Yes, data can be manipulated, changing the statistical outcome. Yes, the statistical outcome can be reframed to the biases of the user. But the statistical process itself is undeniable. Input goes in, action performed, input goes out. Quantitative data is solid, and less open to interpretation, whereas qualitative data leaves plenty of squish room.

One of the basic concepts in statistics is that of the null hypothesis. Wikipedia says that “The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential treatment has no effect.” When a researcher wants to do research, they’ll determine what it is that they want to measure, and put it in the form of Null Hypothesis/Alternative Hypothesis. For example:

H0: The daily use of aspirin in older adults has no impact on heart attack and stroke.

Ha: Daily aspirin use decreases the chances for heart and stroke in older adults.

The medical researchers developed their hypothesis based on trends they had noticed across their patients, and thought there might be something to it. They stated their null and alternate hypotheses, and then performed their research. The evidence they found supported their alternate hypothesis, and they did a whole lot more research to figure out dosing, appropriate age, and all of the other details that needed to be sussed out about the aspirin therapy.

An important thing to remember is that in statistical research, the idea is NOT to disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis exists because it is the skeptical perspective. The alternative hypothesis is the idea we want to provide evidence to support. It’s the new idea. You need to provide enough data to show statistical probability that the alternate hypothesis is more true than the null.

So. Let’s look at atheism. A-, meaning not, or without. Theist – belief in a god or gods. So, atheism literally means without belief in a god or gods. It is the null hypothesis. If you’re trying to tell me that god exists (whichever flavor of god you’re professing), you need to provide statistical evidence that your god exists. Something that can’t be attributed to random chance. Something repeatable – if I go perform my own analysis using the exact same methods, I will reach the same statistical conclusion.

I realize that the null hypothesis is a function of statistical analysis, and doesn’t work for quantitative data. But that’s sort of the point, yeah? If someone makes a proclamation that GOD EXISTS! it needs to be solidly evaluated. For example, I can do a simple test about gravity. My simple test could be: I drop a ball from five feet , it falls to earth. I drop a ball 10,000 times from five feet, it falls to earth. I have developed evidence that a ball will probably fall to earth if I were to do it again a 10,001st time. At this point, I have a Theory. It’s called a theory because it is possible, on that 10,001st drop, that the ball goes sailing into the air and hits my husband in the head. But it’s highly unlikely. Still, I’m open to the idea that I could be wrong.

The same goes for atheism. I’m open to the idea that I could be wrong. I’m open to the idea that someone could come along and provide data to prove the existence of god, and to have it displace my current lack of belief in a god or gods. I guess you could call it my Theory of Atheism.

Just as nature abhors a vacuum, I abhor lack of communication. In this debate, both sides can walk away thinking themselves justified and then make cheap shots at each other. All over the internet, I find all sorts of anti-Theist and anti-Christian pictures and music that make critiques through humor than I do not find particularly funny. Many of these jokes have to do with the supposed inconsistencies of believers and their theology. Other jokes make fun of faith by invoking belief in Cthulhu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I do not see the same vigor on the believer side going after atheists. Though, every so often I see a cheap remark being made their way as well. I know from my own part that I take what atheists say about God with a grain of salt and sometimes think, “They just don’t get it.” Or, “How can they believe all of this came from nothing!” However, I admit this is the wrong stance to take since it discounts the reality most atheists are experiencing.

I am going to try a different route in this essay to get past this deadlock. I will not try to prove directly or indirectly the existence of God. I will do my best not to refer to any religious text. I will not try to take a cheap shot at anyone. I will try to take a step back from proving anything and look at the basic assumptions made by religious and non-religious people. Being that I am a believer, I am much more likely to explain my side well. So, any atheist who is reading this should not see anything I say about atheists and atheism as a condemnation but as an opportunity to explain to me what you actually do believe. Also,I do not believe that all religions are correct even though they all have at least some truth to them. I am a Roman Catholic and I believe that religion is true and my idea of religion centers on the Catholic faith. I am not going argue for why I think this is so here. I am just letting all readers know what my biases are. For the sake of brevity I will not go into the debate between “religion” and “spirituality” for now.

The important thing to remember when communicating with a religious person is that we believe what we believe based on faith. This means that we are not making it up as we go along nor are we inventing what faith tell us. I bring this up because sometimes I hear the critique that falls flat, “That’s convoluted! Where on earth did you get that from?” The reason why this critique usually does not make an impression is that it’s the wrong question. It is like a logician telling a zoologist that his description of an duckbill platypus is convoluted because the zoologist did not invent what he observes but is just describing it even if it seems contrary to expectation. If I were building something in my own philosophy divorced from faith, then that we be a perfectly logical thing to ask. But, when I believe something has been given to me by a higher source that is beyond my understanding, it is not my role to discount what was given to me or pick and choose which dogmas I believe. A believer either accepts the whole thing or rejects the whole thing or he is guilty of hypocrisy.

