Hergest Ridge

I make myself no illusions when it comes to the very limited effect my writing will have on a devout theist. Still, I write. Why? The details of what I believe - believe on evidence, not faith - are really irrelevant. It is not my desire to have anyone agree with me. Instead, I wish to spark a process that causes individuals to question everything they came to believe, and the grounds on which they did so.

More important, I write for those who already question, and now need answers to questions of those still following blindly. I know the feeling of not knowing how to answer a Christian’s question, and want to spare my reader the experience through arming them with the conscious logic to disarm such threats. As an added bonus, maybe next time a child asks you why you don’t believe in god, you can do better than I did nearly 10 years ago when my answer was “I just don’t”.

God answers prayers in the form of “yes”, “no” and “wait”.
Christianity.com (christianity.com/faith/1430201.aspx)

The statement is not unique to the source quoted, thus I feel it important to spend time exposing the superstition of prayer.

Every question ever conceived by the human mind can be rewritten to a number of yes / no compatible queries. When all conditions are defined, either something is, or is not. Wait can also be reduced. It means no in the present, and yes in the future.

Just as an answer to everything tells us nothing - it’s entirely blue, and entirely orange; round, but also square; rough and smooth, good and bad; all conditions being true, you have no idea what I’m talking about -, the same goes for our supposed answers from god. God’s answers cover all available options and potential outcomes, thus cannot be used as an affirmation of the efficacy of prayer.

If you see nothing wrong with the quote and suggested concept, I’d like you to conduct an experiment: for a change pray not to god, but to the flying spaghetti monster (FSM). For my hypothetical scenario, I’ll assume your current job leaves a lot to be desired, and you pray for a new one.

Scenario 1: Your prayer worked! Less than a week passes from interview to starting date. The FSM answered your prayer with a resounding “Yes!”

Scenario 2: Six months later you’re at the same job, doing exactly what you were doing when you started prayer for a new one. How long need you wait? Is the answer “No”?

Scenario 3: A year later, after several interviews, you’re almost ready to give up on the position with a new employer. That morning, a letter arrives with a job offer. Thank the FSM, for all this time the answer was “Wait”!

Regardless of what happens, in the end the scenario aligns with one of the potential answers attributed to the FSM. Reality could not have brought by any other scenario, no miracle took place, yet you might get the illusion that you got an answer.

Your faith in god should not increase as a result of any ‘outcome to prayer’. ‘Answered prayers’ can not be a confirmation in favour of god’s existence since they are a manifestation of the faith in god which you started with. Affirming faith with faith is akin to worshiping another kind of god.

No scientific proof exists for the efficacy of prayer. You may have heard and believe otherwise, as did I for much of my life. Reputable and scientific research into the matter yielded no evidence suggesting that prayer positively changes anything outside of the brains of those doing the praying. Interestingly, those in the study whom knew a group prayed for their health had it decline. The phenomenon is commonly believed to be a result of ‘performance anxiety’.

Consider this: the Queen of England has many a prayer dedicated to her in the Church of England. Shouldn’t she be the healthiest person on earth?

Have I forgotten about this blog? No. Not at all. I have tons of ideas for pieces I’d like to write, but a lot less time to get them down. I hope to finally post a tiny entry I’ve been working on for a week. Maybe the delays are the result of trying to make it too short, but the point and case will greatly benefit from conciseness. I think this piece can be partially blamed for reduction in post count, so I really want to get it out there before the weekend is out. Incidentally, the phrase ‘the weekend is out’ has become a lot more depressing over the last couple of weeks. Maybe I’ll explain in another post. Right now, lunch time with the sister and mom whom just got back from Europe.

The best times to plant a tree all lie behind. The second best time is today. This truth is not limited to tree planting, and goes for everything good in life.

When I was younger, I thought that people lost the things they loved when they failed to appreciate them. Truth is, no matter how much you appreciate something, it will someday be gone. If you know this, you can better enjoy everything today, and maybe have fewer regrets when it’s gone.

Strive towards money working for you, not the other way around. Many people around me understand quantum physics better than they understand money, and all they know about quantum physics came from Sci-Fi programming. I’ve been trying to teach them a thing or two over the years, but a classroom of farm animals would have made better progress. Don’t be stupid with money.

