Nodeity - one skeptic's views on skepticism and belief

In Yahoo's Religion chat room, I go by the name nodeity. Some have read this as "node ity" and others have correctly read it as "no deity". Whatever :-P

In no particular order, here are a few of the things that I've found myself thinking about. If you're interested in discussing any of this with me, feel free to post your questions and/or comments in the Nodeity Forum (above right). You could also try to catch me in chat but, if you've been there, you know that it can be very difficult to get into anything in depth in a busy chat room.

What Is a Skeptic?
An Atheist By Default
Silly Things Said to Me in Chat
On Christian Fundamentalism
A Few Good Skeptical Links

An Atheist By Default

I am sometimes asked in chat, "Are you an atheist?" My response is generally that I'm a skeptic. Sometimes I answer that I'm "an atheist by default". That is, I'm a skeptic and provisionally an atheist as there appears to be no objective evidence for the supernatural, including God.

An atheist is someone who "does not believe in the existence of God or gods" (Oxford Paperback Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1988) and I certainly fall into that category. I'm a non-believer. However, a common understanding (misunderstanding?) of the term atheist is that it refers to someone who makes the positive claim that there is no God or gods. I don't make any such claim. If I did, I would be inviting people to ask me to prove a negative, which would be silly.

Sometimes, because I concede that I cannot know for certain that there is no God, I am called an agnostic. An agnostic maintains that "nothing can be known about the existence of God or of anything except material things" (Oxford again). That is not my position. It seems to me that if the supernatural or the paranormal are real, it should be possible to find some objective evidence for them. So far, it continues to appear that there is no such evidence.

BACK TO MENU BACK TO TOP

Silly Thinks Said to Me in Chat

1) One of my favourites goes something like this: "You don't have to see God to believe in Him. After all, you can't see the air or the wind yet you believe in them".

Well, sometimes (unfortunately for urban dwellers) you can see the air. Even when the air is clear, there is plenty of objective evidence that it is there. You can feel it with your skin. Sometimes you can smell it and taste it. You can see, hear and feel the effects of moving air (wind). With instruments, you can measure a great many physical characteristics of the air around you. Anyone with senses and/or instruments similar to yours will be able to get results similar to yours (that is, the evidence is verifiable).

So, there is no need to "believe in" air - no faith required. The wealth of objective evidence enables us to accept the claim that we are surrounded by air. Unfortunately for believers, the same cannot be said for claims about God, psi, etc. This acceptance is provisional, of course - all acceptances or rejections of claims are provisional, pending new evidence.

2) Here's another common one: "You're an atheist? You must be a very sad and lonely person" or "You must lead a very drab existence".

Guffaw! This one always tickles my funny bone. How can someone make this assumption without knowing anything about me except that I don't believe in the supernatural? The fact is, I love and I am loved. I respect and I am respected. I lead a life full of beauty and emotion (I'm a skeptic, not a Vulcan, Jim). I'm a loving husband, a devoted grandfather, a passionate flower gardener, and a guitarist/singer/songwriter with my own band (no, you probably haven't heard of us - it's a hobby). Drab? Dull? Lonely? Sad? Certainly not. I love my life :-)

Another variation on this theme asserts that I am arrogant and machine-like because I reject faith and require evidence instead. It didn't seem obvious to me that these things are connected, so I asked for an explanation. The person making these assertions seemed to get quite heated, applied some insulting terms to me, and said that I can not understand any point of view except my evidence-requiring POV. This is sort of interesting . . . how does he jump from the fact that I hold a particular point of view to the assertion that I cannot understand other points of view? Strange. In fact, I was a Christian for several decades and I think I do understand the Christian point of view. The fact that it is no longer my point of view need not prevent me from understanding it. If I may indulge in a bit of speculation, perhaps he makes that assumption about me because he himself suffers from the inability to understand any point of view except his own.

3) Unless you're a regular in chat rooms in which these things are discussed, you might be surprised at how often I hear, "Well, you can't prove there is no God!"