Many atheists would then say that we have lost our freedom to think because we submit our intellect to a higher authority. But, this is like being told from my point of view that because you have been given a map, you are less likely to find your destination. But, what we are given in the faith is more than just a map to heaven: it’s an explanation of the purpose of everything. If a revelation were not true, then it would limit our ability to discuss because we would be starting off with false conclusions. But, at least in orthodox credal Christianity, there has been a flourishing of thought precisely because we all agree to those basic truths. I could go on about how the faith creates a natural tension within itself that causes this discussion. But, it is suffice to say, for now, that Christians have been just as internally critical of Christianity as atheists have been. I am less knowledgeable of other faiths and would not want to speak for them on this point.

When some people describe Church teaching, they sometimes treat it as an absolute conclusion. Yes, the Church has had to condemn notions in the past and support others. It usually done after a long discussion and certain ideas are seen to be incompatible with the faith.  If the Church were telling us what to think, there would be no need to interact in a long discussion for someone would just have the answers and spout it out like some Old Testament prophet condemning those who turn away from the covenant. Instead, the more accurate analogy would be the faith is the light by which we see what is otherwise hidden. Examples of these truths include the basic dogmas, those things directly revealed by God, such as that Christ is both God and man and that God is a Trinity. There’s no way we can come to know these things through reason. But, they are a starting point for further discussion about who God is and what it means for the spiritual life. And, if it is true, we are more free by knowing it. Since, by knowing the creator, we can know his creation even more intimately. (Again, whether or not the faith is actually true is separate topic for now.)

Some would then say that we are irrational for accepting what is not provable. Yet, we constantly encounter things that we cannot prove or that we merely accept out of convenience. In fact, I would say that because most people are not scientists, they accept what scientists say on a de fide basis instead of seeing it as part of a discussion usually amplified by reporters that do not understand what the scientists are saying. More practical, I trust that the sun will rise in the morning and that the laws of physics will work the same tomorrow as it did yesterday. I can surmise from previous experience and it is quite rational to assume that past results will repeat themselves. But, I cannot prove it to someone who refuses to believe. So, by accepting what seems obvious and right in front of me, I am not making an irrational conclusion but accepting reality. This is similar to what happens in faith where I accept what has been handed down to me. By being a religious person, one does not invent these truths, but humbly accepts them.

In conclusion, you may notice that one of my underlying assumptions in writing this essay is that faith and reason do not contradict each other. (And if they seemingly do, someone made a mistake.) I also say that when used correctly with each they will lead each other to greater truth.  It is often said that philosophy is man’s search for God. Meanwhile, faith is God’s search for us. There is a hunger in human beings for eternal truth and purpose. Some atheists predict that we are entering into a new stage of rationality where religion will be non-existent or at most moved into the sphere of private beliefs. They point to the irrational things said by fundamentalists and the abuses of Muslim extremists, neither or whom do I sympathize with, and see it as the gasping breath of a dying way of life. However, what is shown historically is that where stable religion withdraws, rationality does not win out. Instead what one gets is more extreme forms of faith divorced from any sort of reason. There could be many reasons why this could be. But, I would like to posit one possible answer based on what I have previously said. I believe that reason alone cannot satisfy the hunger humans have for purpose and meaning. I believe that when we take away meaning from people’s lives it dehumanizes them and makes them turn ungodly things into idols. It was no mistake that the ancient Egyptians worshiped animals nor communists building a shrine at the tomb of Lenin. Nor is it odd to see the rise of occult activity as people leave established religious groups. As scripture says, man cannot live on bread alone. They will find that bread either through faith outside themselves or by inventing a different faith in their own image disconnected from eternal truth.

In this second part, I want to discuss the moderate religious approach to morality, and the problem it runs into. I will be mainly referring to moderate Christianity here, because frankly, I know much more about this subject than I do of moderate Islam or any other religion. I suppose I should define my operative term here as well, that being moderate.

I have no strict definition of what Moderate Christianity is, but I will try to sum up what I am referring to when I use the term. Everyone seems to know who the conservative Christians are. They are the ones who interpret the Bible literally, at least most of the time. They think homosexuality is a sin, that women should be subordinate to men, among other things. They tend to make the headlines, cause all the controversy. Moderates, on the other hand, are the Christians who may not interpret the Bible literally, who may not think that homosexuality is a sin, who probably have a more fair view of the sexes. They really don’t cause a stir, and it seems they just try to get along with everyone.

I know that the above is a really poor attempt at defining moderate Christianity. That’s really the problem with it, that their beliefs and practices are so all over the board, so diverse that to try to pin down what they really are is impossible. Let’s just suffice it to say that moderates, as opposed to conservatives, do not take the whole Bible literally, and feel free to interpret parts as they will, if they feel like it. This is the crux of the matter to me, as this interpreting of the Bible poses a big problem for them.

Take homosexuality for example. A conservative Christian will look to the relevant passages and conclude, “homosexuality is a sin”. This approach makes sense. They take the Bible as the Word of God, given to us for guidance and truth, so what it says on any issue is the truth. Who are we mere men/women to doubt or contradict the Word of God?

