Whence Morality? Part II

A few follow-up thoughts to my “Whence Comes Morality” blog of August 7th, 2010. Any atheist or agnostic has likely faced the claim or question of the religious that, without God, you have no basis for morality or even for moral behaviour. In a recent discussion involving the two Hitchens brothers, Christopher and Peter, the latter claims that “morality is what you do when you think no one is looking”. At first glance this seems to be a decent definition. We may note how children will behave one way when they know someone is watching and another when they believe they are not being observed. We may even go so far as to think that a child that behaves well when they think no one is watching is a “good child”, or is moral.

But I have some problems with this definition of morality, as is evident in my prior writings on morality. I believe morality is a human construct. But that is really beside the point. What I find surprising is that a person of religion would claim this as a definition of morality (as the religious so often do). Surprising because, of course, the religious believe that someone is always watching their behaviour. Therefore, for a religious person who believes that definition, their morality has never in their whole life been put to the test, or more accurately, they have never had to make a moral decision. All of us have, at some point in our lives, been faced with a decision that we believe involves a clear choice of right versus wrong when no other human is watching. Perhaps we’ve had the opportunity to steal money without anyone finding out, or to lie knowing that there is no way anyone will ever know. The religious, however, if they truly believe this claim about morality, are never in such a position. God is always watching. The temptation to steal the money is not quite the same because they will always be dealing with their belief that God knows what they did. It is not a choice of morality, it is a choice of whether they want to get in trouble with their religious father figure or not. This whole conundrum is ludicrous really. On the one hand, you have the religious claiming that morality is what you do when no one is watching you, but on the other hand by that very definition they themselves are never called upon to make moral choices. There is always someone watching.

I hope that any religious person could honestly ask themselves what they would do if they really believed God wasn’t watching for a few minutes. If you really had carte blanche for a few minutes, what would you do? I believe the religious are unable to answer this question because it is too hypothetical to their beliefs. But the point is, perhaps the religious’ claims that morality comes from God are true – for them. Perhaps without God they would not live moral lives or make moral decisions. I find that frightening. But, extending that to the non-religious is quite illogical and demonstrates an inability to connect observation to reality. Many are the occasions that I’ve been told by the religious that I cannot have morality without a god. It is a blind statement, typical of someone who hasn’t really thought it through but rather is reciting something they’ve been taught, and also typical of someone who hasn’t really made independent observations and then drawn conclusions (one of the mainstays of my fundamental beliefs about having a healthy relationship with the world we live in). How can someone seriously suggest that atheists have no morality without god? Do atheists actually live less moral lives than the religious? Take any objective measure of morality such as antisocial behaviour: murder, theft, fraud, dishonesty. Do atheists observably engage in these behaviours more than the religious? If you look at the prison population then the exact opposite appears to be true. Atheists represent a tiny minority in prisons, much smaller than their respective representation in the population at large. (Perhaps atheists are just good at not getting caught). So, how can one legitimately make such a claim? It demonstrates a significant inability to detach one’s preconceptions from reality and observations. As a former Christian myself, this is easy to understand. My mentality used to be exacting the same. I would recite Biblical claims about morality or human behaviour (isn’t one of my favourite such fallacies now “The fool says in his heart there is no God,” as though it were an observable fact that atheists are more foolish in life than the religious!), regardless of what the data actually said.

One of the fundamental arguments in the debate as to whether morality originates from gods or humans is whether morality is objective or subjective. Traditionally, in this debate, Christians tend to argue that morality originates from God and is objective. Their argument, at least as I have witnessed, is that without God there is no standard by which to objectively distinguish right from wrong. I have two significant problems with this argument. Firstly, it completely overlooks the history of Christianity. Morality in the Bible, the guiding moral book for Christians, is anything but objective. Morality (stemming “objectively” from God, remember) starts with the barbaric Mosaic law in which stoning one’s child for disobedience is required. It the progresses to the Christian morality (but under the same God of course), that simply claims to revolve around love. Stepping outside the Bible and into modern American Christianity, one finds even more bizarre twists and turns in the “objective morality” handed down from God. Abortion is wrong but capital punishment is right. Stem cell research is wrong, but gun possession is right. Taxation is wrong, but tithing is right. This first problem, of course, stems from another fundamental problem with religion that is simply overlooked by the religious themselves and that is the fact that the deity evolves with the culture of the times. No one, introduced to Christianity for the first time, and asked to read through the Bible objectively would ever conclude that the god Yawheh of the Old Testament and the god Jesus of the New Testament (or even the god “Father” of the New Testament) are the same personality or deity. This is overlooked by those that believe the religion, and is often justified as another characteristic of a mysterious and wonderful (albeit misogynistic, genocidal, jealous, and barbaric) god.

