There is Only One Way

It’s alwaysstop-reality-check important to find common ground and assure it’s stability or that it alters according to the environment one currently inhabits with other similar organisms e.g. humans. Every human would without hesitation agree that red is red, fire hurts and that we die without air. And how do we know this?

Well then. Let’s work our way up in order to maintain continuous agreement about how reality is grounded. Can we agree on that? Excellent.

The strong interaction holds quarks, protons and neutron together. The weak interaction decays neutrons to protons thus altering an atom. Gravitation causes mass to attract mass and curves light. Electromagnetism exchanges electrons between atoms and can attract and repel certain materials. Potassium (K) and Sodium (Na) are atoms, and their electronegativity attracts one and other, generating an exchange of electrons and thus; a current. You with me? Good.

Receptors in brain and body accounts for all the five commonly known and several not commonly known senses. Stimuli is registered by a sensory organ’s transducers, action potentials are transduced via closing and opening of ion channels, allowing the alteration of K and Na gradients along, inside and outside the axon and does so in complex neural patterns which the brain recognizes as sensory stimuli, and eventually as concepts. This can be demonstrated to be the very real – albeit oversimplified – case. Hope you agree so far…

These phenomena and effects can be accurately predicted and repeated. Today, we know the basic mechanics of how we know and the connections between the different scales of matter, from micro to macro. Before there where instruments, particle physics and neuroscience were based on nothing other than assertions. Today, it’s not assertion, it’s not intuition, it’s not guesswork, it’s fact. And unlike one’s understanding, facts cannot be altered (unless other newly discovered phenomena forces revision!). Is this false? No? Perfect.

There is only one way to learn about the objective truths of the world, and that’s by the methods of science. Of course, politics, sociology and philosophy describe the world we live in as well, but tend to do so in constantly changing and subjective manners. However, even those fields have rules and laws. Yes, they are man-made, but since we’re all human, that tend to fit into our understanding accurately enough. I hope you have managed this far!

The conclusion is basically this: when you can observe objective, constant interactions of matter and energy limited to the human senses and measuring devices, and that it’s complementary with each other in their connection from the smallest to the biggest, do not dare to mix in ESP, ghosts, magic, alternative medicine and gods where they cannot possibly belong.

Thanks for joining me on this little journey through reality dear potential believer.

Confidence and Trust Without Proof

The very definiheaven_telephonetion of faith. Now, believers can argue about the arbitrariness of definitions and preferred religious/spiritual conduct, but higher powers tend to be incompatible with each other and, therefore, truth and falsehoods should exist even in the realm beyond matter. By this, I mean that if a higher power does exist, there needs to be some consistency in how it acts and interferes with the universe, not necessarily a physical consistency, but some form of constraint on its abilities. After all, why would an entity with unlimited power downgrade by creating such a contingent and (perceptibly) finite world? Nonetheless, people who claim that this higher power operates within a framework of regulations, does so “outside” of the universe and requires people to believe – to have faith – in it, are slightly contradictory.

Primarily, if the higher power functions under the limitations of its own, let’s call it supernatural laws, then it can be concluded that some of its actions might hit and miss at certain times and/or in certain conditions. If it possesses maximum perfection, well then its impact on reality would be fairly evident, and statistics and probabilities would stand in its favor, every outcome predicted and all doubts put to rest. Of course, just as with the electron, it doesn’t have to be directly observed in order to make good practical use of its effects. The same ought to apply to the supernatural.

Secondly, if the higher power imposes its wills or mechanistic presence (who knows, right?) on the universe from beyond the physical realm, then there ought to be a identifiable connection from there to here (and no, quantum entanglement does not cut it). As soon as this entity affects the events in our world, either a reverse investigation of that event should reveal what process that connection works through or one would eventually be stumped during the investigation, following the clues until the only conclusion must be miraculous, provisionally inexplicable or impossible. The multiverse theory, for example, is simply a natural consequence of the inflationary model.

Finally, that one has to have faith for the higher power’s influence to be connected or manipulated by you. If this was the case, then the laws of physics, and even quantum mechanics, ought to bend to your will. Obviously – and extremely fortunately – this has not yet been successfully demonstrated. Randi still got his million, psychics keep failing in the glaring light of alternate explanations and God still “appears” to suffer from DID.

Before putting this tirade to rest, there is a point I want to clarify. If believing in, well, anything basically, via faith, then the object of the faith’s supernatural status depends on the lack of proof. At the moment proof can be found to support one’s faith claim, it no longer requires faith. It almost seems as if believers can only draw their experiences of awe and remain ambiguous of what they worship, if it truly doesn’t have limits, presence or esoteric approval. Besides, what makes the question regarding the supernatural och the existence of a higher power even a valid question?            

