I can’t do much better than profxm’s takedown of this drivel from the Mormon Times. A guy named Lane Williams bemoans the fact that some journalists have decided that atheism is interesting and worth writing about.
As disappointing as it is to say this, reporters may not be able to do much better than provide a balanced conduit for atheists in the modern world we live in.
Dontcha hate when that happens? I mean, balance? But have no fear — since journalists are providing a ‘balanced conduit’, he’s going to use his journalistic influence to unbalance the balance, or something like that.
So my point today, really, isn’t so much about reporters; my point is to use the opinion format of this blog to take a public stand because so few news reporters can or do so.
Way to go, Lane. That’s what journalists should do — argue their side, regardless of how true or well-supported it is. And here’s where things go awry.
Mormonism’s last evidence sits in the power of the Holy Ghost that comes to the hearts and minds of those who seek God through earnest, submissive prayer and faithful action. It is an “experiment” successfully repeated millions of times around the world.
Prayer is not any kind of experiment. As I’ve pointed out, it relies on bad sampling, since everyone who doesn’t get a revelation is either struck from the sample, or told to repeat the experiment until they get the “right” answer. Test subjects are told what emotions to expect, so bias enters the picture. And so on.
You can’t use a ‘holy ghost’ to confirm the existence of a god. They’re part of the same story! That’s what you’re trying to ascertain. It’s like saying “I know Santa Claus exists because I prayed to him, and one of his reindeer told me.”
Millions of Mormons, including me, would say that God answers prayers because of their own experiences with the Holy Ghost and prayer. Therein lies our evidence that God lives. I assume other religious believers feel much the same way.
That’s part of the problem. Many other religious believers feel the same way… about their mutually incompatible, multiply conflicting religious claims! Anyone who knows about science has heard that anecdotal evidence is not data. And notice the bandwagon fallacy. If this is the best Mormonism can do, they’d better give up their scientific pretensions.
Then he says, in a hushed voice, deep with portent, “I know.”
I study Shakespeare and have many books that have inspired me for years, but when I read the Book of Mormon for the 30th time or so and experience a deep, almost mysterious reassurance no other book has come close to giving me amid trial, I know.
I have experienced many joys of human interaction at holidays and in evening activities, but when I experience the quiet, soul power of priesthood blessing called down on a dark night, I know.
I am only one flawed journalist, but in the midst of the atheism debate that Gervais and others continue in our public space, I must say something. I know.
No, you do not know. You’re just certain. There is a difference. Even if your claims were coincidentally 100% right, you still would not know that they were true. Knowledge does not come from intuition or feelings. Knowledge comes from observation of real-world phenomena. And this kind of evidence is nowhere to be found.
This is my beef with religion and supernaturalism. It is such a lazy way of thinking (or not thinking). You take your own beliefs and preconceptions, and just assert them over and over again without trying to back them up with any real evidence. You get to feel all spiritual and believing. But it stops you from learning anything.
25 January 2011 at 12:56 pm
So, let me get this straight. If I "know" that dogs can fly and you "know" dogs can't, and if only one of us can logically be right, then we somehow ending up proving each other right because we both know what we know.
Now I know why they call this sort of thing a different way of knowing. It's because it doesn't actually involve knowing at all.
I wonder, why is it that the contradictory "knowledge" held by a variety of religious people is superior to the contradictory knowledge of an atheist?
26 January 2011 at 1:54 am
Just had to jump in on this one –
You can prove a dog can't fly (may not be very nice to throw a dog off of a 3 story building) but you certainly can prove that a dog can't fly.
You can't "know" (or prove with evidence) there is a God and an atheist can't know (or prove) there isn't. That being said, all evidence points to the atheist being correct at this point in time. Religion makes extraoridnary claims without providing any evidence. Atheists aren't really making claims (in my opinion anyway!), they are just relying on what the lack of evidence has thus far indicated to be true.
Res
26 January 2011 at 6:07 am
It's fairly easy to "prove", however, that certain forms of justification are worthless (don't provide contradictory outcomes, .
And if the base of a religion is worthless as it is with Mormonism and the other religions (in terms of supernatural claims), then we can prove that no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to god(s) existing.
31 January 2011 at 6:28 pm
This is interesting, Daniel and Peter. If you don't mind, here is the basic logic of empiricism.