But the second, and more relevant problem I have with this point of view is that morality is, by definition, a human quality. We define morality as humans, which ironically makes it both objective and subjective. Morality, in the grand scheme of the greater universe, is subjective, but within human society it is objective. We all agree that killing another human is wrong. (Well, this gets complicated quickly. We don’t all agree that at all. A good many people believe killing is justified in some circumstances, often the most fanatically religious most fervently so). At least, we all agree that murder is wrong. That murder is wrong is an objective quality. There is no argument within human societies about murder being wrong. It is a black and white, objective issue. But, outside of humanity, murder is not wrong. That makes it subjective to humans, quite distinct from other issues which are not subjective to humans. Electrons hold a negative charge, whether we as humans say they do or not. Once humans no longer exist, electrons will still hold a negative charge. But once humans no longer exist, murder will no longer be immoral because without humans there is no way of even defining murder in the first place, let alone defining right from wrong.

What is Atheism? Part I

Image courtesy of Google Images.


This blog is, in name at least, somewhat about atheism, or at least is written from the perspective of an atheist. If one is going to read someone else’s writing, it is often useful to understand their perspective and biases. I realized, therefore, that perhaps I should include a bit more about atheism, starting with some basics.

Atheism, in its simplest definition, is relatively straightforward. The rejection of belief in deities. Note that this is different than the lack of belief in deities. Though each of these might be a valid definition of some form of atheism, the two are not the same. One suggests a consideration of the options, some thought and conclusion, while the other could simply be a position out of ignorance.

But how Wikipedia or the Oxford English Dictionary define atheism might be quite different from how it is defined or, more importantly, perceived in every day life at the local coffee shop, in a classroom, or on an internet discussion forum. And there are plenty of misunderstandings of the word and the concept of atheism out there in the everyday use of the word. While strict definitions might belong in dictionaries and encyclopedias, the reality is that in everyday language each person defines words by their use in context. There are a lot of common misconceptions about atheism, which lead it to often be met with suspicion, distrust, even anger. It is not uncommon for religions people to claim that atheists must have no morals since they don’t believe in anything. Both of those claims, of course, are not applicable to atheists. Most atheists that I now are very moral people and also have a very strong set of beliefs. What most atheists will not do, however, is allow ancient writings to dictate their morals (at least not without some critical thinking) nor believe something without reason.

Having oneself wrongly classified is a pretty common experience in life. Republican. Democrat. White. Hispanic. Rich. Poor. All of these are neat little boxes into which we find it convenient to parcel people and then keep our minds closed about what it is they really believe, what it is they really have to offer in life, what their value to us is. Often, perhaps even usually, the assumptions that go along with those boxes are quite inaccurate. Atheism is no different. Many people have no understanding of what atheism really is. More discomforting, many people have no interest in keeping an open mind or learning about it. In the extreme, some religious people are so convinced that atheism is evil that they are considered synonymous with Satanists, are assumed to be incapable of having morals, should be kept out of the reach of children, and most definitely shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an educational institution. When someone else’s definition of atheism doesn’t match my own, then I feel no particular offense. I simply would not then classify myself according to their definition of atheism. Clearly I am not a Satanist, and I do have morals. In other words, I refuse to allow other people to define my beliefs and values as a result of a misunderstanding of definitions.

So, how do I define atheism? To return to my first point, I feel that atheism is a position resulting from rational and unbiased examination of the evidence that results in the conclusion that there are no deities (or perhaps that it is extremely unlikely that there are deities). In my opinion, a simple lack of belief in deities (possibly “soft atheism”) is not true atheism because it lacks the conscious thought involved in arriving at that position. Soft atheists might hold their position simply be default. They may have grown up in a household or culture without religion and simply never really considered the possibility of atheism vs. theism. I think most soft atheists don’t put a lot of thought into the matter and simply live their lives. I have no problem with this position per se, though I wouldn’t really define it as true atheism. A loose analogy might be the difference between a cultural Christian and a “born-again” Christian. The former is familiar with many of the notions of Christianity, they may attend church on occasion and even have a healthy respect for the religion, but they probably don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it nor allow its tenets to rule their life.

Hard atheists, on the other hand, are those who have spent a reasonably amount of time and intellectual resources considering the position. Significant rational thought has gone into the taking of a deliberate position of a rejection of belief in deities and often some degree of rejection of religion as a whole. Often, it seems, hard atheism gets a bit of a bad rap as being militaristic or pushy. To be sure, there are atheists out there who advocate quite loudly for their position in society (though for some reason they often seem to get more criticism in doing so than many religious groups who push their beliefs into society much more forcefully). But in its pure sense, hard atheism is just the position that there are no deities. Not the position that there are probably no deities. Not the position of not having bothered to consider the possibility. And certainly not the position that religion must be stamped out and all humans converted to atheism (that is quite a different matter). But a deliberate position based on conscious thought that it is irrational to believe in deities. A deliberate position that recognizes that although belief in deities is a fundamental and pervasive part of human nature, it is an irrational belief.

