The recent death of Jack Chick just once again reminded me how intertwined religion and conspiracy theories have been for me. As I grew up pastors changed, congregations changed, denominations changed but there was always a conspiracy theory in there somewhere. When it wasn't scheming papists secretly being behind every terrible world event it was the New World Order or the New Age movement or the Communists or the Anti-Christ (although if you were raised with Chick tracts & Crusader Comics - as I was - you'd know those were actually all the same thing really). I don't think it was just me though, if you look into it, there's a strong collaboration between religious belief and belief in conspiracy theories.
Now I'm guessing this is the part where an imaginary smug Atheist would jump in and comment that this is true because religious people are gullible and dumb and well practiced in believing unproven, unbelievable bullshit so OF COURSE they'd be easily duped! Well hold your horses imaginary commenter because that doesn't quite explain the whole picture. It's not just the religious who get into this, conspiracy theories also have a large following among some very smart, well educated, non-religious people. That includes Atheists. Remember Zeitgeist a couple of years back?
So instead of going for the low hanging fruit of "people be stupid" I'd like to offer my own explanation. Conspiracies share a lot of DNA with religion so it's not very surprising that they go together so well. They both help to fulfill an important human need and it's better to admit that than to try and pretend otherwise. Let me show you:
Here is a religious idea:
The world is a scary place. It's important to know though that God is in control. However chaotic things may look, always remember that He has a plan. If we know this plan we don't need to be afraid. If we worship God and pray to Him then we gain the power to fight back against the forces of darkness. This is how we take back power and regain control.
Here is a conspiracy theorist idea:
The world is a scary place. It's important to know though that The Elites are in control. However chaotic things may look, always remember that THEY have a plan. If we know this plan we don't need to be afraid. If we look for the clues and learn the right phrases then we gain the power to fight back against the forces of darkness. This is how we take back power and regain control.
That's what I meant by similar DNA. No one would deny that the world can be terrifying. However, something that is terrifying but going according to a bigger plan is less terrifying than something that is terrifying and completely chaotic*. As long as there is a plan and a reason then the possibility for control exists. If there are rules then you can learn to be safe by learning them.
So I get why conspiracy theories are so tempting. But having lived in that world for so long, there are some good reasons to stay away from them. Conspiracy theories are toxic to the human mind. I don't listen to them for fun, I avoid them as much as possible these days. See the thing you have to understand is that they are seductive. They make some good points, or at least they seem to. They appeal to all the bad wiring in our brains to connect dots and trace patterns that do not actually exist. We are naturally wired to take all the random events of our lives and weave them into a coherent narrative with us as the protagonist. Conspiracy theories take that to a far grander scale. They weave all the random events of world history and weave them into a grand adventure with despicable villains and then invite you to be the noble hero in that story. They exploit every logical fallacy in the book but we don't mind (or notice) because they allow us to do the thing we like most: they let us make sense of things. It taps into our primal needs - the need to feel special, the need to feel smart, the need for control - as well as our worst impulses - distrust of our fellow man, hatred of the other, the different, the foreign and of course, the need to feel superior to others. It makes us feel like we are good people, fighting a good fight while in truth making us worse people**. It inspires us to casual cruelty, callousness and smugness but prevents us from recognizing it***. It makes us feel smarter while actively making us dumber. Because it's not just that conspiracy theories offer simple answers to complex issues. No, conspiracy theories denies that complex issues exist in the first place. It's all simple black and white. Us vs THEM. I cannot abide this.
I would much rather make peace with the terror of chaos. I prefer to admit that I don't know and I don't understand. Some things will always defy our need for easy answers and while that's scary it is still reality and reality is where I want to live. No matter what the cost.
*Think of the scariest horror movies you've ever seen. They were the ones where the monster had no rhyme or reason weren't they? The ones where the monster is powerful but works according to very specific rules just aren't that scary.
**Just look up all the bile sent to the grieving parents of the Sandy Hook Shooting after that got turned into a conspiracy. Those people all thought of themselves as good people while sending the most vile messages to the parents of murdered children.
***You're not smug! You're just wide awake to the TRUTH of how the world works! Unlike those sheeple!
I know I'm over a decade late to the party but I recently discovered the delightful British series Jonathan Creek. On the bright side, being late to the party means I get to watch the whole series on youtube for free! For those unfamiliar with the show, it's about a man who devises illusions for a stage magician for a living who uses his skills and insights to solve crimes that appear to have been impossible. If you're into skepticism and/or the very charming Alan Davies I strongly recommend watching it. It frequently demonstrates how the truth behind an astonishing mystery can be incredibly mundane so if you want to believe that magic tricks are really magic, this may not be your kind of show...
So while watching one of the episodes, an off hand comment by one of the characters made me realize that there is an incredibly banal truth behind the very popular supernatural belief in reincarnation. In the season 2 episode "Danse Macabre" the victim of a baffling murder is said to have been working on her autobiography - or rather her autobiographies - an account of her many lives throughout the ages. They included: "high priestess of the Aztec Empire... a courtesan to King Charles I, a Russian Countess and a Zulu at Rorke's Drift."
I've been fascinated by the supernatural since childhood and read anything I could find on the subject* and this seemed exactly like everything anyone claiming to remember their "past lives" has ever said. It's the weirdest thing when you think about it, how these previous incarnations are always incredibly significant. People were either very important historical figures or they were somehow connected to important historical figures and events. How strange, seeing as the vast majority of people throughout history were neither important nor involved with anything important. For most of history people were born, worked hard, lived lives devoid of comfort or importance and then died. Yet funnily enough, you never seem to hear anyone with a past life being any of those people! No one remembers a past life where they toiled hard, lived off turnips and died young because the most cutting edge medical procedure of the time was getting bled to death. Nope, it's always kings and queens and courtesans it seems! What are the odds?
Uncomfortable truth time, how important are you? I know we all get told from childhood that we are special little snowflakes and that our lives have much importance and meaning, but does it? Really? I'm not trying to insult you and I'm not insinuating that your life is meaningless. Obviously if you are reading this blog you are an amazing and intelligent person with a sensitive soul and a great sense of humour! Your closest friends and family would no doubt agree that you are totally awesome. However, in the grand scheme of things, how important do you think you are? Will people be reading about you in a 100 years? How about your friends and associates? Will they be famous centuries from now? Will your work be discussed in Universities one day?
Several important events happened within my lifetime: Elvis died, ABBA broke up, John Lennon was assassinated, George Lucas created and subsequently destroyed several million happy childhood memories, the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed, Apartheid ended and Lady Gaga was born. I didn't play any part in any of those events. It's a fair bet that you didn't either. Not everyone gets to do something significant with our lives. That doesn't mean we don't wish it wasn't so.