FUE: Frequently Used Evasions – #2

This is intended to explain and highlight repeated rationalizing by variations of believers in order to support their claims.

  • “Even phenomena explained by science are viewed with your opinions and biases. Your explanation is as good as mine.”

No, it is not. Why? A simple answer is the scientific method and its inherent corrective mechanisms. The scientific method isn’t perfect, but it provides answers of the highest probability, and that is the best science can do for now. Nothing is ever 100%. But temporary agreement among the ones, who are trained, experienced and more importantly interested, can supply reliable results with anything from 60 – 99% accuracy.

Although sciences concur with how reality works more than any other discipline, doesn’t shield it from mistakes or wishful thinking. But here is the thing, take a look at the track record of how – and even worse why – for example, parapsychology has conducted most of their research. They follow their hearts more than their brains. In which I mean, although they might be rational intelligent people, they are the ones who go into an experiment with hopes of proving a phenomenon. That is usually the first mistake, because telling them that they are wrong, just provokes detrimental resistance from that hope.

A scientist may be motivated to, say, find a cure for his dying father and act on personal emotions in order to find it. The fact that there never is a lone scientist, that there are others on the same team, that there are objective methods, all assures that opinions of one doesn’t spread to the many without abiding to the demands of objective truth and empirical reality. The rough fact here is that science has a fail-safe, while pseudoscience doesn’t. This isn’t a question of opinion or emotion. It’s about what method holds the closest level of veracity. And so far, science has proven itself to be the most efficient method.           

Responsibility

People are subject to hypocrisy, confabulation and a long list of logical fallacies. This is simply how it is. This is not an attack on one person, it’s an observation of all humans. To refine these shortcomings is a lifelong work in process, one that is a great and inevitable part of the human experience. However, instead of praising ourselves for being flawed yet ambitious, ignorant yet curious, mediocre yet creative, certain folk cannot or will not realize that, in the end, we are the ones to blame for all the good things and all the bad things. Some find comfort and satisfaction in the belief that cosmic karma bars measure and judge one’s every action or that a God caused a problem in order to make a lesson learned. The existence of God or karma is irrelevant when it is solely human actions that touches others lives, because ultimately the world operates fine the way it does whether or not humanity has someone to watch over us, and in the way of the most intrusive parent ever at that.

So, then what? If there is no difference, then what is the problem with believing if it grants happiness? Responsibility. This is heard of even in the free will vs. determinism debates, and it can be applied to belief-systems as well. If one faces any setbacks or hardships in life, don’t patch up the source of the problem with transcendental providence and false hopes of a better tomorrow, instead, take action and repair the source of your problem with the aid of friends, family and knowledge by anyone other than yourself (remember, confabulation). Don’t blame the universe for mistakes made or evil deeds done, blame yourself and learn from it. It might be tougher to face reality but the payoff is incredibly much more valuable due to the self-knowledge attained, flaws realized and more reliable satisfaction in life.

Never dismiss human ingenuity, doing that is a huge disservice against your species, and yes, especially when we screw up. The truth is, we didn’t need aliens to helps us build the pyramids, God’s Decalogue to live a moral life or an afterlife to make existence worthwhile. We do just fine on our own, thank you. Even simpler put; allow yourself to be the worst you are to realize the best you can become.

FUE: Frequently Used Evasions – #1

This is intended to explain and highlight repeated rationalizing by variations of believers in order to support their claims.

  • “You have to believe to acknowledge the evidence or effect. Your lack of faith is blocking you from this realization.”

This is a typical excuse used to explain away the affirmation of the claimant’s mistaken conduct. Anyone can make a post hoc argument to provide proof for anything, especially when the subject in question has such close ties with often romanticized and seemingly immaterial supernatural phenomena. For one’s belief to be equated with any tenable representation of evidence, there are several disciplines of science that have different methods of answering this question. Neuroscience, psychology and sociology are some of these areas.

I usually like to point out that if the continuum of different modes of thinking, such as imagining, planning, logic, associating, recollecting, apprehending, believing etc. are all based on our neurological wiring, and then I have to ask; is there a special combination of neurons that allows me to breach the boundaries of the established physical workings of reality? Or worse still; that I, for example, can only make contact with a spirit if these neurons are interconnected in this special way, therefore affecting reality around me? This can lead to whole discussions of the subjectivity vs. objectivity of our perceptions of reality, so for practical purposes, objectivity exists.