Atheism often gets a bad rap. I referred earlier to those who consider atheism analogous to Satanism. Many religious people seem to feel that if you reject the notion of deities, then the only alternative is that you have sided with “the enemy” and are following the Devil. I suppose if your entire basic assumptions about the universe are that there is one god and one devil and they are engaged in spiritual warfare over the souls of human beings, then that position, while not logical, is perhaps somewhat understandable. That position gets right into one of the fundamental conflicts between atheism and theism (or more specifically Christianity) in that the conversation about a battle between a deity and his cosmic opponent if you haven’t yet established the existence of the deity to begin with. But, that discussion really belongs elsewhere. The point is, atheism is not synonymous with Satanism or any other non-Christian or anti-Christian position. It is, the rejection of the position that deities exist. Many Christians, in certain parts of America at least, would likely be very uncomfortable with knowing an atheist was teaching their children in school (and, ironically science class in schools). They might feel that the atheist teacher was secretly teaching their children to be homosexual communists. Or that evil business about evolution. It’s funny, really, because atheism is simply an acceptance of what the evidence shows and doesn’t show. I don’t know of too many atheists who have an agenda they want to push on society (other than keeping religious agendas out of society and rational thought in society). Every science teaching atheist I know has an interest in teaching science, not atheism. It is another one of the ironies of many religious arguments – that they accuse others of exactly what they themselves do. In many parts of America, religion is introduced into science class in the form of creationism or intelligent design. Yet, when an atheist simply wants to keep science class on task by teaching science, they are accused of bringing their agenda into the classroom. Blindly outrageous.

Often, in books or on the internet, one will come across an individual who claims to have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity as they heard the Christian message and recognized it as the truth. John Maxwell and the laughable (not because he is funny) Kirk Cameron are a couple of examples. Take Cameron (of anti-evolution banana lore along with his buddy Ray Comfort). He claims to have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity when he heard the Good News late in his teen years or early adulthood. There is simply no way Cameron was a rational, logical, deliberate atheist. I doubt he could recite one piece of scientific evidence in support of anything, let alone atheism (even now in his 40s, let alone twenty years ago when he claimed to be an atheist). No, the truth is, people like the former Mike Seaver were simply drifting along in life without every allocating any intellectual resources towards the consideration of atheism. When the first friendly face popped up and told him the Good News, he just felt warm and fuzzy inside and jumped on the Jesus bandwagon because it sounded comforting. To claim that he was an atheist who then became a Christian is a bit like someone who engaged in the odd fraternal rough and tumble in the basement claiming they used to be a professional wrestler who rejected the violence of their profession and reformed their violent ways. These impostors have only one goal: to deliberately promote their beliefs regardless of what the evidence is. There is no point in engaging in debate with a Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron, because they have already decided (and often freely admit) that nothing will ever change their minds. Their claims to be former atheists are simply weakly thought-out attempts to discredit a position that they know is threatening to their dogmatic beliefs.

What is atheism? Atheism is deliberate. It is rational. It is anti-dogmatic. It is evidence-based. It is the position that there is no evidence to support belief in deities. Any of them.

Forget Cedar Wood, Scarlet, And Hyssop. Just Wash Your Hands

Image courtesy of Google Images.

God is omniscient. God created the earth and everything in it. God is loving.

These three pillars of the Christian religion could hardly be denied by any legitimate Christian. I am normally hesitant to cherry pick parts of the Bible in an attempt to make any point. Examine a work of literature in whole if you are going to critique it. Doubtless those who do believe in God will assume that I am cherry picking here, and that there is some “logical” reason why the following path of reason doesn’t apply. But, as I state, one could hardly deny the three claims above if one were to accept the God of the Bible.

God is omniscient. He knows everything and he always has known everything. He has known all along that there are microbes in the soil, on our skin, in our digestive tracts, in our feces, everywhere. He has always known that microbes not only exist but that they are one of the fundamental health threats to primitive humanity. (One wonders whether Christians believe Jesus walked around with all this knowledge in the forefront of his consciousness or if he somehow limited himself to being a genuine first century Jewish man with only the knowledge appropriate to that). How many hundreds of millions of infants in the history of humanity have perished due to microbial infection? How many billions of good young men and women have contracted some easily preventable infectious disease and died prematurely and left families devastated and without means? What single best action is everyone in the modern world aware of to prevent this fate themselves? You’ve heard it since pre-school: wash your hands. Simple hand washing is probably the single best action that can be taken in the prevention of communicable diseases. Simple, cheap, and very effective. Yet, mentioned no where in the Bible. (There are, of course, verses in the Bible that deal with ritual washing and so on. Leviticus 15:11, for example, states: “Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.” (Almost seems like an attempt at modern medicine, doesn’t it? But then you realize there is no universal prescription for hand washing on a regular basis. It is not at all clear from reading the Bible that you probably should wash your hands after going to the bathroom and before eating. Given the critical nature of this simple action to the well-being of a primitive tribe living in ancient times, you would think that a God, providing the only written book to his chosen people, would have ensured that one command, above all else, was crystal clear. Instead, pages and pages are devoted to tedious agricultural laws and requirements. Dire consequences are spelled out for those who deviate from specific sexual guidelines (none of which seem particularly inclined to prevent STDs, by the way), and all sorts of ridiculous rules about the uncleanliness of women during their period are introduced (despite the fact that there is really nothing particularly infectious or unclean about this normal, regular physiological function). In any case, had the god of the Bible actually passed on this simple piece of personal hygiene advice, you would expect it to have been followed and therefore you would expect to observe the followers of the Bible suffering far less infectious disease than other primitive societies. But, of course, you do not observe this because it didn’t happen.