There is a reason that almost all works of fantasy involve someone plucked from obscurity and turned into someone of great importance. I think all nobodies wish they were somebodies. Who doesn't dream of being discovered and appreciated and admired and remembered? I suspect this kind of dream, this deep wish for specialness, lives inside us all. Therefore the fact that all past life experiences are so special and significant is the only clue you need to figure out that past lives are bullshit. There are no past lives, just current wish fulfillment.
No matter how much you dream of being special, the cold reality of your life can't be shut out forever. Reincarnation is however a great way of overcoming reality. Maybe you're not so amazing NOW but what if you were incredibly special in a past life (or ten)? Surely that could mean that you might end up being incredibly important in some other life in the future!
I'm something of a dreamer myself so I completely understand the allure. But that doesn't make it true. You can't make yourself special by wishing it so. Burying yourself in fantasy is comfortable but it's also a little dangerous. After all, if you're reading this you're probably not dead so your story isn't over yet. History is not done with you, maybe you turn out to be more significant than you could even dream. Who knows how your story is going to play out in the end? You're not a Pharaoh or a High Priest or a brave knight. You are you. Why not make the best of it?
*It led to many tearful repentance sessions and the occasional book burning since by even reading about the occult I was opening myself to Satan's influence. If you didn't grow up Pentecostal or Charismatic that wouldn't mean anything to you but trust me, it was a big deal!
Magic seems to be a pretty powerful force, provided you never actually test it. I recently posted about the striking miners of the Marikana mine who believed that the magic of a medicine man would protect them from being harmed by guns. This belief made them fearless, up to the tragic point they decided to test the magical protection by attacking the police. As inevitably happens when someone tests magic, the magic failed and 34 people died.
So with the magical protection failing so spectacularly you would probably think that this medicine man was in a lot of trouble for the failure of his spells. That would seem like the logical conclusion, but only if you have no prior experience with magical thinking.
Magic never fails, even when it fails completely. If your magic doesn't work, blame it on a bunny:
"Mineworkers at Lonmin's Marikana mine believe the killing of a rabbit was the reason the shooting happened, according to a report on Saturday.
The surviving mineworkers claimed that the medicine man who was alleged to have told them his muti would make them invincible had warned them not to kill the rabbit, the Saturday Star reported.
"The traditional healer warned all of us several times on the day not to kill the rabbit but some among us decided to chase it around the hill and killed it," mineworker Khabo Khabo told the newspaper.
"I still honestly believe that if it wasn't for the healer far more lives would have been lost on the day. If we had let the rabbit free all of the dead would still be alive," Khabo said.
A worker at the memorial service, held at the mine earlier this week, agreed.
Last Thursday, a total of 34 people were killed in a shooting near the mine when police tried to disperse striking miners. More than 70 people were injured.
The medicine man had reportedly promised the workers that police guns would malfunction when they faced them if they followed his instructions and took his muti.
Police video footage taken from a helicopter before the shooting showed the medicine man performing rituals as workers stripped naked before him in long queues. "
This happens every damn time.
A deranged cult leader proclaims a date for the Rapture/Armageddon, the date passes completely uneventfully aaaand nothing happens to the deranged cult leader. His followers swallow whatever lame excuse he comes up with, keep on supporting him and waits with mouths agape, ready to swallow the next doomsday prediction.
A charismatic faith healer/prosperity gospel preacher promises supernatural health and wealth and sick people stay sick (or get better because they went to a doctor PRAISE THE LORD!) and the only person who gets rich is the guy sending around the collection plate. Does anyone call bullshit? Never! They accept his explanations that they just didn't have enough faith/didn't tithe enough/had unconfessed sin in their hearts and humbly try to believe harder and plonk down more cash in the collection plate.
So why expect anything different when the magical protection against bullets completely failed to do anything against bullets? Of course they will put the blame on themselves (and the rabbit) because the magic man is NEVER to blame!
It's the perfect con. You can make up anything you want, provided you do it convincingly enough, and people will damn near worship you. You never have to worry about failure either, if your bullshit gets exposed bullshit your followers will just blame themselves. Provided you can think up some kind of excuse! Don't worry, it doesn't have to be a good excuse, it can be as dumb as the crap you're peddling!
I think I was wrong, magic is a powerful force regardless of whether you test it or not. You can test a magical claim a hundred times and watch it fail a hundred times and those who buy into it will never accept that it's false. Magic can't make you bulletproof but magical thinking has perfected the art of invulnerability!
"The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,"
Rick Santorum
"I am strongly opposed to the President’s misguided attempts to regulate carbon in direct contravention of the will of Congress. Carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant” and I will seek an amendment to the Clean Air Act that makes this clear. "
Mitt Romney
"But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle. "
Michele Bachmann
"George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide."
John Boehner
Carbon dioxide is totally natural. We all exhale it, plants consume it during photosynthesis, so why are some people trying to limit it? You keep hearing people telling you that we need to limit CO2 emissions and that we have to reduce our Carbon footprint, so why this vendetta against CO2? A friend of mine thinks he knows. After years of listening to Alex Jones, he has it all figured out - THEY want to label CO2 a "pollutant" so THEY can tax you for breathing! (Also it's probably going to be used to justify their sinister plot to kill all humans)
So is that true? In a word, no. That is not why scientists are warning us against our excessive CO2 emissions. They aren't claiming that CO2 is dangerous to make money, they are saying that because it poses a very real threat to the world. How can it pose a threat? Isn't it both natural and non-toxic? Yes, it's natural but so is cyanide. Yes it's non-toxic but so is water and that kills a LOT of people every year. Those aren't very good argument for the harmlessness of CO2. So why then?
The reason there is concern about CO2 levels (and not for instance Nitrogen levels) is because carbon dioxide is really really good at absorbing and trapping heat. Simple as that. Here, I'll let the scientists explain:
That's the problem with CO2 - it traps heat on earth and if we have too much of it, it will trap too much heat.
But OK, if you don't believe in Climate Change then you probably don't believe in scientists with all their science either. After all, if you believe that they are lying through their teeth about Global Warming then how can you believe anything they tell or show you? It could all be a trick!
Well, you're in luck. The heat trapping ability of CO2 isn't some esoteric scientific principle that only those with a 5th degree High Exalted Science Dragon qualification can demonstrate! You can do it too! Right now! At home!! All you need is:
2 Identical clear containers
2 Identical thermometers
2 Identical heat sources (like incandescent bulbs)
and,
a source of CO2. A gas cylinder used to carbonate drinks would work fine OR go old school and use baking soda and vinegar to make your own CO2
Step 1: Set up a thermometer and a heat source in each container. It should go without saying that the heat source cannot be a candle but I'm saying it anyway.
Step 2: Fill one of the containers with CO2.
Step 3: Turn on your heat sources, leave for 5 to 10 minutes and compare the readings on the thermometers. Then turn off both heat sources, leave for 5 to 10 minutes and take readings again.
What did you observe?
