Atheist Armaments

I’ve been thinking about stereotypes lately. There are stereotypical images: “The Angry Atheist”, “The Ignorant Christian”, etc. There are stereotypical arguments, mostly involving God’s existence, or Creationism vs. Evolution, etc. And there are stereotypical approaches — namely butting heads.

The thing is, if Monty Python has shown us anything, it’s that an argument isn’t the automatic gainsaying of the other’s position, it’s “a series of statements intending to establish a compromising position.” (slightly paraphrased) I think that’s what we need more of. We need more AFFIRMATIVE interaction, and less NEGATIVE interaction. We should be emphasizing what we have in common rather than what divides us.

Read more

Back from break, finally.

The Creationist ministry website, Answers in Genesis, has developed some rather shrewd tactics for combating modern science. Occasionally, I check into their site to prepare myself for possible counter-arguments when debating Creationists — invariably, most Creationists eventually discover AiG. When they do, they copy-paste and ditto-head the text like they were on Rush Limbaugh’s television show.

The articles themselves are extremely well-written, semantically. The logical fallacies are well-hidden, lies by omission well-crafted, and outright lies and fabrications are glazed over so finely that you could probably sell it at a fine French Pastry shop. But as much as you may glaze a horse-apple, at the end of the day it’s still horse-shit.

So today, I went there and picked a random article from the ticker at the top. I chose Georgia Purdom’s “If human and chimp DNA are so similar … ” found here: ( http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna ) Read more

For those of you who haven’t heard about it already, there’s a museum opening up in Kentucky called the “Creation Museum” (first link on the list — I’m not directly linking to them). It’s a very professionally done (they had a guy from Hollywood special effects help do the displays, I think) museum that depicts the Christian version of history. The highlight is the exhibits that show dinosaurs and humans co-existing.

Yes, you heard me right.

Now some of you may think: “So what?” This is dangerous. It’s not that I think this museum alone, on its own, will bring down the pillars of science. It’s just that this is one of those things that, if it goes unchecked, will be one of many things of this sort — of Christianity attempting to re-write history based on shaky and non-empirical scientific ground. There are a lot of really ignorant and impressionable people out there who already follow this psuedo-science.

But why is it so frightening. Non-science types typically don’t immediately grasp the implication of mixing the tiniest bit of faith with empircal science.

Consider this notion:
Let’s accept, on faith alone, that dinosaurs and humans coexisted as the Creation Museum tells us is true. (They are indeed claiming this to be FACT, by the way, but their only proof is the biblical texts — so it must be taken on faith). This is what happens just by accepting that fact only:

1. If dinosaurs existed a mere 6,000 years ago, and the earth is only ~6,000 years old (the Creation Museum claims this), then our radiometric dating technology is highly inaccurate and unreliable. (places dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago, and the earth as billions of years old)
2. If radiometric dating is that inaccurate, then what we know about nuclear decay gets thrown into question. (Radiometric dating is based on the tested science that an atom will decay at a measurable pace, called a “half-life”. Carbon dating is useful for identifying ages smaller than 60,000 years (which still puts it well past the “6,000 year” age the Christian Scientists tell you. Modern, more accurate, dating techniques use Uranium-thorium decay, which has a longer half-life and is more accurate.)
3. If nuclear decay is incorrect, then this throws the whole field of nuclear science / nuclear chemistry into question, as well as the experiments performed by those scientists. What were they really seeing when they did half-life experiments?

It sounds like a slippery-slope logical fallacy, I know. But empirical science only works when each new discovery stands on the shoulders of previous discoveries. It’s like a human pyramid — the top tiers are only as strong as those they stand on.

Fact is, we know that atoms decay at a measurable amount. The former citizens of Hiroshima, Japan are very familiar with that as well. The nuclear science used to make the atomic bomb was based on the idea of Beta-particle (electron) emission causing a chain reaction in a highly unstable Uranium 238 (an isotope) core. If that science was incorrect, then it would not have worked as predicted.

Nuclear chemistry has several branches of science devoted to it. There are a slew of experiments that can be (and have been) done to back up nuclear chemistry. Even without the use of scanning electron microscopes, spectrometry, or nuclear chain-reactions (which to this day, are still in use powering some very large cities), there are observable (and repeatable) experiments you can do in your own home to empirically prove various aspects of chemistry. (Acid / Base reactions come to mind — a few semesters ago in Chem II we did a whole qualitative analysis to identify unknown chemicals. This sort of experimentation would not be possible if nuclear chemistry wasn’t reliable).

If we accept the last two points, that nuclear chemistry is verifiably true, and that radioactive decay DOES happen, and IS measurable, then certainly the dating measurement techniques must be pretty accurate. (certainly not millions or billions of years off the mark, anyways)

I did a google search for “Is carbon dating accurate”,this was the first result. It says “Carbon dating is accurate, but only for a few thousand years.” The author cites a whole bunch of scientific data to sound more accurate. Then underneath all of that is a paragraph of Christian propaganda. In fact, the whole first page of search results on that google search were Christian science sites attempting to debunk Carbon dating. Presumably because it’s the one that most people are familiar with (heck, before doing research for this blog, I wasn’t aware of Uranium-thorium dating). However — our measurements of the earth’s age, dinosaurs time-period, and other way-back history events aren’t based on carbon-dating. Similar method, different isotope.

In any case — I really hope that this stuff blows over. I keep having nightmarish thoughts about more and more people, Christians and apathetic “I don’t care enough to state my views one way or another” agnostics letting this material become accepted and then it being taught in public schools, etc. The Salem Witch trials spring to mind.

If you’re a supporter of the Creation Museum, then the next time you go to the hospital and get an x-ray, or the next time you hear about someone close to you that needs chemo-therapy to treat cancer, you think long and hard about the scientists (and the science) that makes that possible. Empiricism has no room for faith-based facts.

There was an interesting topical discussion on NPR the other day regarding Atheism in America. The discussion centered around a particularly vociferous Atheist proponent, Sam Harris I believe his name was, who is analogous to Billy Graham or Pat Robertson in his anti-Fundamentalist rhetoric. (The NPR host said that he can be downright mean and insulting at times).

Anyways, that’s neither here nor there.

Personally, I have been an atheist for about 5 years now. I’ve been agnostic even longer, as long as I can remember really. But about 5 years ago I began noticing that my beliefs began to align themselves more and more with those of atheism. I’ve been “in the closet” about it up until a year or two ago, especially to my family. I still haven’t told them yet. My mom and step-dad’s families are all Presbyterian (and frequent and vocal church-goers) and the rest of my extended family is either Catholic or Episcopalian. I guess I have feared that if they found out about my atheism, they’d reject me. Funny how I would come out with this now, when we need their love and support the most.

I don’t think people really understand us (atheists) though. I get a lot of weird looks from religiously-minded individuals, sometimes downright mean glares. It’s like they equate atheism with satan worship. I am a moral individual. I have ethics, and I stand by them. No, I don’t believe in god, an afterlife, or heaven and hell. I am a caring and occasionally compassionate person, and I am very friendly. I value empiricism, critical thinking, and above all: truth. Truth is what you get when you let your notions and beliefs flap in the breeze, for all to see.

I’ve read the bible, BOTH testaments. I’ve talked with and read text by theists of many creeds (christians, hinduists, buddhists, pagans / wiccans, taoists, satanists, kabbalists, etc.) I am this way by choice, because I identify with it the most, more than any other. I would not deny someone else their choice in faith, and I would hope they would return the favor by allowing me mine.

I found this quote online, and it really resonated with me. I think it gives a really good perspective on what it means to be an atheist.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother’s keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.” (From: American Atheists)