Why did it not happen? Did God decide that it wasn’t that important? Perhaps, due to his mysterious ways, God decided it was OK for hundreds of millions of people to die prematurely even while it was unacceptable for people to work on Saturdays. Are we really to accept that this all-loving deity, whom Christians refer to as a father figure, covered all manners of detailed trivial instructions on how his earthly children should live their lives, but knowingly withheld all information that might have helped them live a healthier life, that might have helped countless offspring survive infancy? What kind of abusive father figure would actually behave that way towards his children whom he apparently loves?

No, this is simply one more piece of evidence supporting the fact that deities are man-made rather than the other way around. A deity’s knowledge is always limited by the knowledge of their creators. You never see a deity offer a tidbit of knowledge that might help his people make leaps and bounds forward in health, technology, or even simple education. I can hear the Christian argument already: God is a loving father who wants his children to discover things on their own without being given all the answers. Rubbish. The simple fact is, God is man-made. The god of the Old Testament is completely limited by the people of the time. There is not one piece of information in the Bible that couldn’t have originated from the people of the time. There is not one technological, scientific, medical, or even agricultural fact that was further advanced than the people of the time and might have helped them in their daily struggle for survival. Quite the opposite might be true in fact. All the countless resources and time spent building tabernacles, paying priests, sacrificing healthy and useful animals, not working certain days, warring with tribes of rival religions, and so on, would have been much better allocated towards more productive undertakings in helping primitive societies in their daily struggle for survival.

God is omniscient. So he must have known about microbiology and the benefits of hand-washing at all times. God created the earth and everything in it. Including bacteria, viruses, and all other microbes. God is loving. He loves humans more than any other creatures, judging by the amount of time and effort (not to mention self-sacrifice) dedicated to them. How to fit these “facts” together?

Don’t Think, Just Follow The Code

Image courtesy of Google Images.

The following is a transcript of Don Cherry, a Canadian ice hockey commentator who has a regular segment called Coach’s Corner during the first intermission of hockey games on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) show Hockey Night in Canada. This particular broadcast was made on June 10th, 2011, and was originally transcribed from this link, starting at about the five minute mark.

“Now, I hope we got a little time for this. I’m sitting with you [Ron McLean] watching, you know how I get made fun of: “There’s a code. Oh, that silly code, you know. There’s a code in every sport, and you and I are watching the Red Sox, and I saw Ortiz throw his bat, and I went wild and you kind of looked at me like I was nuts and everything. But watch Ortiz throw the bat. [Video transitions to baseball replay]. This is a big thing in the States right now. This has been going, well you’ll see it the second time [video repeats]. He throws it. This is a big thing in the States right now. In the papers, the U.S. day to day, and Giordaro, what is his name? [Ron McLean interjects] (unintelligible), he just goes nuts on the whole thing and he got up the next time, we’re not going to show it, he got dinged. The next game he got dinged. And he made a little apology, he said: “You know, I,...380 home runs and I throw my bat once.” You DON’T DO IT [yelling]. You don’t, there’s a code that you people don’t know about. Because you saw that and say: “So what? He threw his bat.” It’s the same thing as when I got ripped, what did they say? Entertainment. Watch Ovechkin same thing, he doesn’t do it anymore. I tried to tell you about all this stuff. There’s a code in hockey of how you act, kids, and look at this, he never, ever did this again [video of Alex Ovechkin worshiping his “hot hockey stick”]. Bruce [Boudreau] talked to him and everything. There’s a code in hockey, there’s a code in baseball, and be sure to follow it or you’ll really get it like Ortiz did.”

The first thing that I hope strikes the reader is the appalling grammar and perversion of the English language that comes through even in writing that has been edited for clarity (for example, the term “everythink” to “everything”). Christopher Hitchens has stated that anyone who can really speak properly can write, but then goes on to ask how many people have really speak properly. But, this is besides the point.

The “code” that Mr. Cherry speaks about is a real entity in the sporting world. During the recent Stanley Cup finals in ice hockey, there was an incident in which one player was accused of biting another players gloved finger. The accused player was ostracized as being classless, even though all around him other players were witnessed punching opponents in the face, slashing the back of their opponents’ legs with hockey sticks, and hurling verbal abuse at each other. But, biting is considered outside the code, while all of these other disrespectful actions are considered within the code. There is no rhyme or reason to the code in some sports such as ice hockey. The code simply evolves, much like a religion, over time. Certain actions are considered disrespectful while others, seemingly equally as bad, are not. In ice hockey, for example, yelling obscene insults about an opponent’s wife is perfectly fine. Saying anything racist is not.