If you'd like a visual demonstration of the experiment, here is a video showing it:
So who are you going to believe? Right Wing politicians or your own lying eyes?
Reading "The Ascent of Man" is the best part of my commute. In it I found this jewel of a quote by Sir Isaac Newton:
"To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things."
Brilliant. Just brilliant. It's probably one of the best comebacks ever to the old "but science can't explain everything" stupidity. The fact that it comes from every creationist's favourite scientist just makes it so much sweeter!
No, science can't explain everything right now. That doesn't mean that your mystery of choice will never ever be explained. We may not even get the answer in your lifetime but that doesn't mean we will never get the answer. With each generation of scientists building on the work of their predecessors, we keep learning and understanding more, just like Newton said. So if I can't give you a scientific explanation right this second, it doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. It certainly doesn't mean that you get to make up your own answer in the meantime!
In the past there were tons of things we didn't understand. Today we understand a lot more about a great many things. Interestingly enough, everytime something was figured out no matter how long it took us or how difficult it was to figure out, the answer has never ever EVER been "magic".
So on that note since I started this post with a quote from an eccentric genius I'll end it with the words of another brilliant weirdo:
"Life is full of mystery, yeah, But there are answers out there And they won't be found By people sitting around Looking serious And saying isn't life mysterious?"
"The news was sensational. It made a reputation larger even than the triumph among the trading community. And yet it was not altogether welcome, because what Galileo saw in the sky, and revealed to everyone who was willing to look, was that the Ptolemaic heaven simply would not work. Copernicus's powerful guess had been right, and now stood open and revealed. And like many more recent scientific results, that did not at all please the prejudice of the establishment of his day.
Galileo thought that all he had to do was to show that Copernicus was right, and everybody would listen. That was his first mistake: the mistake of being naive about people's motives which scientists make all the time. "
Excerpt from 'The Ascent of Man' by Jacob Bronowski
Galileo didn't invent the telescope. He did however improve on it. A lot. This amazing new device that enabled you to see ships from miles away as if it were right in front of you was a technological marvel and everyone wanted to look through it. The problem was that Galileo didn't stop with looking at ships. He kept improving the telescope and then he turned it to the stars. That did not go over very well with some people, especially the Catholic Church. It's not that they didn't accept science. No, it's just that there was a certain kind of science they accepted and anything that dared to contradict it was blasphemy. The fact that the earth was the unmoving center of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth - these were articles of faith. These ideas were wrong though understandable. With the limited tools of the time, those seemed reasonable enough. But science brought better tools and with better tools came better understanding and with better understanding came the upsetting of established doctrine. It should have been undeniable, for the truth was there for anyone brave enough to look through the telescope, but no. Protecting the established doctrine was far more important to the Pope than observing the truth.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'm sure Galileo would be saddened but not terribly surprised by the current efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution. People have very strong ideas about how things are supposed to be but then sometimes science comes along and says "Actually... no... you're wrong". This leads to a very curious paradox where people want to be right but they prefer to hold on to their own idea of "right" (no matter how demonstrably wrong it may be) rather than accepting the truth and actuallybeing right. Very curious indeed.
This isn't true for everyone though. I think most of us come to crossroads like these. On the one side is everything you've been taught to believe is true, what everyone you've ever known has always insisted was true. Maybe it's even that which you most deeply wished were true. But on the other side is something that proves what you used to believe wrong. Maybe it's something small yet nagging, like your conscience, your empathy, your sense of reason and logic or an experience you've had that made you see things differently. Or maybe it's hard evidence, some science or historical fact you've never been exposed to before and no even though you wanted to dismiss it, you can't because it's very clearly true. So you have the world you know (and are used to) on the one hand and a strange new, scary world on the other What do you do?
Well, some people pretend there is no crossroad. People like the church in Galileo's day or Answers in Genesis in ours just look away and say, "There is no other road but the one we have always followed. The only thing that can be true is the thing we've always said was true. We cannot have been wrong, not now, not ever. " And so they keep on their way, completely unwilling to even look through the telescope, for to do so would cost them too much. It is a price they simply cannot pay.
But there are others. Heretics, Apostates, Freethinkers - these are some of the nicer names we get called - who simply cannot do that. We have to look, we have to know. It's not always easy. Knowing changes you. No one enjoys finding out they were wrong, no one likes having their entire world turned upside down. But that is the price of looking for the truth and we pay it. Sometimes gladly, sometimes with difficulty, but we do it none the less. The thing with truth is that no matter how disagreeable you find it, it's still the truth.
For some there is a choice between the facts and what they would like the facts to be. For others there is no choice at all. Some people can tell themselves they are right despite seeing more than enough to convince them they are wrong. That's no way to live.
At least not for me.
But hey, on the bright side, no one is going to drag me in front of the Inquisition and threaten to torture me for disagreeing! Thank goodness some things at least did change since the days of Galileo!
Recently I read a piece where a scientist addressed the question all of today's foremost "science" channels love to ask, "Are human beings the result of engineering by aliens?". PZ Myers had a simple answer: "No." But then someone in the comments got really upset because "no" is not what a Real True Scientist/Skeptic would say. "No" is too dogmatic! Real True Honest Skeptics have to say "I don't know".
So now, since I'm trying to become a better skeptic myself, I have to ask myself if that's really the way I should answer questions. Are simple yes or no answers wrong? Am I supposed to be skeptical of everything all the time always? Is skepticism = agnosticism about all things?
I find that baking helps me think so today I tried baking bread for the first time in my life. Not just any bread either, it was a healthy organic artisan bread made from the finest unbleached, stone ground flour. It was a lot of fun to make and while there is a lot of room for improvement, I'm very happy with how it turned out. It was delicious! Soft inside with a crunchy crust and a rich, nutty taste. I've eaten half of it already!
So then, should someone ask me if I baked this bread what should I say? Can I say "yes" or would that make me a bad skeptic? Shouldn't I rather say "I don't know"? After all, maybe I didn't bake it!
Perhaps I was abducted by aliens! But since people always seem to figure out they were abducted because they realise they are missing some time, perhaps the aliens planted a false memory of me spending 2 hours making a baguette, even leaving me with a freshly baked one from the mothership's kitchen so I would remember all the probing!
Perhaps I stumbled across a faerie in need somewhere in the garden and after helping it out of a perilous situation it decided to call in a troop of faeries to bake me a bread in gratitude! Of course since their very existence must remain secret they used their faerie magic to make me believe that I baked it myself!
Perhaps I did set out to bake a bread but the one I put in the oven turned out to be a massive flop. However Empanda, goddess of bread did not want me to become discouraged lest I abandon bread making forever so she used her divine powers to replace my failed bread with a much better loaf.
Perhaps I'm actually mentally ill and I actually bought it at the supermarket and everything else is just the delusions of my fevered mind.