Actually, you can't prove that dogs can't fly. Somewhere in the space-time continuum, there might be a dog that can fly.
The precedence for that insight was Francis Bacon's famous statement about white swans. Since every swan anyone had ever seen had been white, Bacon concluded that all swans are white.
Then we discovered black swans in Australia.
Logically, we cannot prove universal statements, i.e. claims about anything that is supposed to always be true.
Likewise, we cannot disprove existential statements because somewhere, sometime beyond the current reach of our senses, there might be a purple cat with five eyes and seven legs.
That's the logic of epistemology and I apologize for the lecture.
6 July 2011 at 5:57 pm
Quick question, Daniel. While I agree that praying to God is not generally a controlled, double-blind, scientific process, I’m curious as to how you explain the last paragraph of this post, to wit:
This is my beef with religion and supernaturalism. It is such a lazy way of thinking (or not thinking). You take your own beliefs and preconceptions, and just assert them over and over again without trying to back them up with any real evidence. You get to feel all spiritual and believing. But it stops you from learning anything.
Doesn’t this equally describe your decision not to believe in God?
Now, I know some people’s initial response to that: my question doesn’t make sense, because you used to believe in God and now you don’t, so obviously you’ve had some experience that has changed that perception. However, there are many people—myself, for example—who used to disbelieve in God and now do believe in him, which perceptual change has resulted from experiences that make as much sense to us as yours does, to you.
Please understand: I’m not out to start an argument here; I’m just wondering what your take is, on this. Do you have some reason to believe that you are not simply “tak[ing] your own beliefs and preconceptions, and just assert[ing] them over and over again without trying to back them up with any real evidence”?
Thanks.
7 July 2011 at 3:46 am
I'll bite.
First of all, not believing in gods is not a positive claim. Asserting that there is a god is a positive claim and requires evidence in order to rationally accept. If there is no evidence for such a claim, then there is no reason to accept it. No one can reasonably demand that I produce evidence in order to reject a claim that there is an invisible dragon in my basement. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is a god (and further that it is male, has certain characteristics, is on record for saying and doing certain things, speaks through these particular men, etc).
You say that Daniel must have had "an experience that changed that perception". It is interesting to me how religious claims are very often believed based on "an experience." It's very "experience" oriented. These experiences are fuel to a "testimony". When you're in doubt you think about that experience you had. You talk about it in church. Much of what happens in church is geared toward making these experiences occur. It ends up being the strongest thing you can have to keep your faith, because nobody can deny your "experience". You own it completely, and you alone get to draw whatever conclusions you want from it.
Well it doesn't usually work that way with atheism. No anchoring experiences are required. It could be as simple as a gradual realization of all the unfulfilled promises, failed expectations, false histories, and outright fabrications of religion. I assume Daniel was indoctrinated young, as was I, and it is therefore no wonder that we used to believe. The real question is: why do you believe? What made you, as a mature adult, actually accept someone's claim about a god (and then from there to the entire package of beliefs)? That is what I'm curious about.
You say that your experiences make sense to you. Do you think we atheists have not had the experiences you have had? Was it a voice speaking to you? Did knowledge (like 'pure intelligence flowing') come to you and you feel adamant that it did not come from you? Was it a burning in the bosom? Was it even more than that, like an angel or ancestor visitation? A vision or dream? A dramatic coincidence as a result of prayer? These are the common themes, and many people anchor their testimony on things like that. There really isn't anything to go on with these types of experiences, as they are all wholly subjective and experienced across every single possible set of religious beliefs. Do you think you can use an experience like this to assert a large set of specific beliefs over another?
As for your last question, the answer would obviously be yes. Yes a thousand times over. Please don't hesitate to challenge us on things that we do believe. And by all means if you have evidence for things we don't believe, please share.
7 July 2011 at 2:05 pm
Hey, Jeff.
Do you have some reason to believe that you are not simply “tak[ing] your own beliefs and preconceptions, and just assert[ing] them over and over again without trying to back them up with any real evidence”?
Yeah, I think I do. I make a lot of assertions, but I do give some justification for them pretty consistently. If I make claims, I try to back them up with links. If there's a fallacy or an example of bias, I say which one, and give a link.
Maybe I don't always do this if I think readers will agree or understand. So if you think I haven't provided justification on occasion, let me know. In a sense, I think I rely on those who disagree to keep me straight or set me right. So thanks for your part in that.