The “code” that Mr. Cherry refers to, and demands that kids learn and obey, is really a code of conduct. In his baseball example, a player is ostracized for tossing a bat to the side after hitting a home run (despite the fact the bat was not thrown dangerously, it was merely tossed to one side rather than the other). The reality in that case is that the action was perceived as cocky by the player. This is a laughable offense in the world of professional sports where the participants are applauded for being cocky in most scenarios.

In Mr. Cherry’s world, people should not question. Do not question the code, just respect it. Don’t question why it is unacceptable or disrespectful to throw a bat or to kick an opponent, but it is acceptable (and tough) to punch an opponent in the face or hack him with your hockey stick. Don’t question it, just respect it, or else. (Note the introduction of fear into the equation indicating that there will be dire consequences if you ignore the code).

The similarity between some sports and religion is an interesting topic that probably deserves further attention, but at this point I thought I would introduce the topic with the “code”. What is the equivalent to the code in religion? The law. Don’t work on the Sabbath, but it’s OK to have slaves. Stone your children to death for disobedience, but don’t eat pork. Marry as many women as you can afford, but don’t marry a non-virgin. Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric, but do cover your head at all times. And most of all (you can hear Mr. Cherry’s gravelly voice interjecting here)...DON’T DO IT. Be sure to follow the code or you’ll really get it. And whatever you do, don’t question the code.

Haphazard rules with a good dose of fear and you are ready either to establish a major league sport or found a religion.

To infinity…and beyond.

Image courtesy of Google Images.

One of the unavoidable issues one must face head on during or following a shift from being religious to embracing atheism is one’s future death. Many religions promise an afterlife. Indeed, there are those who hypothesize that religion in its most primitive forms originally developed as our species gradually evolved to consciously acknowledge our impending and unavoidable death and in an attempt to escape that prickly part of reality. Whether this is the case or not, however, it does seem clear that most modern popular religions make promises of, if not escape from death outright, an even better alternative than life itself once one passes over to “the flip side”. The religion of my past, Christianity, is infamous for its promises of an afterlife full of either reward or punishment, depending on performance (or at least belief) in this life. But, as one moves away from religion and accepts that we are mammals, restricted to all the nuances of the carbon cycle that we share with all other living things, then there is no alternative but to accept that you will one day die and cease to exist.

I remember, for myself, this was a bit of a stumbling block as I made my move away from religion. It seemed a bit harsh luck to find out that one’s eternal reward wasn’t real after all, and the idea of simply ceasing to exist was at first a bit frightening and somewhat depressing. Mixed in with this, of course, was the relief of knowing that there was no threat of hell either. I wouldn’t be suffering an eternity of pain, loneliness and despair just because once, as a child, the unforgivable thought: “There is no holy spirit,” had crossed through my consciousness (within a few minutes of discovering that that was the only unforgivable sin).

Now I have accepted quite readily that there is no afterlife. It has been quite a relief actually, and has certainly helped me appreciate this one life for what it is. One mustn’t put anything off until after death anymore! One thought, admittedly not my own, that initially helped was the realization that I had not been alive for all of time until my birth and that hadn’t bothered me in the least. Not being alive ever again after my death should be no more frightening or depressing. One shouldn’t feel cheated for no longer having the chance of an afterlife, but rather ecstatic that one exists at all.

Along this line of thought, I started to think a bit about death and the loss of loved ones. Though one’s passage into oblivion could hardly be bothersome to oneself (at least once the actual passing is over with), there is, obviously the potential for sadness and loss amongst loved ones that are “left behind” (temporarily of course). In this light I began to look at my own death in a whole new light. I realize that the solar system, including earth and all life on it, will be obliterated in a few billion years when our sun expands into a red giant and then fizzles down to a white dwarf. Then, for all eternity (as far as we know), there will be nothing as far as our solar system is concerned. Ultimately, to put is bluntly, we are all royally fucked. My present view of death is that at the moment of one’s death, time accelerates immediately to that obliteration. Time, of course, does not accelerate after someone’s death. We have all seen a loved one die and then go on to live many years or decades ourselves. But, that is how time is viewed from our living perspective. Not that time, or anything else for that matter, can be viewed from death, but in a sense the only logical view is that as one dies, everything instantly ceases to exist. In a sense my thinking is that eventually all life will end, so as far as I’m concerned when I die, it happens instantly. My best visualization of this process mimics that moment in the original Star Wars movies when Han Solo engages the hyper drive and every light source in view seems to accelerate at a terrific speed (on that rare occasion when the Millenium Falcon’s hyper drive actually functioned properly).

I have no logic or reason to support this notion of death but, given that the end of all life on earth is a statistical certainty, it seems a close enough approximation of reality. In some ways, this view (or really more of an acceptance of the future reality) could be seen as sad. Every living thing on earth will one day be gone. Every parent knows that their child will also on day die. It is incredibly difficult to look at your young child and accept that. But, it is also a remarkably calming visualization when you think about it. Life is special. It is rare. And, it is short. Cherish every moment.