Continuing with the money theme, when at a grocery store, get everything you need and most of what you want. If you don’t, you end up paying for takeout, or brand name single serving. If you want the burgers, get the damn burgers. Want the good cheese? Get the good cheese. Coffee? Get it, too. Sometimes it all seems too expensive, a splurge, but if you crave it long enough and it’s not in the fridge or the cupboard, you’ll end up paying for pre-made, brand name, one time satisfaction. The total cost is then broken down into smaller purchases, you may get the impression that you saved money. You didn’t. Next week you’ll have to do it over again.

Do not treat mishaps like sinking ships. Question authority. Create. Think for yourself. See and hear ‘Thou Shalt Kill‘.

Christians often resort to charging hard line atheists with “atheist dogma”. Loosely defined, this is an oxymoron.

I suspect their misunderstanding of atheists is similar to that of evolution. Evolution does not propose that we got something out of nothing, and atheists do not claim to know it all.

The subject of evolution is already described in detail on the Internet and in books of the last century and a half. For deeper insight I recommend Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” (what ever you read on the subject, make sure it did not come from Kansas.) Here, I shall attempt only at explaining the common misunderstanding of atheists.

I’m sure that I speak for the vast majority of atheists when I say that our core belief is in the evidence, not the conclusion we reach through it. This is an important distinction. Just as there is absolutely nothing dogmatic, fundamentalist, or arrogant about knowing that pi is roughly 3.14, the same is true for an equally firm belief (belief without faith, as in “believing” that most humans have two eyes and one nose) in scientific evidence. Regardless how vocal, outspoken and zealous a mathematician is about claims that pi equals roughly 3.14, he or she cannot possibly be arrogant or dogmatic. Dogma is about filling in the blanks without evidence. There is absolutely nothing dogmatic in scientific evidence, regardless of the zeal in which the facts are wrapped.

But atheists do make conclusions at some point or another, and isn’t this where the dogma comes in? No.

Imagine a crime scene, with a body, and a knife on the floor. No one saw the crime take place, but several hairs have been found around the body, the knife has multiple fingerprints, and the tire marks leaving the residence have been identified. All three pieces of evidence have been matched to Mr. Notsonice and his vehicle. When the detectives visit Mr. Notsonice to inquire regarding potential alibis, they find a blood soiled shirt in his garbage. The blood matches the dead victim.

With sufficient evidence, we have a theory that explains who, where, why, when, and how - fill in your own blanks on why and when. No one need bare witness to Mr. Notsonice’s actions to connect the dots, and get a near complete picture. We deal on these basis every day, and such is the premise under which most atheists are firm in their belief that no god exists. We’ve inspected the evidence, have matched it to a process or event (many times over, in many different cases), and have drawn a theory for a very reasonable conclusion.

There are a handful of cases where evidence suggests we don’t know everything about how we got here, and science is not afraid to admit that such is the case. Only through focusing attention on areas of question can further progress be made, but in the meanwhile, Christians cease the gray areas and there plant their god in absence of hard answers - this is often referred to as gaps in science, and a “Christian God of Gaps.” The Christian status quo is for attributing to god everything without a scientific answer, a practise that makes god unpopular with scientists and atheists. A credible god to be taken seriously requires scientific proof, and need not depend on gaps for his existence, or worse, on blunt contradictions of the natural order.

The bible is not in the least any proof of god. It is an anecdotal account, written by men with their own biases, translated several times by more men with biases, and passed down the line Chinese Whispers, or - depending on your geography - deaf telephone style. You need not read far into the bible to find contradictions that span the whole book. Two creation stories and incompatible accounts of Joseph’s story are but two examples. In addition, the bible you’re holding today was assembled without the more absurd accounts from other saints whom paint Jesus as a mischievous child, prone to abusing his magic like powers through practical jokes.

Stating of scientific facts for the record and clarification cannot by virtue be dogmatic. You could argue that the same cannot be said for drawing conclusions on the evidence, but if such is your best objection, I suggest you take the plea bargain. That which you call proof is either an anecdote, or, circumstantial evidence at best.

As not to give satisfaction to a lost soul passing through here once just to call me an atheist fundamentalist, I like to point out that I know what it will take for me to change my mind. If you think anyone to be an atheist fundamentalist, chances are that you grossly misunderstand the words you intend on using. Fundamentalism is simplest defined as a “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.” Unless fact based truth - there is no other kind, but with a Christian audience I wish to be absolutely clear - is fundamentalist in itself, calling me an atheist fundamentalist simply demonstrates your ignorance towards the words you use.

If name calling is what you’re into, the most accurate term you can label me with is infidel. Sure, it’s somewhat derogatory, but then at least you’re using terms accurately to describe my beliefs - beliefs, as that of believing most humans have two eyes and one nose.