Reason

Up to now, I've had nothing to say about the nomination of Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health, mostly because, outside of his work with the Human Genome Project, I have little knowledge of his views and abilities. However, I have been keeping an eye on what skeptics and secular thinkers have to say about the man, and the reaction has been largely mixed.

On one hand, Collins' scientific background is exemplary and shows him to be a serious, dedicated man of science and a highly-capable administrator. The Human Genome Project was a massive successful public push to map the genes of mankind, and Collins played a major role in bringing the effort through the difficult moments. As Sam Harris points out in this morning's op-ed in the New York Times,

(...) he is not a "young earth creationist," nor is he a proponent of "intelligent design." Given the state of the evidence for evolution, these are both very good things for a scientist not to be.

That said, Collins continues to hold non-empirical views which absolutely pollute his ability to provide the scientific leadership this country desperately needs. Among his beliefs:

If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?

Here is a man, incredibly intelligent and capable who holds a belief in utter nonsense. Christian moral law required for morality? Nonsense, and this line of thought has been disproven outside of apologetic circles repeatedly. There are many good explanations for morality and altruism without resorting to the supernatural and the divinely inspired.

Why are Collins's views so important here? I'll quote Harris at length:

Most scientists who study the human mind are convinced that minds are the products of brains, and brains are the products of evolution. Dr. Collins takes a different approach: he insists that at some moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components — including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc.

As someone who believes that our understanding of human nature can be derived from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and behavioral economics, among others, I am troubled by Dr. Collins’s line of thinking. I also believe it would seriously undercut fields like neuroscience and our growing understanding of the human mind. If we must look to religion to explain our moral sense, what should we make of the deficits of moral reasoning associated with conditions like frontal lobe syndrome and psychopathy? Are these disorders best addressed by theology? (...)

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.

Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God "intensely plausible" — the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of nature’s constants, the emergence of complex life, the effectiveness of mathematics, all suggest the existence of a "loving, logical and consistent" God.

But when challenged with alternative accounts of these phenomena — or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent or, indeed, absent — Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all.

Similarly, Dr. Collins insists that our moral intuitions attest to God’s existence, to his perfectly moral character and to his desire to have fellowship with every member of our species. But when our moral intuitions recoil at the casual destruction of innocents by, say, a tidal wave or earthquake, Dr. Collins assures us that our time-bound notions of good and evil can’t be trusted and that God’s will is a mystery.

Science is about taking nothing at face value and regarding personal assumptions and non-empirical beliefs as poison to the process of discovery. How can a man whose own stated beliefs include the theological assumption that man cannot have morality without a belief in the supernatural possibly dedicate his resources to neuroscience and psychology and evolutionary biology? Disciplines which are clearly arguing, with substantial empirical evidence, that behaviors deemed 'moral' are the result, not of divinely-imposed morals, but of evolutionary behavior which encouraged the growth of stable society. How can a man holding these assumptions possibly lead an effort in which theological dogma and supernatural explanations must be discarded in order to make significant progress? I have a hard time believing that he can.

Out of the Closet
So here I am, authoring a blog where I proclaim in the eyes of my community and the world my atheism. In many respects, davenichols.net is my way of coming out of the closet. I've always been a natural skeptic, and I've come to realize that my worldview is only consistent with atheism. My search for empirical truths, reason, and rational thought could lead me nowhere else. As an empiricist, I can only determine that all claims about gods, divinity of sons of gods, miracles, virgin births, talking snakes, winged horses, reincarnation, and the afterlife (among other extraordinary and unlikely testimonies) have exactly zero foundation in evidence. Most are presented as gospel and accepted in the same manner. I'm open to proof, but until such time as it is presented, I find no reason to believe irrational, unfounded ideas about earth, humanity, and the purpose of the universe. Faith is not a respectable character trait. Belief without evidence is the realm of the mentally ill, the wishful thinkers, and even more dangerous, the charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

While some may call me agnostic due to my I don't know philosophy of life, the truth is that I do not believe in any god defined or experienced by men. Human mystical experience is consistently one of the worst points of evidence available, and documents written hundreds or thousands of years ago offer practically zero empirical proof of their own claims. Those who argue that God wrote the Bible and therefore the Bible is the word of God will always refer back to either the Bible itself (circular argument) or personal experience (doubtful and subjective under the best of conditions) as their 'proof'. Needless to say, my inner skeptic needs better empirical evidence to justify belief, and despite thousands of years to provide such evidence, no religion has even come close to that threshold.

I started this blog because I began to ask the question, "Is there anyone else sane out there?". Increasingly disturbing religion-based behavior has been both unnerving and a wake-up call. As it turns out, there are sane people out there, and they too are beginning to look for people of reason and sanity (see the links in the sidebar for some of my favorite sites dedicated to science, philosophy, atheism, and reason). Religious belief is a crutch to society, and non-religious people are finally beginning to seek community with like-minded people. I hope that this site offers a jumping-off point for others looking for sanity and company in what appears frequently to be an irrational, disturbing, and religiously violent world.