Perhaps I really bought it from a small artisan bakery in town but after buying it I did something terrible and completely unforgivable so the baker - who is also a stage magician and mentalist - used hypnosis to erase all memory of the bakery from my mind, replacing it with a false memory.
Or perhaps none of this is real and I'm actually living inside a computer simulation a la The Matrix, in which case there is no bread...
All of those options may sound unlikely - because they are - but its not like I could be 100% sure. So while it's far fetched, there is an extremely remote chance that one of them could be true. So then, if someone asks "Did you bake that bread" the only honest answer I can give as someone trying to be a skeptic is "I don't know", right? Wrong!
I will say, "Yes I did!" because all those other options are fucking stupid! But most importantly because I have absolutely no reason or evidence to suspect one of those fucking stupid options may be right!
So if you want me to be more skeptical, you have to give me a reason. Either prove me wrong or at least give me some evidence that calls my version of events into question. If you can't do that, I will remain dogmatic about the fact that I baked that delicious loaf as well as the fact that I'm not the result of an alien eugenics program. That's not me being dishonest, that's me being entirely reasonable. All evidence points one way and if you want me to consider a different way, offer me a compelling reason. As the saying goes, there is being open minded and there is having a hole in your head where your brains leak out.
Though many a religious apologist would insist that there is no conflict between science and religion, a lot of people in the religious as well as the not-religious-but-spiritual camp certainly do believe that. These are the people leading the charge against the teaching of evolution, vaccinations, stem cell research and lately global warming. Their main weapon against science (or as they prefer to call it, "science") is to treat it as if it was just another belief system. A rival religion. That way they can re-imagine the conflict as "what you believe vs what I believe" instead of "what I prefer to believe vs reality".
Probably the best example of this would be the work of one Mr Jack Chick. His world is very sharply divided between right (his beliefs) and wrong (everyone who disagrees even a little). He has published several tracts in which he treats science with the same mocking scorn he habitually lavishes on Muslims and Catholics. To him, science is just one more flawed religious view from the pit of hell, a fact he recently made very clear in a tract on Global Warming. I will try to use this tract to show why I disagree with his view of science as a religion. In the interest of being open minded I will also try to point out the instances where science does seem like religion. Sound fair? OK, lets go!
Well this is not a good start. Here science is represented by a very menacing looking Al Gore who, we should note, is a politician and not a scientist. I guess this is something religion and science have in common, both are often hijacked by politicians with big egos and grandiose plans.
OK... I... wow... That is just wrong! Clearly Jack really hates science and he is not afraid to stoop to ridiculous caricature! Stay classy guy! But I digress, let's take him up on his invitation to "think about this". Should we "little people" take these "scientists" and their "science" seriously? Well it depends. Would you (as one of the salt of the earth, no nonsense, common sense "little people") accept the "gracious council" of:
A brilliant doctor if you got sick?
A brilliant mechanic if your car broke down?
A brilliant engineer when you needed a bridge to drive on?
A brilliant programmer when you need reliable software?
A brilliant surgeon when your appendix bursts?
You would, wouldn't you? And you would be all bitchy and condescending about it either. Why? Because expertise matters. You know that it does. You trust in experts all the time and for good reason! You know that a lot of the things you depend on every day requires more than just a can-do attitude and some old fashioned elbow grease. It takes some of that fancy elitist booklearnin' that's got Santorum so huffy. It takes science. Condescend all you want, you would still be living in a cave without generation after generation of those highfalutin' "scientists".
Ooooookaayyyy... So the first example of why we shouldn't trust those darn "scientists" turns out to be arguably the most unscientific people of any age, the Medieval Catholic Church? Really? Surely Chick must have noticed that this age where the Church was fully in control of everything was THE DARK AGES! I know he didn't miss that part because it says so right there in the first panel! You know what ended the dark ages? The Enlightenment, a.k.a the age where science and reason made a comeback. I would just like to take a moment here to do something Mr Chick never bothers to do at any point in this tract. I'd like to ask "Why?" See that is the first big difference between religion and science - science wants a why. Religion on the other hand just tells you something and expects you to accept on faith. Jack Chick certainly never commits what Mark Driscoll calls the sin of questioning in this comic, that much is clear! So why did people think the world would end before the year 1000? Because that's what the Bible said! (Sort of. All End Times Scripture requires an assload of "interpretation") Yep, these weren't just Catholics being evil Jack Chick caricatures. These were Christians reading Revelation and expecting the end of the millennium to herald Christ's return! Just FYI, make a mental note of this whole "millennium" thing, It's going to come up again later...
[citation needed]
Right, well I trust Chick's grasp of history about as much as I trust his grasp of science so I have no idea if any of this is based in actual fact. Heaven knows that the church swindled LIKE A BOSS during the Middle Ages so it's entirely possible but I didn't find any reliable sources for this claim. All I do know is that none of this has anything at all to do with science! No fear, there will probably be some hard science up next!
Or not... So far we have an example of religious fraud and a spiritualist fraud (or whatever the hell Nostradamus pretended to be). I'm sorry to say but one really should not be looking for science on the History channel (or National Geographic or Discovery any of the other science channels). Gone are the days of Jacques Cousteau and Carl Sagan. These days it's all ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, the Bible Code and Nostradamus - if you want real science and history look elsewhere.
Wait, were we supposed to seriously discuss Nostradamus' abilities to predict the future? You know what, nevermind we finally got some science! I'll discuss that "scientific" prediction under the next couple of pages that continue in the same vein. Just a quick note in case that Muslim comment seemed weird and out of context. Jack Chick is kind of obsessed with Muslims taking over England. A reference like this randomly pops up every now and again in his tracts apropos of nothing. No idea if that's a real fact either (I have my doubts) but it is very real to him and he throws it in all the time to remind the good Christians of the United States what will happen if they let those nasty secular humanists drive God out of school and government - the eeevil Muslims will take over your once beautiful Christian Nation!!! Terrified yet?