When Democracy Supersedes Reality

 Image courtesy of Google Images.

I live in a democracy, at least in name, and I strongly believe in democracy. The people should hold the power in a nation-state, which ideally should be republican (not to be confused with Republican). My country, Canada, is not a republic of course. We have a sovereign as head of state, and her representative, the governor general as the technical head of the government. But, Canada is, for all intents and purposes, a democracy. We have a parliament with a House of Commons, elected members of parliament, a senate, a separate judiciary, and a prime minister. The parliamentary system, quite a different form or democracy than the American brand, requires the party with the majority of seats in the house of commons to form a government following an election. Should no party establish a majority of seats, then typically either the party with the most seats forms a minority government or more than one party forms a coalition government. As such, it is not uncommon at all to have a Prime Minister of Canada for whose party much fewer than 50% of the population voted. The prime minister appoints as cabinet ministers various elected members of parliament, almost always exclusively from within his own party.

Canada’s current prime minister, Stephen Harper, appointed Gary Goodyear to the position of Minister of State for Science and Technology following an election in 2008 and then again following an election in 2011. It is public knowledge that Goodyear neither understands nor accepts evolution. In a March 2009 interview Goodyear was asked by a reporter whether he believed in evolution. He responded: “I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.” [Note the reporter did not ask a question about his religion.] Later the same day, Goodyear said that he believed in evolution, but when asked to clarify this belief, he responded: “We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment.” [Gary Goodyear is a former chiropractor.]

Remember, this comes from the Minister of State for Science and Technology.

It is obvious to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of science and evolution that Goodyear does not understand it. Human evolution does not occur in the time frame of years and decades, and to suggest so only illustrates a failed attempt to cover up his own ignorance about evolution. Further, anyone with any exposure to the deliberate ignorance promoted as “intelligent design” and the battle (particularly in the United States) to introduce this tripe into schools as “teaching the controversy” in science class, also understands exactly what Goodyear’s position is. The fact that he interprets acceptance of evolution as an issue of religion rather than science and the fact that he is then unable to adequately explain basic evolution, demonstrates that he is indeed a creationist. He clearly lets his religious beliefs determine his view of where humans came from rather than accepting the reality of evolution. And, worst of all, he actually thinks this is an acceptable position for the Minister of State for Science.

In some conversations with people, particularly supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada (which, incidentally is anything but conservative to anyone who holds conservative fiscal and economic values) they tend to defend Goodyear’s right to believe whatever he wishes. They tend to defend the prime minister’s choice to appoint (and re-appoint) him to this scientific cabinet position, justifying it by pointing out that we live in a democracy and the Conservative party won the election. Mr. Harper, as the elected prime minister, has the authority and the mandate of Canadian voters to appoint Goodyear to this post. There are two main problems with this position.

Firstly, while it is true that Goodyear has the right to believe anything he wishes, even known falsehoods such as creationism, he most certainly does not have the right to allow his personal beliefs to cloud his perception of reality, particularly when those beliefs are in direct opposition to the portfolio he holds (science). Step back and imagine if this was another government minister who held a belief that was known to be false and which was directly in conflict with a particular cabinet position. Suppose the Minister of Health believed that HIV was transmitted by eye contact. Suppose the Minister of Natural Resources believed that the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada were only 13 metres apart (this is, after all, an error of the exactly same magnitude as Gary Goodyear's error), or suppose the Minister of Finance didn’t believe the dollar exists. Everyone, no matter their beliefs, would be outraged to find a minister with such beliefs appointed to cabinet and making major decisions about the economy, health, or land resources while holding beliefs that are in complete opposition to known facts. Yet, for some reason when the issue is evolution and science, people are willing to accept that that is someone’s “personal” belief. (And, of course, some people think these are not analogous since for some people, thanks to successful propaganda, evolution is still not known to be true).

Secondly, reality should supersede democracy. The prime minister, while legally entitled to appoint Goodyear to the role of Minister of State for Science given his majority government position by the voters of Canada, should not have this authority. There are some cases when even an elected majority government should not have the authority to make such decisions. When reality is being challenged by a government, democracy is no longer a fair defense of the government’s actions and decisions. No matter how strong of a majority government a party earns in an election, they would never be able to decree that electrons actually have a positive rather than negative charge. They simply do not, and to state otherwise is a challenge to reality. Even if 100% of the population of Canada believed that electrons have a positive charge and supported the prime minister in decreeing that they are positively charged, they still would be negatively charged. Electrons have a negative charge whether Mr. Harper believes they do or not. Similarly, evolution is true whether Gary Goodyear believes it is or not. Attempting to overrule reality with democracy is a very dangerous game in politics because it leads to organized and deliberate ignorance, a topic I hope to follow up with shortly.