It is time for atheists and non-religious critical thinkers to rise up and be counted. We must take responsibility for the direction this world takes, and we must speak out against the illogical and dangerous role organized religion holds in society. We are on the brink of what many major religions deem the End Times, though most true-believers are ignorant of the fact that every generation of religious people has believed it too was on the brink of the end of the world. Now, however, we are technologically capable of bringing such worldwide destruction down upon ourselves. Self-fulfilling prophecies are a bitch. Atheists must confront this nonsense head on, in full knowledge that this struggle against religion is uphill and dangerous. There is no other way to save mankind from himself. Reason must win out or be forever doomed to fiery confrontations between followers of outdated and inaccurate documents.

Science vs Religion
Christopher Hitchens summed up dismissal of religion with the most reasonable statement (paraphrasing Carl Sagan) that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." I don't need to explain the universe to shoot down your belief in a diety. I don't need to understand how a photon works to know that the sun rose in the East this morning. You have no evidence, and I have to offer none to deny your claim. Falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method, it is the only good way we know of to prove within reason that we know what we think we know. Religion offers no way to falsify many of its claims, and worse, has been repeatedly proven false in many key areas (which is utterly ignored by the faithful and their leaders).

Likewise, I have no need to present an alternative. The truth is I don't know. However, unlike the devout and faithful, I acknowledge this fact and use it as a basis for exploring the universe and determining what truth there is to discover. Religion offers a top-down view, and only slowly, very slowly does it concede ground. The God of the Gaps is the defacto method of religion, even to the point of ignoring or outright denying for centuries evidence that is nearly incontrovertible. Religious leaders understand that if one is able to undermine or prove false fundamental aspects of religion, one would also undermine the extraordinary claims put forth as 'proof' of the truth of religion.

Science, by its very nature, is imperfect. It rarely offers a complete picture of things, and almost never will a scientific theory stand unaltered against the test of time. However, scientists admit and accept this imperfect nature, and better, work tirelessly to improve our base of knowledge, extend our understanding, and improve our ability to interact with the universe. Science is, at its core, a process by which we critically examine and classify everything we experience. While some scientists certainly treat their practice as if it were dogmatic religion, rarely does a scientist or his theory stand long in the spotlight without presenting compelling evidence for such theories. Peer-review is key to this process, as is critical reevaluation of fundamental principals. Even when it was clear classical Newtonian physics explained much of the world we knew, it took a revolution by Einstein and others to bring some understanding to the ways in which Newton's theories failed to explain nature. Only through this critical process can science evolve and advance, and in this is its greatest strength, its greatest value.

Special Treatment
Why, then, do we allow religion to enjoy uncritical existence? Science is the process of refining our knowledge. Religion is the process of ignoring new information, better data, and more reasonable explanations.

By definition, religion requires belief despite evidence, and in any other (non-religious) framework, we as a society would deem someone deluded, misguided, mentally ill, or just plain dumb for holding illogical, irrational positions. But we have granted religion a pass on this one. Without evidence, without one shred of empirical proof, religion has been allowed to hold a special segment of our belief system that is otherwise dominated (in general) by rational, evidence-based behavior. The time for uncritical religious freerides is over, and it is time for reason to help us divest ourselves of our dangerous religious crutches before the nuts with the bombs and guns bring about the end of the self-fulfilling End Times prophecies.

Origins of Special Treatment: A Theory
I think much of our treatment of religion comes down to psychology and evolution. Humans have selected other humans over time to desire and accept mystical supernatural explanations. Ignoring the witch doctor's prophecy likely saw you lose favor in the tribe, which led to fewer opportunities to reproduce. Seeing what happens to unbelievers would cause those on the fence to act as if they too believe, and through acceptance, reproduce more frequently and then pass such mythos on to their offspring. This self-reinforcing behavior favored the lineages which accepted 'imaginative' explanations in a world thousands of years before modern science.

Likewise, dominant religions tended to behave violently toward those of differing beliefs (and still do so today). This had an enormous dampening effect on competitive world views, and again, those most likely to simply accept and live with the dogma were more likely to find comfortable reproductive opportunities than those who did not. Skeptics, agnostics, and atheists were treated harshly and often without mercy.

So we find ourselves in a society today that still favors those who hold irrational beliefs. Skeptics are eyed warily. Atheists are considered dangerous and, to true believers, seen as agents of Satan himself. Rubbish, but there it is.

Shortcuts and Irresponsibility
Religion for most people is a readily available and convenient shortcut to questions about which they would hazard no guess on their own. Religion offers answers to fundamentally important questions about our origins, our behavior, and our future. Many religious true-believers hand over responsibility for themselves, their actions, and the fates of those around them to the God(s). Leaving it in God's hands prevents 'needless' consideration of the fundamental concerns mentioned above. In any non-religious context, such behavior would be readily labeled 'irresponsible' and 'cowardly'. While I don't claim to know if it is important for humans to have a better understanding of ourselves and our world, it is clear that refusing to take part in the discussion is a shortcut around the most critical considerations of our lives.