Finally we come to the meat of the matter. Here is a case where science really does seem like a religion! You have a scientist making dire predictions of doom, much like an Old Testament era prophet like for instance Jonah. Sure seems religious right? Plus then those predictions failed to come true so it must be a false religion. You know, just like the Bible must be false because Jonah's predictions didn't come to pass either! Ah, but Mr Chick wouldn't agree with me there now would he? Obviously Jonah's prophecy's didn't come to pass because the people of Nineveh changed their wicked ways after hearing of their coming doom. You know, not unlike the way people change their ways in the face of some alarmist, hyperbolic warnings from a scientist. I still remember how everyone was freaking out about the hole in the ozone layer and how it was going to kill us all. Was it? I don't really know. What I do know is that the resulting freakout forced manufacturers to stop using CFC's in their aerosols and refrigerators, so if the problem turned out to be less disastrous than predicted it's because the freakout brought a change in behavior. However I disagree with such tactics. Look I get that it's very hard to get people to pay attention when you say that a global temperature rise of 5 degrees over the next 40 years will be a worldwide natural disaster leading to serious geopolitical problems*. You get a much better reaction by telling everyone that everything the love will be ON FIRE next year!!! In the short term anyway. In the long term you get this kind of backlash from people like Jack Chick. When you use such an atrociously bad attention grabbing tactic (not to mention atrociously bad science) you undermine the credibility of scientist everywhere and you end up with large groups of morons going "Pffft, "science"? Whatever man, these guys are just making shit up. They are always wrong!" Hysterical reporting sells books and magazines but it also obscures the truth. So no, the entire polar ice cap isn't going to be melted by next week. But that does not negate the fact that the polar ice cap is shrinking. 3.82 million square miles sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But notice how he doesn't say what it used to be. Arctic ice is at a record low and that is not an opinion, that's a fact. Also worth noting is that surface area is not the most important metric. What really matters is density. Every winter the ice cap grows but this growth is a thin layer that easily melts. It's the thick, dense ice that is more permanent and this is the part that is seriously shrinking! Furthermore this causes a feedback loop - thin ice melts easier exposing more water which absorbs more heat from the sun (white ice on the other hand reflects the heat away) leading to more melting leading to more ocean leading to more heat absorbed leading to faster melting and on and on it goes.
Here is a great example of why it helps to know something about science. First of all climate is not the same as weather. I'm serious. What do you think climate scientists do? Did you think they just stuck their heads outside the window and said "Hey it's kind of hot today. It must be Global Warming!"? They didn't. That's why having a cold winter doesn't mean Global Warming is over. Lots of things can influence weather - like sunspots and La Niña and El Niño events for instance - but Climate is about the big picture. They don't just look at the temperature of the season, they look at the temperatures over decades. More than that even, they use tree ring and ice core data to look at climate changes for hundreds and thousands of years! They don't just look at what the weather was like either, they also try to find out why. Climate Change is not something Al Gore invented over a couple of beers one night in 90's. Scientists have understood this phenomenon since at least the 1950's and have been warning us about it ever since. (No, scientists in the 70's didn't think there was going to be another ice age. That was just sensationalistic reporting, not actual science) Scientists say Global Warming is real because they've studied mountains of data, they understand how climate works and this is where everything is pointing to. Secondly, did you notice the "global" part of global warming? We are talking about something worldwide, not just something that happened in your back yard. Sure, maybe your weather seems fine but have you checked everyone else's? That changes the picture considerably! Thirdly, even us "little people" can use our vaunted "common sense" to figure out if these extreme snows fit with Global Warming or not. You may remember that the water that falls on you from the sky today was water that evaporated from the earth yesterday. So if things get warmer that means more water evaporates BUT this evaporated water doesn't move out into space, it comes back down again. So you would expect to see massive flooding and exceptionally heavy snowfalls if Global Warming was real and what do you know, we totally do!
Let's see, Catholics, Hippies, Feminists, Communists and bratty kids. Yup, everyone Chick hates is accounted for!
Look, we can quote bad predictions by guys like Dr Ehrlich all day long (no really, he made a lot of bad predictions!) but that doesn't invalidate science at all. Guys like that are sort of the Harold Camping's of the scientific community - they gather a lot of money and fame with wild, apocalyptic claims and when they are eventually proven wrong they end up being an embarrassment for everyone even remotely connected to their field. But science does not work like religion, it is not based on authority. There is no science messiah, no science pope, no bishops, no gurus, no prophets. It's not about charisma, it's about the evidence - you either have it or you don't. Facts trump everything. It doesn't matter if you are the greatest mind of your generation, if someone proves you wrong then that is it, your brilliant idea is out**. See that is another way that science differs from religion - it doesn't pretend to be infallible. There is no inspired scripture in science. Everyone's work will be poked, prodded and tested. Science is not one person writing a sensational best seller. In science you have thousands of people collecting and analyzing data and then checking their work as well as those of others. In science you are encouraged to try and find the flaws in your work because everyone else in your field is most certainly going to do their best! When a scientific idea turns out to be wrong no one treats it like the end of the world. Usually you can learn a whole lot from the entire process anyway and so our knowledge base grows. That is why Mr Chick's method of going "Hah! Your prophet was wrong therefore your arguments are invalid!" fails. It's not about what this prominent scientist or that one said, it's about the data. It's about the evidence. You know, the things Chick never ever addresses in these tracts. Here is why science is telling you Climate Change is real:
Here is why Jack Chick thinks science is telling you Climate Change is real:
...
I have a theory. Not a scientific theory, just a shot in the dark. I think Jack Chick lives in a dark basement and he never comes out. I don't think he has interacted with real human beings in a very long time. It's really the only explanation I have for why his comics are so insanely out of touch with reality. Down in his basement he is free to imagine everyone else is just like him. He believes in things because God tells him therefore everyone must believe things because some kind of god tells them to. If they are not like him they must be his opposite. So if he loves Jesus and the Bible and believes X and someone disagrees with X that must mean they hate Jesus and the Bible, right? Really that is the only way I can imagine him coming up with such a howling falsehood. Over here in the real world however we don't have to make up facts. Here we have polls and actual scientific studies done on the religious beliefs of scientists so we don't have to pull our answers from a major orifice. Turns out that here in the real world things aren't quite as black and white as Mr Chick imagines. A large number of scientists are atheists or agnostics but a substantial amount of scientists do have religious beliefs. As far as I could find out, none seem to be worshiping any goddesses from ancient civilizations. No, it turns out the religious men (and women!) of science are mostly Christians (both Catholics and Protestants) as well as Jews. You know, people who believe in the God of the Bible. People who hate neither Scripture nor Jesus. However in Chick's defense almost none of them are fundamentalist evangelicals and if you are familiar with his tracts you would know that to his mind that's exactly the same thing as being a devil worshiping pagan!
I think it was George Carlin who pointed out that "saving the planet" really didn't have anything to do with "the planet". The planet isn't going anywhere, but if we mess it up bad enough it will become very hard for us to live here. That is what we are trying to save, not the planet itself but rather our ability to live here successfully. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for Chick. If you have a river that supplies your water and you poison that river then you lose your source of water and life. If everyone dies from the poisonous water that's on you, not on Jesus. Likewise, if you cut down all the trees in your area it won't be the devil's fault that you don't have any shade left. It's demonstrably clear that we can make our local environment inhospitable. All climate scientists are telling us is that 7 billion people all messing up their local environment leads to a pretty messed up global environment! You don't think Jesus would allow that? What about free will? God allows sin but not environmental damage? That makes absolutely no sense. But then Jack Chick's theology doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Speaking of, it's time for the mandatory section on sin and salvation for this tract:
OK to sum up, God is in charge of everything, except when He's not and the Devil is. The devil got all the authority over the earth from Adam even though that's not anywhere in Genesis and according to Psalm 24:1 (which he references but maybe didn't read) the earth and everything in and on it belonged to God all along. But then again you really can't trust the Jews to understand their own scriptures and that is probably why they never understood that Satan was actually the God's 2IC on earth until the New Testament came along. What does this have to do with global warming? I can't wait to find out!