Nonetheless, I find it an extreme leap from low-voltage action potentials along axons, releasing certain transmitter substances to the post-synaptic neuron, to breach the fabric of space-time into another dimension. Brains are amazingly complex, but they would certainly fry from the amount of energy required for such a feat. Thinking does not necessarily make a phenomenon true, unless we’re speaking of cases involving severe mental strain or neurological anomalies.

So, spirits, God(s) or mystical dimensions exist outside the mental realm and can thus be subject to either “approval” or disapproval via scientific trials, or these claims’ veracity depends on biases, sensory mistakes or wish-thinking. To be fair, I say that I cannot really be certain. To be truthful, I say that supernatural claims can’t be esoteric if we all perceive the world with more or less common neural wiring and sensory receptors. Rationalizations should not be necessary in such great amount and extent believers often present if their claims held any above chance certainty.

Only My World Rules

No, not in the egotistical way. It is a play on words, you figure it out.

A tendency that has become clearer with time is how much spiritualists and theists rely on their own thinking and to what degree they tend to obey their own internal logic. Now, the tiresome yet necessary caveat. One’s own personal thoughts should not be denigrated in regards to usefulness in life. Many times intuition and abstract thinking is one of mankind’s greatest tools, as it allows us to associate to previous experiences and apply them to future ones. It’s a way of learning from your mistakes without the need to live through the mistake to begin with. However, as with all evolutionary assets, there are drawbacks.

To live a life solely based on individual beliefs stemming from within one’s own mind, are also vulnerable to biases, wrongful conducts and potential damages in one’s life. It also allows for one to live in a reality of illusion where satisfactory factors outshines the very necessary negative aspects of life. It puts you on a falsely perceived high-ground of morality and knowledge. Some of the times, this is the only way a believer can make sense of what they adhere to. No inexorable rules? No one to tell me I might be wrong. A good defence, but easily deconstructed.

Reading books by experts in a field, comparing sources, conduct your own reasearch and do all of this with the basal knowledge of the scientific method and rational deduction techniques, will actually open one’s mind to not only alternative answers, but to more solid answers. As long as I and anyone else can agree that red is red, there is objectivity in reality, whether it might base itself on common social constructions or physical properties. The evidence is out there, simply put it to the test and observe where and how it fits into the established – or yet to be established – properties of the universe.

The scientific method might not be complete or perfect, but go ahead, try to find one that’s better. That’s a potentially dismaying challenge, but to lose is really to win, while not really trying is what defines a closed mind.

Sudden Reflection

You know how it is, you mind your own business, just doing your thing, until something inexplicable triggers a thought that manages to mutate on its own. Words turns into sentences, sentences into paragraphs and so on. My sudden reflection today was the realization that believers are gravely mistaken in where they choose to put their gratitude.

It annoys me whenever I hear that skeptics and atheists (or anti-theists) live in a gray pessimistic world where we all play insignificant roles until the day we expire. Not at all the case!* This is the case: The fact that the multiplex of chemical reactions possible gives civilizations the opportunity to take computers, coffee makers and jacket zippers for granted, is incredible as it is generous. Then there are the scariest monsters of them all, black holes. Once one passes through the event horizon, all time becomes available for your eyes to decode.

This and everything in between has been discovered and made possible by humankind. That is where the gratitude deserves to go, to the reality of nature and its vast variety of complex products. To humans that endured, who never had the chance to partake or share their unique ideas, and those who won the struggle and saw the world ever so differently. Not to a god that never listens, a destiny that directs or a satisfactory and inconsistent force. Look around, take it in and let yourself tear up by what we have done.

*Although, if viewed from a realistic standpoint, we are quite insignificant on a cosmic scale. Doesn’t need to be a cause for concern, though.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

This gem of a logical fallacy is widely used by theists and spirituals who cling with a mere pinkie onto the veracity of their claim. In short, the Argument from Ignorance is defined by the lack of proof contrary to their bogus claim, therefore making it true by their default. There are other variations of the fallacy, but this one interests me the most because it’s the one I usually hear when trying to debate.

A dear family member exhausted their arguments and forced the debate into an unsatisfactory conclusion, by saying, “Maybe there is a yet unexplainable force that allows for some powers to work, so, there is no point to talk about if it exists or not.”

I push on by saying, “But why waste time believing in something that might not even work?”

A textbook response thus follows, “I know it to be true, I can actually sense/feel it!”

Now, although I realized a long time ago that nothing I say can change her mind, I still like to debate. Its crack to me. Nonetheless, aside from the even worse logical fallacy of anecdotal testimonials, there are several other problems with these kinds of statements, some of which are: (1) They ignore the fact that proper investigation can exclude the probability of the bogus claim being true, or at least diminish its alleged effectiveness, (2) human senses are highly suggestible, (3) it’s a cop-out and highlights their insecurity or uncertainty about the subject and (4) see the blog’s subtitle.