There may be those reading this who are still not convinced of the outrage of Gary Goodyear's position. Perhaps you still think he is entitled to his own personal beliefs even if he is in public office. Well, perhaps he does, even if those beliefs are known to be false. But the bottom line is this: Gary Goodyear is the Minister of State for Science. Science accepts evolution. Even if you, as the reader of this blog, don't accept evolution, perhaps you could understand why it is outrageous for someone in the position of authority over science in government to reject one of the main accepted theories of the biological sciences.

Overall, this is simply another example of how a person can blind themselves to the facts because they require their beliefs to fit with preconceived notions based on religion. Just another example of putting the cart before the horse and making the evidence fit the conclusion. Gary Goodyear only rejects (and even fails to understand) evolution for one reason: he is a Christian. (Let's face it, this is pretty much the only reason anyone ever rejects evolution). The travesty in this case is that, rather than only letting his rejection of science lead to his own continued ignorance, he is instead in a position of power over the very subject that he rejects. The irony would be funny if it wasn't so frightening and sickening.

Dichotomy of Views on Evidence

Does God exist? It is a question that almost everyone must have asked of themselves at some point. From a scientist’s point of view it is an inherently unanswerable question. Disproving a hypothesis for which there is no scientific test is impossible. That it is unanswerable does not increase the likelihood of God’s existence, however. There are many inherently unanswerable questions in life. By definition, a research question can only be answered if one is able to gather data and test hypotheses. This is not possible of the question of God’s existence. (Actually some have attempted to address this as a research question by establishing a controlled study on the effects of prayer on those suffering from ill health. And, while I personally think this type of approach is a waste of resources and amounts to hypothesis chasing, it perhaps has some validity in addressing the overall question. Christians, of course, argue that scientific tests on God like that are invalid because of what amounts to a supernatural Hawthorne effect!).

There seems to be a continuum of views amongst humans in terms of the requirement for evidence to support belief in God. On the one extreme are believers who essentially require no evidence whatsoever for their belief in God. In fact, some believers state that their belief despite the lack of evidence is actually a sign of strong faith, which can only be taken as a good thing. On the other extreme are many atheists and scientists who reject the notion of deities due to a complete lack of evidence. Many people seem to lie somewhere in the middle, generally living their lives without being entirely convinced of the existence of God. Occasionally when something inexplicable happens or they lose a loved one or have a near death experience, they feel “something” and put it down to some sort of spirituality. Many people seem willing to sort of throw out their normal expectations of evidence in the face of adversity and whisper a prayer on the off chance that God does exist and might help them out in a pinch. Many shrug and accept that there is no evidence for God, but are also very quick to point out to atheists that they also can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so both positions are equally likely. How wrong this last statement is. I probably don’t, at this point, need to delve into all the limitless analogies of other things that cannot either be proven or disproved, yet which most people are perfectly willing to dismiss (fairies, invisible unicorns, etc.). While this is simply another example of the inconsistency of logic in many people’s minds when dealing specifically with the notion of God, there is another point I wish to make in support of the atheist’s point of view.

I find myself firmly on the skeptical end of this continuum. Why? In short, because the onus is on those making a claim to provide evidence, whether applying to the topic of God or any other claim. Think of our legal system. Do we require anything less than evidence before conviction when one is accused of a crime. How bizarre and wrong it would be if you faced accusations in court and the judge announced that there is no proof you didn’t commit the crime so you are equally likely to be guilty as innocent. I remember, following the verdict at the conclusion of the drawn out O.J. Simpson double murder trial in the mid-1990s, one of Simpson’s lawyers, Robert Shapiro, stating in an interview that the American legal system erred on the side of innocence. That the burden of proof lay with the prosecutors rather than the defense attorneys, and that it was worth paying the price of a guilty man occasionally going free in order to reduce the chances that an innocent man might go to jail. Apart from this sort of obvious suggestion of guilt towards Mr. Simpson by one of his lawyers, I thought this was a very clear statement of the basis of the system. The system requires a level of proof (typically reasonable doubt in the legal system) to convict. So too does the question of God’s existence require a level of proof in order to make a claim. Pascal, of course, has claimed that it is better to err on the side of belief than skepticism. Is it though? What if you lived your life consistently and erred on the side of belief in all things. Fairies might exist, unlikely though it is, so you’d better err on the side of belief.

It is interesting, though, how many people are happy to accept religion without evidence. Many Christians I’ve conversed with claim personal experience as the most convincing aspect of their faith. Indeed, in debate over the issue of my position as a former Christian, and in their claim that there is no such thing, I have heard Christians claim that the reason I wasn’t really a Christian was because I didn’t experience the Holy Spirit. If only I had, I would have known that it were the truth. This seems like a most hollow argument to me. Firstly, almost every religion will make similar claims. People of other religions will adamantly claim that their personal experience is equally convincing as a Christian’s personal experience. Yet, of course, they can’t all be true since many religions are in opposition to each other. (Well technically, of course, they are all true personal experiences because they are simply that: a personal experience. Just as two people in the same room who take a hallucinogenic drug may both claim different things happened in the room, both are true personal experiences though neither reflect the reality of what went on in the room). Secondly, this sort of claim as a replacement for evidence puts someone in the position of zero accountability. Their position is simply that they have had a personal experience that proves their faith, and if you haven’t happened to have the same personal experience then that is your problem though it doesn’t change the truthfulness of theirs. This attitude is in opposition to the nature of truth: it is freely available to anyone to discover.