Religion, by definition, requires faith to prosper. Faith demands that your attention to the subjects on which your faith is based be ignored, glossed over, or misrepresented. Faith requires you to ignore evidence, remove doubt from your belief system, and offer your critical thinking skills as sacrifice before your deity. To think that so many people willingly give up the most important psychological tools in our lives is mindboggling. And yet, so many people take the shortcut and never realize that a more fulfilling and enlightening path is always available. Letting one's world and one's behavior be dominated by god(s) is tatamount to letting your government decide your next meal, your next car, or your next wife.

Morality Does Not Require Religion
Many believers will throw out the claim that non-religious people are inherently immoral, that without religion one cannot understand morals. This argument is the worst kind of uncritical dogma.

Many leading atheists have knocked this assault down repeatedly, yet it continues to be a primary tool in the hands of the religious. The non-religious argument here is quite simple. Ask a faithful Christian if he/she believes that morals are taught from the Bible. Unsurprisingly, the answer is always yes. Consider, then, the case of Lot and the story of Sodom. Angels visit Lot to warn him of impending disaster, namely that an angry God has a plan to lay waste to five sinful cities, including Sodom.

The angels plan to stay in the city streets. Lot is concerned, and convinces the angels to stay in his home. Sodom's residents surround Lot's home and demand that the angels be turned out to the street, presumably to do them harm (and in some translations, to rape them). Lot protests, and instead, offers up his virgin daughters to the riotous crowd. Thankfully, the crowd is uninterested. God protects Lot and sees him (and his wife and daughters) out of Sodom in the nick of time.

Ask the Christian if he/she would, given similar circumstances, offer his/her own daughters up to the angry crowd? Would you really do such a thing? God clearly favored Lot's decision by continuing to warn and protect him through the angels. According to God, Lot clearly made the correct decision (otherwise, he would have sinned and not had God's blessing). If the Christian answers yes to this question, well, we then know that morality is clearly not defined by biblical text, for how could anyone justify intentionally sending one's own daughters out to be tortured or raped be a morally correct decision under any circumstances? (And as a side note, anyone willing to do such a thing in the modern world would be demonized and used as an example of a terrible, terrible guardian.) If the Christian answers 'No' and tries to shuffle the implications through arguments like 'metaphor' and 'moral story' (which is the case typically), then clearly the decision of morality is determined by your own ability to pick and choose which stories to use as moral guidance, hence, morality is not determined by biblical text but by your own cognitive abilities.

Don't even get me started on the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac because God commanded it. Your Bible tells it is moral to offer your son as a blood sacrifice to your god, and you call me crazy?

I do not claim to know where morality comes from, why we feel it so strongly in some cases, and why we need to believe that we ourselves are moral (most of us do seem to want this), but I do know for a fact that one does not need to believe in the literal or figurative word of the Bible (or any other text) to have the ability to make correct moral decisions. This is a stale argument and it is telling that we still must make this defense of morality in the modern era.

Reason
However, due to factors to which I am both grateful and uncertain, reason and skepticism are still alive with enough critical mass to prevent the earth from being completely overrun by religious believers. More than 15% of Americans considered themselves non-religions in 2008, nearly double the number recorded in 1990, and many nations feature a much larger percentage. The non-religious were the only group in the survey which gained identification in all 50 states. More people appear to be gravitating towards reasonable positions and away from irrational faith. This is happening quite rapidly over the last few years, but it is still a slow grind against thousands of years of irrational belief for which our species has tended to prefer.

Reason is not about claiming to know the answers, to know the 'truth' or to claim superiority over those of faith. On the contrary, reason is about starting with the proposition 'I don't know' and attempting to improve from there. Science and the scientific method have been the only, and I mean only, reasonable way to expand our knowledge of ourselves and the universe. Science is not omnipotent, is often unable to explain many basic experiences, and quite incapable of offering an explanation for why there is something and not nothing.

Religion, however, is a false prophet for false explanations. It assumes fundamental knowedge of things for which fundamental knowedge is not possible at this time. Reason, and only reason, can move mankind forward from our days of swinging in the trees, our nights of crossing swords, and our eternity of hammering our observations and experiences into a working model of our existence.

I thank anyone who read through to this point. I hope this offers a bit of a guide into what I believe are the priorities and problems of our search for spirituality, knowledge, and reason. I have no doubt this document will serve only to provide a baseline from which my evolving views of the world and our place in it can be compared. Like science, I expect these 'theories' to fail to stand the test of time as my ability to reason and develop stronger empirical data sets grows. Only through reason and the pursuit of empirical knowledge can we ever hope to remove ourselves from the backwards-looking wasteland that modern religion has built for us, and only through reason can we as human beings avoid destroying each other over trivial differences and selfish hatred of others as inspired by our 'divinely' conceived books.