"He had a devil!" Something Jack Chick imagines that Rabbi's say apparently...
Wait for it...
So there you have it. The environmentalist have to be wrong because if they are right then we won't get to see Jesus 2: This time it's personal! Guys like Chick spent their whole lives eagerly waiting for Christ Norris to come down and beat the snot out of all those nasty folks who dared to disagree with them! He has to endure assholes like me making fun of the idiotic things he says and he copes with that by imagining us all getting tortured for eternity by the Lamb of God for daring to disagree with him. This isn't about facts or science, at the core of it this has all been about a bloody revenge fantasy all along. Since reality won't accommodate said fantasy, reality has to go! Hold on... What was that last bit about a 1000 years?
Wait a second! Jesus reigns for a 1000 years and then there is judgement and the earth gets destroyed? That sounds familiar! It's the same story he began this tract with!! Of course when the medieval Catholics interpreted this to mean that after a 1000 years of the church being in charge Judgement day would come it was just a calculated scare tactic used to manipulate people. When a Chick tract uses the exact same scripture to scare people into doing something that is completely different. Because...?
*Not an actual scientific claim so please don't quote that! I was just trying to illustrate how real science often doesn't seem very dramatic.
**Just ask Aristotle, Newton or Einstein. Those guys know what I'm talking about!
If you are interested in what scientists are actually saying about Climate change, go check out climatecrocks.com a site packed with actual scientific info. It even has a very cool video series in case you didn't feel like reading but still want to separate climate fact from climate fiction.
Earlier this month the Agnostic & Atheist Student Association of UC Davis held an event titled, “How to Get into Heaven (According to Mormons),” presented by Ted Cox, an ex-Mormon turned atheist. Apparently a whole bunch of people got seriously butthurt by all this, if this article in their local paper is anything to go by. Reading all the comments really had me perplexed. Why was everyone so upset? They were calling it "offensive" and "bigoted". The Mormons were outraged, even some people claiming that they were atheists and totally not Mormons claimed to be very upset by such insensitive and bigoted talks discussing the actual inner workings of the Mormon Church. Absolutely no part of that makes any sense to me.
Unless you have something to hide.
Turns out the Mormons totally do. In fact, their church even has a practice called "milk before meat", meaning that many of their actual beliefs and doctrines are hidden from outsiders and even new converts. Much like with Scientology, you don't get to learn the actual story until you've committed a whole lot of time and money to the church.
You don't see Buddhists calling a discussion of the Four Noble Truths
offensive and you won't even see Muslims calling an event explaining the
Five Pillars of Islam bigoted. Provided your information is accurate
and factual, none of the major religions have any problem with you
knowing what they believe in. Say what you will about the different religions of the world, at least they're not this sneaky. Islam doesn't present itself as a motivational speaking and leadership program where you only find out it's a religion when you reach level 18. Christianity doesn't wait until you've given a certain amount of money before they spring the Virgin Birth and the talking snake on you. Nope, the guy handing out tracts on the street corner will happily inform you of every belief, no matter how weird. To do anything less is to admit you have something to hide. That's never good.
Look, to me it comes down to consumer protection. If you are going to sign up for something, don't you have the right to know what it's really all about? Especially if you are going to have you change your lifestyle and sacrifice your time and money when you sign up for it. If there is a brand of toaster that makes your whole house smell like burning leaves and the salesman doesn't tell you that up front, you would have every right to be upset. But if you happen to be the kind of person who likes the smell of burning leaves and toast and you know this model will give it to you then you can buy it and enjoy it. The important thing is that you at least got to make an informed decision.
Or to use a more serious example that's recently been in the news in my part of the world. Let's say there is this camp for young men that claims to be for game ranger training. However it does a lot more than that, it's actually a cover for a bunch of white supremacists who teach race hate to the students after pushing them to their mental and physical breaking point. Would you want to know that before you send your kids there? Would these same people so shocked and outraged at Mormon laundry being aired in public also be arguing that what happens at these camps should be kept private and personal? Somehow I doubt it...
I don't know what your opinion of religion is, it may very well be that you find all religions equally silly, but you would have to concede that any group that has to hide what they actually stand for is all sorts of creepy!
Yesterday someone posted an article on Facebook called "The Science of Faith". Reading it was not good for my blood pressure. The message was basically that science is overrated and that there are other ways of finding truth that works just as well if not better. This type of mealy mouthed mysticism triggers me to no end but what to do about it? I could vent in the comment section but experience has taught me that my incoherent rage at proponents of anti-science usually just leads them to shake their heads at me condescendingly while making comments like "Your blind adherence to scientism blinds you to larger truths, don't be so close minded!" or even worse, "I'll pray for you". I could simply avoid all articles like this but where would that leave me? To avoid everything I disagree with and only read things I already agree on will just leave me stagnant and trapped in my own conformation bias. No, it's far better to engage with the things I disagree with. There is always a chance I'm mistaken and this way I can be corrected. If I'm not mistaken I can still gain a better understanding. The problem is that when I try to engage things that piss me off I have trouble expressing myself clearly. So then it's better for me to learn how to respond to articles like this with less blind rage and more sense. But how to do that? I guess I could wait for someone out there who is smarter and more informed than me to tell me what to think but that doesn't seem like a great option. How much would I really be learning from that after all? So I decided to instead work out a proper response here on my blog. It may be a little rough and clumsy at times but I can't really think of a better way for me to learn how to give a clearheaded response to things I disagree with. After all, that was what my New Year's not-resolution was all about!
By the way, I welcome all input in this whether you agree with me or not.
OK then, here is my response to "The Science of Faith" by Nico van der Westhuizen. Original article in bold my response in [brackets]. All pictures added by me.
I am not necessarily what you would call a “Scientist”, [up to here I agree completely but it quickly goes downhill from here...] but I am an avid student of all things unexplored and mysterious [He uses "student" in the loosest sense of the word only]. Science in many ways has become the root of all things that steer our lives in the modern world [the what now?]. And at the core of all human investigation is the yearning to explain the unexplained.
That brings us to my point of question for this discussion, the Naturalist. As I was flipping through the numerous useless and unentertaining channels of my very expensive television subscription, I came across a scientific program explaining the Naturalist view of the world.[so far so good]
Despite being an enthusiast of science I have some reservations about what was being said during the broadcast. If I can recollect correctly the presenter claimed that he was a Naturalist by heart, one who believes that we can only know what can be scientifically tested. He based his belief on the fact that since we have made much progress in science over the last 300 years compared to the fields of Arts, Theology or Humanities, it is therefore vastly superior to other ways of “knowing.”