I’ve had an interesting discussion with a Christian recently, all conducted in writing, so I am in the position to be able to reproduce some of his points here. I think he is a very good representation of how Christians are willing to dismiss evidence in order to allow themselves to continue believing what they want to believe. This particular individual even claims to be a scientist, though when pressed on this issue, his reason for making that claim is that he has completed a degree in psychology. I thought it would be an interesting illustration to publish a few of the exchanges we’ve had. Typically, the pattern or our conversation involves him making a claim about the nature of God, with me then asking for some evidence to support his claim. Often he will then quote the Bible as supporting evidence for his claims about the nature of God, to which I will then point out that many (most?) of the events Bible can be largely dismissed as false.

In this particular dialogue below, the bold text represents the quotes from this particular Christian; the italics are mine. The conversation begins with him asking me to explain my claim that the Bible has been shown to be false. I responded with:

“As for scientifically proving the Bible is false, one need look no further than the story of creation in Genesis. It did not occur. Neither did the global flood to a height of 30,000 ft. I could go on and on and you could try to explain them all away, but anyone who has the least understanding of science knows that the Bible is fiction.”

“I'll skip the sixth day and go straight to your flood argument. The Bible does not say 30,000 feet. The Bible says fifteen cubits up and that the mountains were covered. Many people think that fifteen cubits equals 23 feet or 6.8 meters. I don't have an explanation for how that covered the mountains but there are several plausible explanations to consider: mountains weren't that tall yet, the Bible was referring only to local mountains, or the flood really was 30,000 feet deep.”

“Did you really just use the phrase "plausible explanations" and then go on to suggest that mountains weren't that tall yet or that a global flood occurred to the depth of 30,000 feet (and mammals survived on a floating boat at that elevation)? Do you understand now why I doubt your claims to be a scientist?”

“I stand by what I said. They are plausible explanations. My evidence of God's existence is personal experience but that is not merely an emotional experience. God exists and therefore these are plausible and scientific explanations. This isn't wishful thinking. God will accomplish his purpose whether we are for or against him.”

“You think it is plausible that the highest mountains on earth have developed to that height in the past 10,000 years. Or you think that it is plausible for mammals, including humans, to survive at 30,000 feet for months at a time, without freezing to death or dying from hypoxia? And you think this is scientifically plausible? I find that hard to accept.”

“I think it is plausible that the highest mountains on Earth could have developed to that height in a matter of days. (Genesis 10:25) I think it is plausible when the flood waters rose that the atmosphere was also pushed up to supply oxygen and warmth.”


This conversation is almost humorous. Here is a Christian so intent on clinging to the dogma of his religion that he is actually willing to state that it is plausible that the highest mountains on earth, the Himalaya, developed in a matter of days (without offering any hypothesis or evidence about how that might happen). Total blindness to evidence. We know without any level of reasonable doubt that the Himalaya, though they are relatively young as mountain ranges go, began to form as the Indian subcontinent drove northwards into the Asian landmass 70 million years ago. Yet, here is a person (who claims to be a scientist no less), stating that it is reasonable to believe the Himalaya developed in the past few thousand years. And the only reason he is willing to say this is to allow a continuation of another belief founded in the Biblical book of Genesis. This is the kind of ignorance that is out there in our world in support or religion.

Of particular interest is his statement, “God exists and therefore these are plausible and scientific explanations.” First he establishes his cart (God exists), then the horse is attached and dragged along (therefore these are plausible and scientific explanations). Others might call this circular reasoning. Remember what this conversation was all about to begin with. When asked for evidence that God exists, this person goes to the Bible as evidence. When I pointed out that the Bible (or certainly large portions of it) could not be literally true, he insists that it must be true because God exists. The amazing thing is the blindness with which this sort of “logic” is upheld. This particular individual claimed to have an I.Q. of 136 and he was adamant that he was a logical thinker (to his credit, he was able to list a number of qualities and facts about logic, whether they were simply copied and pasted I don’t know). Eventually, as is often the case, the dialogue with this individual broke down. He insisted I was a “propagandist” interested only in advancing my own agenda. He called me a bully (and a wanker!), claimed that I was likely to go an try to bomb churches, and told me to shut up unless I engaged in scientific dialogue. (Yes, I recognize that this particular individual may well have been suffering mental illness, but yet his dialogue was quite representative of what I’ve encountered from other lucid Christians).

Once again, I plead, examine the evidence first, then draw your conclusions from that evidence rather than the other way around.