about? Discussions on matters of truth, critiques of argument, debates on important questions, tentative vindications of worldviews? Yet, I think the disparity of belief between scientists and the public (.pdf) says a great deal about free thought and science.

I. It’s not just angel books, astrology, and acupuncture.

A front-page article in the New York Times of October 22, 1996 (subscription required), delved into the ‘conflict’ between two views of where Native American populations originated—the scientific archaeological account and the account offered by some Native American creation-myths. According to the former, humans first entered the Americas from Asia, crossing the Bering Strait more than 10,000 years ago. This answer, I should hope for most readers, provides an authoritative, extensively confirmed, scientific answer.

Some Native American creation accounts hold that native peoples have always lived in the Americas. That is, Native Americans have been present ever since their ancestors first emerged onto the surface of the earth from a subterranean world called the Lower Regions. If there’s anything we know, it’s that some things are definitively wrong.

That’s one of ‘em.

Yet, the Times noted that many archaeologists, torn between their commitment to scientific method and their appreciation for native culture, ‘have been driven close to a postmodern relativism in which science is just one more belief system.’ Roger Anyon, a British archaeologist who has worked for the Zuni people, was quoted as saying: ‘Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world. … [The Zunis’ worldview is] just as valid as the archeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about.’

Continue reading Postmodernism in a Theocracy

How, by being an atheist in support of the ACLU and Americans United, I am religion’s greatest friend. (This post is a few days old; I had a few things I had to catch up on, so I delayed publishing this piece. It was meant to be a part of the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm.)

Continue reading The First Amendment

Chris Swift of Parabiodox, a Christian who believes in the inspired word of the Bible, has recently linked to us.* I think it would be worthwhile to comment on a recent short post of his.

I think Christians when faced with the constant barrage from Atheists can at least console themselves that they are doing a good job, providing these people with a sense of purpose in life, providing them with something concrete to concentrate on, even if it’s only a brick wall they wish to smash down.

Imagine the barreness [sic] of life for Atheists without religion, and in particular without Christianity to attack. They would be faced with having to examine their own philosophy for meaning, and what would they find ? A big black hole. (Parabiodox)

I wish to make this clear before I continue: my atheism is a direct result of my reliance on philosophical naturalism; this from methodological naturalism; and this from a desire to seek the truth. My atheism, as opposed to an atheist that accepts atheism out of an irrational fear, or illogic, or a popular counterculture stance, comes out of a grand history of philosophers of science. These men may be wrong — many have been in the past — but I find it insulting for Swift to imply that if there were more reason in the world, there’d be nothing but ‘a big black hole’ of philosophy.

Does Swift support such a claim, that (1) atheists attack Christians to get some deeper purpose to life, that (2) without Christianity atheism is bare, that (3) atheism is itself empty?

No, no, and no.

In fact, as I will argue, Swift has it all sideways, looking at a distorted image in the pool.

Continue reading Tsuyoku Naritai

You can find few people quoted and mis-quoted as often as Einstein on the internet. He was the catalyst who divided an age for us. His brillance began a galactic morph from a fixed, clock-work universe to one dynamic and shifting, and in so doing forever changed science and life on planet earth. No wonder people are quick to stand up Einstein and put words in his mouth — a ventrilaquist’s dummy for their rhetoric. And because of this, it is increasingly important to talk about what Einstein really said and meant, reviving the real person and letting him speak for himself.

Continue reading Einstein and the Mind of God

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

This is the second and final post of my two (and a half) part series on naturalism, and why I reject the existence of the supernatural. My atheism, my unbelief (or disbelief, or rejection, if you will) of the existence of the Christian (or any other, for that matter) god is the result of my naturalistic worldview, specifically, the end result of accepting the scientific method, then methodological naturalism, and then philosophical naturalism. This post is a bit long, but I’ve tried to keep it straightforward in its presentation. I hope you enjoy!

Continue reading Naturalism, pt. II

When Confucius entered the Grand Temple, he asked about everything. Someone said, ‘Who said Confucius is a master of ritual? He enters the Grand Temple and asks about everything!’
Confucius, hearing this, said, ‘This is the ritual.’ (Analects, 3:15)

Religion – belief in a supernatural entity inhabiting a supernatural (non-natural), transcendent dimension of reality – is either epistemologically justifiable or unjustifiable. The alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism; for supernaturalism it is naturalism. If one is incorrect, the other must be correct. This is a two-part series on why I chose to follow naturalism both methodologically and philosophically. I hope to stay out of a convoluted argument, and instead I intend to show a bit of candor about what I believe, and why.

Continue reading Naturalism, pt. I

I’ve read a bit on Bayesian reasoning, and while searching for some topics people write on, I did the natural thing and Googled some key words, such as ‘Bayesian + hat‘, ‘Bayesian + supernatural‘, and finally, ‘Bayesian + god‘ hoping to find some interesting topics. Don’t ask me why I chose ‘hat’.

Stephen Unwin’s homepage came up as the first link under ‘Bayesian + god’. Looking at his webpage, I recalled that I had read a bit on his book a few months ago. He argues in his book The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation that Proves the Ultimate Truth, that we can compute the probability of God’s existence with the use of Bayesian reasoning. If we assume that with a ‘maximum ignorance’, the existence or nonexistence of God is that of 50/50, then we can attempt to assign probabilities to God’s existence. He throws some numbers in the mixing bowl (we’ll get to them later under the fold), and comes up with the probability of God’s existence. Unwin says, ‘The probability that God exists is…

Continue reading The Probability of God

The late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan once said that if you began using terminology created by your political adversary, the battle was over. I care how words are used, and their implicit messages that shape the debate. Thus, I begin a short story: Some time ago, a young man spoke privately with a philosopher. He asked the philosopher the first action he would take if he became the king. The man scratched his beard for a minute in thought, then spoke clearly: Rectify the names.

The young man was startled, but regained composure to scoff: This is your first action? Absurd!

The philosopher answered, correcting the young man: When the names are faulty, speech is not reasonable; when speech is not reasonable, actions are not conducted properly; when actions are not conducted properly, society begins to falter; when society begins to falter, the punishment does not fit the crime; when the punishment does not fit the crime, the people are at a loss. ‘The thing about the gentleman is that he is anything but casual when speech is concerned.’ (Confucious, Analects, Book XIII)

Continue reading RESPONSE: Do Atheists Have Faith?

UPDATE: My view here is conditional on my definition of faith. Due to comments on this and other posts, I have added My Definition of Faith as a separate post to clarify the definition given here.

I would like to give my opinion on this idea which has appeared on this blog, primarily in back-and-forth comments on Me Arguing with No One in Particular, especially between Dave Armstrong (who recently departed this blog) and beepbeepitsme (the charming lady from Down Under) (numbers 42-44). Drunkentune already responded to this assertion and several others in his post Red Dust, which is worth your reading.

Some people, believers especially, would like to think or to be able to say that all humans have faith, but differ in what they have faith in or upon. This is applied especially to atheists, and in particular in those conversations when atheists assert that they do not need or wish to resort to living by faith, as believers do (sometimes, blindly some atheists might also add). I disagree with this idea that atheists have faith and here’s why:

Continue reading Do Atheists Have Faith?