The very statement that we can know only that which is scientifically testable is in itself a self-refuting statement. No scientific laboratory in the world could perform any kind of experimentation to prove this statement as fact. [See this is why I have such a hard time taking Mr vd Westhuizen here seriously. He calls himself "an enthusiast of science" but he clearly doesn't actually understand what science is - something that's going to become much clearer as we keep going. It seems that he thinks that the only way to verify something scientifically is with a test tube and a microscope. Wrong! We can totally test this scientifically using a little something called The Scientific Method. The question is, which is the most reliable way of knowing the truth - Science, Theology, Arts or the Humanities? Now let's observe and gather data. On a wide range of issues, which of these has been correct most often? Much like the unnamed Naturist, the data is bound to lead you to the hypothesis that Science is the best way of separating fact from fiction. Now we can test this over and over again. Science says bacteria makes you ill, Theology says it's demons. So lets give some sick people antibiotics and some other sick people exorcisms and see who gets better. Repeat as many times as you'd like and make some predictions using this model and see if it's accurate. This is both repeatable and falsifiable and therefore scientific]
Famous physicist Stephen Hawking wrote the following in his latest book ‘The Grand Design’. He writes, “Philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
This avowal is clearly not a scientific statement; rather it is a philosophical statement about science. It is a logical inconsistency, because what he claims to be inapplicable is what he is using to prove his statement. [Did he read past the first page? I did and I seem to recall Dr Hawking backing that statement up with lots and lots of scientific evidence, not philosophy and handwaving. So no, it's not logically inconsistent at all. Science says the side with the most evidence wins, Hawking gave evidence so he wins]
Science creates many assumptions while producing its own experiments. [No. Some assumptions are necessary but not many. In fact to practice good science you have to make as few assumptions as possible] So much so that many experiments cannot begin without assuming certain things. [Yes, for example we have to assume that we exist and that reality is not some kind of computer simulation a la The Matix. We also have to assume that our senses are mostly reliable and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't tampering with our results as they are measured] These assumptions guide experimentation and are themselves not the result of experiments. So the assumption that all things are scientifically knowable and nothing is supernatural is itself a belief which can neither be asserted nor defended by the Naturalist position that all things are scientifically testable. [WTF?? This is just wrong on so many levels! These assumptions scientists make are not just random bullshit they pull out of thin air. They have to be pretty well grounded and defensible because other scientists are going to check their work (peer review) and the first place they are going to try to poke holes are in the starting assumptions. There is a reason science makes a naturalistic assumption rather than a supernatural one - supernatural claims have been tested over and over again and each time the answer turned out to be a natural one. Assumptions like these are actually based on other experiments. Go check out the James Randi Educational Foundation, they regularly run tests on alleged paranormal and supernatural claims and they have yet to find someone who can demonstrate such a thing for a million dollars]
So I believe that a naturalist’s assumptions are as much a matter of “faith” if not more than that of a believer who believes in the supernatural. [No, assuming that you should trust in evidence does not take as much or more faith than it takes to believe things happen magically. For example believing that Jesus turned water into wine takes faith. There is no natural, scientific mechanism by which to do that and no rational way to prove it therefore if you want to believe it you just have to take it on faith. It does not take any faith on the other hand to believe that the world is round though - we can fly around it, we can send up satellites and spaceships to take a look and see for ourselves. One of these things is not like the other]
In light of this it can then also be concluded that other forms of “knowing” are equally certain and sometimes even superior to science. [Credit where it's due, here he demonstrates what it would look like if
things really worked the way he thinks they do. If people make
nonsensical assumptions and then just run with it they end up with crazy
conclusions like this one. Do tell, how are other forms of "knowing" superior to science?]
To use an example: Mathematical knowledge like 1+1=2 is inescapably true and I don’t need any experiments or any of my senses to guarantee that it is true. Similarly, the basic laws of logic are self-sustaining and don’t need any support from science. [Here's the thing. This example actually proves the opposite of what you think it does. You don't know that 1+1=2 via osmosis or magic. You know it the same way you know the basic laws of logic are true, through science. The only reason it feels like these things are second nature to you is because you have been doing the science on this all your life. You are NOT born with the knowledge that 1+1=2 or with the knowledge of cause and effect. Instead you learn these things by observation, experimentation, testing and prediction - science. At the very basis of what you know about math there is the observation that there are things and things come in amounts. Pretty soon you learn that you can make those amounts more or less. You learn this with toys, marbles, stones, whatever is available to you. If you were born deaf and blind and lived alone in an empty room, you may never have any concept of basic math or logic. Sorry but you don't know this via magic, you know this via science]
Certain universal laws of ethics are applicable and accepted without having to be proven to us through scientific tests. We “know” that abusing our children is wrong and those concepts such as mercy and kindness are virtues. [Who is your "we" kimosabe? Have you seen the crime statistics? A LOT of people don't seem to "know" that abusing children is wrong. There are also no "universal laws of ethics" to speak of. Ethics can and does vary wildly throughout time and space. Your morals and ethics depend mostly on where (and when) you live and how you were raised, they certainly don't get magically zapped into everyone mystically. I did a fairly long blog post on this a while back using Sleeping Beauty as an example but for now, consider someone born into an organized crime family who grew up in a culture of violence and cruelty. Do you think they see mercy and kindness as virtues or weaknesses to be exploited?]
I do not wish to offend anyone by writing these words, [only actual fans of science will be offended at this point, don't worry about it, I doubt you know any] but I believe that we [we? srsly?] fans of science and the yet unexplained are too engrossed in finding the mechanism that works a system and are confusing it with whomever or whatever set that mechanism in motion. [How about no? The one does not preclude the other. There are plenty of scientific fields - physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology - that are dedicated to investigating both the mechanism and whatever set the mechanism in motion. If you were an actual fan of science you would have known that. Both are fascinating. You know what's not fascinating? Closing your eyes to the wonders of the universe and shouting "You can't explain it! It must be magic gnomes!"]