Actually, I find this one somewhat annoying. What the hell do they teach kids in school these days? You can't prove a negative. You simply can't and it's foolish to ask someone to do so.

If I were to claim that there were faeries at the bottom of my garden, you couldn't disprove it. You can't even prove that there is no Santa Claus. If you bring forward objective evidence showing that Santa's purported feats are physically impossible, the believer can simply reply that he does it by means of magic (or spiritual power) that is beyond the capabilities of science to detect or describe.

Does that sound silly? It is. Yet, similar arguments apply to claims of God's existence. So far, the believer always ultimately makes claims that are unfalsifiable (untestable). That is, it is not possible to design an experiment which will indicate whether or not what is claimed is so.

So, don't ask me to prove that there is no God. I don't claim that there is no God. I say that the available evidence does not support the claim that there is a God. The onus is on the one making the positive claim. That is, if you claim that there is a God then it is up to you to produce evidence which supports that claim. Good luck :-P

BACK TO MENU BACK TO TOP

What Is a Skeptic?

Essentially, a skeptic tries not to accept things on faith but applies scientific method to all claims. That is, claims are accepted or rejected on the basis of the available evidence and not according to dogma or doctrine - that is, not on the basis of what you may believe beforehand. This acceptance or rejection is provisional because there is always the possibility that new evidence will come to light.

Not all claims are necessarily equal. As is commonly said, "Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

For a more thorough answer, see what The Skeptics Society has to say about it.
(This link opens a new browser window.)

BACK TO MENU BACK TO TOP

On Christian Fundamentalism

"Christian fundamentalist" is a label generally applied to Christians who take the bible very literally, who believe that every word was inspired by God and who most often seem to be part of the "religious right", somewhat allied with the political right. One infamous example would be Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority".

However, the label "Christian fundamentalist" leads me to ask, "What are the fundamentals of Christianity?" If the New Testament account of what was supposedly said by Jesus is the guide for answering this question, it seems to me that the answer is that there is only one fundamental for Christians: love - love for God and love for one's neighbor. All the "law and the prophets" hang on these two commandments (Matt. 22:37-40). Not "correct" doctrine/dogma, not hating homosexuality, not "Creation Science", just love. Oh, don't get all hot . . . a little levity is good for you.

When Jesus was asked for clarification, he replied with what we now call the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:25-27) in which love for one's neighbor is portrayed as giving extensive physical assistance to someone. In this case, the one helping and the one being helped were members of rival religious sects or ethnic groups.

Also, take note of Jesus' description of the coming judgement in which the sole criterion for determining wickedness or righteousness, separating the "sheep" from the "goats", who gets everlasting punishment and who gets life eternal, appears to be how generous one was to the poor (Matt. 25:31-46), as well as Paul's words about how great deeds and excellent qualities mean nothing without love (I Cor. 13:1-3).

There are many more examples but you get the drift.

I actually know some Christians who try to live up to something like what the above alternative definition of Christian fundamentalism demands. However, I also know plenty of Christians who don't seem to take much notice of it. Come to think of it, I know non-Christians who are wonderful and caring people and I know non-Christians who are jerks. Doesn't seem to be a big difference. Wouldn't you expect otherwise if the transforming power of being "born again" were all it's cracked up to be?

BACK TO MENU BACK TO TOP

A FEW GOOD SKEPTICAL LINKS

Any of these links will open a new browser window.

Skeptic.com--The Skeptics Society and Skeptic Magazine
A magazine worth reading! They've got a free email list you can join.

James Randi Educational Foundation homepage
Randi's stuff is always interesting and entertaining.

CSICOP - The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
I enjoy the free CSICOP email newsletter. Subscription info available on CSICOP's site.

What's New by Bob Park
I receive Robert L. Park's weekly column via email, free.
Subscription info is here.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
A lovely and entertaining piece of work.

The Talk.Origins Archive - Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Need some help refuting "creation science" silliness? Here's a good place to start.

Skeptical - a page of skeptical links

BACK TO MENU BACK TO TOP