How much is left to be discovered about the natural world is irrelevant in regards to what we already have learned in order to explain natural phenomena in the present. To say that an unknown force might be discovered someday without any regards to our present knowledge, is the same as saying anything is possible in the present. Circles can’t be squared and 7 can’t be blue. Even the most intelligent of individuals can be fooled. Hell, a doctor who declares having a superior intellect by showing of his PhD is the one easiest to trick, because they are prone to thinking linearly. Too much skepticism is just as bad as too little. All humans are liable to possible deception, rational or not, so one should not rely too much on one’s own feelings alone. Question everything up to the point where its true, no necessarily satisfactory. Such is life in reality.

To  conclude, always admit when you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. To perpetually defend a claim without considering alternative options is a sign of fear and being unwilling to resume a debate by evoking an Argument from Ignorance just shows how unsure one truly is of their supposed claim.

Souls For Sale!

I have been asked a lot lately if I believe in souls. I don’t. But how can anyone?

Like it is with subject of a divine deity or a supernatural entity (basically the same thing, I know) how come a small group of people are entitled to have knowledge of the celestial mechanics of God or the afterlife? Whenever I would debate about this, my opponent would eventually resort to saying: “No one can prove nor disprove it. So, no one is right!” I disagree! First of all, faith is not knowledge. Having a feeling, sense or conviction of the supernatural is not evidence or knowledge of it existing. Also, I think something can indeed be disproven if the claim is limited by its contradictions. As we all know, we live in a universe governed by the physical laws. Of course, it doesn’t exclude new and unexpected discoveries from occurring, but eventually every discover or theory will fit in with the rest. Now, souls would not. I say so, because we have no evidence of souls yet (or perhaps ever) to exist. The fact that some people claim to know what will happen to one’s soul after death is preposterous. It is desperation born from a limited life. Wish-thinking generated from inherit self-interest.

When an area of belief has books worth of counter-arguments, most of which are based on scientific facts – which is the closest knowledge we have corresponding to how the world is constituted – then it’s, simply said, time to take a hint. Just like the ancient Greeks believed to know the movements of the planets, it is today not recognized as correct knowledge anymore. And maybe what we know today might be accidental pseudoscience tomorrow? But We live here and now. What might happen tomorrow, is nothing today. Because the fact is, we can explain life fairly enough without invoking a soul. And our observations of reality is growing stronger, not weaker.

We have a brain! How that is not enough of a wonder of nature, I cannot understand.

 

Nothing But Ants

I’m going to be honest, I haven’t read the entire bible, yet. Not that it prohibits me from criticizing religion overall, because certain theists constantly misunderstands what atheism is, so I’m all about making mistakes. Oh, and actually gain some cognitive gain by being corrected. Having that said, I urge to remind, I’m not a biologist. And definitely not god.

However, I have a hypothetical ant farm. Because I’m a human who considers myself evidently superior to the little creatures who lead their insignificant lives, repeating their daily routine, obeying one leader. I could crush them with one simple step if I wanted to. In a second, I could destroy everything they have invested slavery and hard work into building. One by one, I can squish the little creatures in which there exist billions of copies. I say copies because they don’t matter to me. Within my realm of greatness, why would I or anyone care about the ants? They will reproduce according to the only way I decide is right. If there are any rebels or dissenters from the perfect colony created by my hands, they won’t enjoy a collective genocide of their kind, they will be shunned and thrown out of the farm. They’ll have to endure new harsh territories for the rest of their irrelevant little lives. They didn’t act according to the paths I envisioned. They decided to group together and build a new tunnel towards a misguided freedom, if the little creatures only knew of the glass wall awaiting at their predestined destination.

But wait. Somehow, after all the hours, days, months and even years, they did reach the limit of any possible knowledge they could acquire. What did they think and experience by this new perspective from their miniscule world. Everything they knew suddenly came into question. What were the unknown objects out there? Have our world been this small and limited for generations? What new possible answers lies out there? Maybe those few ants will never know the truth about reality or why they can question this new obscure vision. Nonetheless, they remained at their new site. They didn’t retreat to any authority for help or guidance. Instead, they remained patient in order to make sense of this new view, full of potential and clues to why they were captured in a glass cage.

Maybe all they would have are hypothesis. But it’s the next generation of ants, next generation of freethinkers who will form the final theory. Someday, the glass walls might be cracking. And one simple and insignificant limb might touch the fresh substance of what we can yet be defined. From that day on, the ants adapted to whatever they could discover. And I, I obviously let them.

If god truly made us in his image, it makes me wonder who made him?