Let’s look at another example: Birds have wings in order to fly. Because we want our own set of wings or developed that same mechanism to make an airplane, we sometimes stop at the mechanism as the ultimate explanation to that phenomenon. [I'm not sure what that last sentence is even supposed to mean! However when I think of how human beings - a species of flightless mammals - managed to overcome our biology and mastered flight (which btw, not everything with wings can even do!) I am overcome with awe and wonder! Think about it! We can fly faster than the speed of sound! We have flown to the moon! We dreamed it and we did it! Yet somehow all that leaves him with a profound sense of "meh" because that's just boring mechanics and not the divine purpose of wings or whatever]
Rather we should also pause to think who gave those wings to the birds and for what ultimate purpose. [Ohhhh now I get it! All that ultimate purpose stuff was about God somehow. Well I for one would LOVE to know the ultimate God given purpose of wings and remember, it can't be something stupid like "flying" because that's besides the point somehow] Because we are only interested in technology and not the whole truth we have gotten our languages confused. We are beginning to treat the natural world or the mechanism as the agent who contains the ultimate purpose. [This just seems like a case of weapons grade projection to me. Creationists and other proponents of anti-science are always telling you how much they love science when all they really love are the fruits of science - all the technology and advancements that make our lives easier and longer. They don't like science itself. Because science doesn't care what you believe or what you would like to be true. Science is a process that can find the truth no matter what that truth is. You start messing around with science and next thing you know all that cool, mystical "ultimate purpose" stuff may end up not seeming so profound anymore. Real scientists on the other hand aren't in it for the tech, they are in it for the journey of discovery]
How do you test the love between a mother and a child? [Well thank goodness not everyone was satisfied with that Hallmark card drivel. See not all mothers love their children. Some mothers go a little nuts sometimes and drown their babies. Good thing then science didn't just chalk it up to "mysterious ways" because now postpartum depression can be diagnosed and treated] How do you explain the spontaneous explosion of matter into what we now call the universe? [Work in progress. There may be much we don't know yet but scientists are actually working on that over at CERN. Fun fact, it's thanks to work on particle accelerators that we ended up with things like MRI machines and the internet] Sometimes we should just accept that some things are better left unexplained and mysterious. It’s more fun that way too. Imagine a world in which all things were revealed to all men…not that magical anymore is it? [You know that world you're fantasizing about? The one without all these stupid "explanations" and "scientific inquiry" where everything was mysterious and magical instead? We had that! It was called the Dark Ages and it wasn't a great time to be alive. No one had the slightest idea how the world worked but hey, at least they had art and philosophy and theology! But don't fret, I hear that in parts of Nigeria they reject science in favour of the supernatural so you could always move there if you don't mind occasionally having to torture and kill a child for being a witch! I'm sorry, was that rude? Am I being offensive? Good, because this was an offensive article! You know what rejecting science in favour of "other ways of knowing" gets you? People people being robbed of potential happiness, suffering and even dying needlessly. Our supernatural superstitions landed us in the deepest, darkest holes humanity has ever been in and it was only by the light of reason and science that we managed to claw our way out of it. To suggest we turn our backs on that and return to the darkness is a deeply offensive notion. Oh, I know you don't mean it like that. You just think talk of "other ways of knowing" and "deeper ultimate meanings" make you sound oh so damn deep and thoughtful and spiritual. But it doesn't. It makes you sound ignorant and clueless. The world is incredible and the universe a place of infinite wonder but you can't see that. You miss the true beauty of your garden because you would rather imagine it has fairies in it than learn of it's true magnificence. You refuse to see the awesome wonder of reality because you would rather believe in the smallness of magic and superstition]
I think it is for that reason that C.S. Lewis said “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator”. [Right, scientists of old like Newton, Kepler and Galileo assumed that if God created the universe then it followed that the universe would make sense and therefore they should be able to understand it. Modern anti-scientists do the opposite. They say that since God did it we shouldn't try to understand it or bother investigating it. We've come a long way baby!]
OK so I lost my cool there for a while but at least I managed to get through the whole thing without once using the word "fucktard" so there's that. It just upsets me when people act as if science takes all the mystery and joy out of the world. Have these people ever listened to someone like Carl Sagan or Brian Cox (the rockstar scientist, not the curmudgeonly actor) talk about science? Science doesn't steal the mystery away, it gives us the tools to appreciate it in full! The more we explore the more we find, each question we answer leads to countless new questions! Science robs you of nothing, it gives you the keys to the castle. You know what does rob you? Closing your eyes to all that by making up your own ignorant bullshit and calling that "a different way of knowing". Sure, that way you can get to live comfortably in your own little cave, blissfully unaware of the greatness that is right outside (but at least your little pet beliefs will be totally safe so there's that). You would be missing out on so much though! The self made prison world of superstition and fairytales will rob you of all the wonder of the universe while offering nothing but a tiny portion of pathetic mysticism. Trust me, once you get a taste of the real mysteries of the world, it's hard to go back!
I saw this video on Scotteriology today and I just had to do whatever the blogging equivalent of retweeting is. This played a very large part in making me what I am today. Not this specific video but videos, articles, books and sermons just like it. It's why I'm the lovable heretic I am today. I'll explain after you've seen the video.
My formative years were filled with and shaped by this kind of propaganda. All the shows, toys, music and comics I liked the most just happened to be the ones I weren't supposed to like because they were "demonic". Good Christian kids shouldn't even watch that or the devil would get a hold of you and mess you up! No, I'm not joking, they really tell stuff like that to kids in church. I was a very pious little fundamentalist so on more than one occasion, fearing for my salvation, I tried to rid myself of some of these "occult" toys and comics. But then I got a little older and started noticing something. These people didn't know what the fuck they were talking about! They were mixing up different stories, they would add a ton of embellishments that made no sense and sometimes they would just plain make stuff up. Mullet guy in that video is a shining example - there was no magic in TMNT of any kind. Splinter didn't use white magic and
Demonic!!
Bebop & Rocksteady didn't use black magic either. Now it would still be years before I would be willing to start asking serious questions about my faith but this really laid the groundwork. These guys preaching to me about the Turtles and Rock music were my first clue that people in the church could talk with great conviction and certainty about things they knew absolutely nothing about. Once I realized that people could stand on a pulpit and talk out their asses (without blushing!) it was only a matter of time before I started questioning more things.
Oh, and this also led to my first publicized rant! Sometime in early High School I just got so fed up by the BS on "evil" kids shows I wrote a letter to Die Huisgenoot, a local tabloid style family mag (only in SA!) calling them on all the nonsense they were publishing. Sadly when they printed my letter it was heavily edited - they left out all the bits where I pointed out that their "reporter" was a sensation seeking moron who clearly never spent 5 seconds checking out the shows he was criticizing and the part where I pointed out that they were making false claims to rile up parents - but still, it was my rant and it was out there in public. It felt good! That probably had some effect on me eventually taking my rants to the internet. Even though their hatchet job on my letter made it seem like I claimed Bugs Bunny was also a bad influence on kids. Actually what I said was that children's entertainment had always been violent, using Bugs and Tom & Jerry as examples to show that Power Rangers didn't invent violence in kid's shows. But I guess that also gave me my first clue on how far to trust the media...
I spent most of my life as a fundamentalist and discovered Reason much later than I would have liked. I'm still dealing with the trauma and this blog is my therapy. So this is me: non-conformist, heretic, fan of delicious flavour and a man without a home. I’m a cynical optimist and a really angry zen master. I am just a man trying to make sense of it all. This is my life in juxtaposition.
Posts