Some moderates, on the other hand, will, for whatever reason(there seem to be many reasons), conclude that homosexuality is not a sin, even though it is spelled out right there in the Bible. A few of them that I knew even explained their thought processes on the matter pretty plainly, that they just plain felt that the Bible was wrong on this issue, and that it was pretty common-sense that if God created them that way, then that was okay. This approach runs into a problem, in my opinion:

If you can look through the Bible and pick out what you feel is morally right and wrong from it, then it is obvious that you consider your sense of morality as more reliable than that of the Bible. Otherwise, you would take the Bible at its word if you felt that it had a better sense of morality than you do. Well, if you have such a good moral sense as to interpret what is right and wrong to follow in the Word of God itself, then why not just cut out the middle-book, and just admit that you know what is right and wrong, and stop believing that the Bible has anything whatsoever to do with your morality?

In other words, if you are interpreting what is right and wrong in the Bible morally, you are already relying upon your innate sense of morality to judge that as presented in the holy book. You already regard its teachings on morality as subordinate to your innate moral sense. Since that is the case, why not just admit it?

Stay tuned for the final installment of this series, where I attempt to outline a secular model for morality we can believe in.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas ”manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). -Taken from the Wikipedia article of the same name In essence, morality refers to what’s right and wrong.

God will require more than a simple web definition to describe how I will be using it here. In short, I am using the word God to refer to any sort of supernatural being, or beings, and mostly those whom are mentioned in religious texts, and especially those who are some sort of moral law-giver. So, in this way, I am using the word to encompass the whole range of supernatural beings that anyone postulates exist, or existed, or will exist. This is a lot simpler and shorter than writing God/Gods/Goddess/Allah/etc ad infinitum, when I can just use one word. I will also use male pronouns when needed to refer to God.

Now that the definitions are out of the way, let’s get to business. This first part of the series is going to focus on the Euthyphro Dilemma. According to Plato, as Socrates did not write anything that we know of, Socrates was discussing morality with a man named, as you may have guessed, Euthyphro. After some initial back and forth, which I don’t want to get into, Euthyphro says that morality is what is loved by God(gods to him). Socrates then proposes the dilemma:

“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?“

The above is a modified wording of the dilemma that I found on Wikipedia, which captures the original meaning. Simply put, either God tells us what to do, and what not to do because those things are intrinsically good or evil, or those things are good and evil because God commands them.

The first option, that those things are intrinsically good or evil, means that when giving moral commands to us, God is essentially referring to a standard outside of himself. In this way, what is good or evil do not depend on God at all, and we can just cut out the middle-man. The second option, that things are good or evil because God says so, basically means that morality is arbitrary, up to the whims and caprices of God. If God commanded us to constantly inflict pain on children, then it would be the right thing to do, in this model.

As you can see, neither option is very appealing. On one hand, you have a morally unnecessary God, and on the other, a situation where morality is basically, “might makes right”. So, what to do from here? Well, first we can look to see if any convincing solution to this problem has been found. I’m going to skip past that process(as it would take a few blog posts on its own) and just let you know that in my opinion, a solution has not been found, and in that case, we need to find our morality elsewhere, outside of the concept of God.

Stay tuned for the second part of this short series, where I discuss modern religious morality and its problems, then wrap up in part three, giving what I believe is a good, secular basis for morality.

Questions for Discussion:

If you believe in God-derived morality, how do you solve this dilemma?

If you don’t, have you ever thought about it in this way?

We were in the grocery store, just rounding the produce section, and heading over to the dairy. I had mentioned a couple minutes before that I particularly got a kick over seeing a kid telling Michele Bachmann that his gay mom “doesn’t need any fixing.” Although I do dislike the fact that the kid was used as a prop in this way, I did love how she was put on the spot like that for, what I believe is a terrible, shameful belief. I don’t know about any of you, but it seems pretty common-sense that gay people are just like us, deserve the same respect, the same treatment, and the same rights. To me, thinking otherwise is similar to thinking that black people shouldn’t use the same restroom as whites, or other similar racist drivel.

So, we had made it over to the dairy, and were just passing the cheese, when I said something along the lines of,

“people should be ashamed of having beliefs like those.”

Suffice it to say, my friend was not happy with that statement. I even believe he may have gotten a little angry. His stance seemed to be that no one should be ashamed for what they believe(at least that is how I interpreted it), and to be blunt, I disagree with that stance, very much so. There are many beliefs that are truly harmful, in that they have real world effects on real people, and do harm to them. Female genital mutilation, hunting of witches in Africa, just to list a couple.

The harm done by beliefs isn’t just physical. The belief that the earth is 10,000 years old does harm to the public understanding of science, as does the belief that evolution is false. The belief in a just world can lead to slut-shaming or, in a religious context, to claiming that natural disasters are our fault. The belief that homosexuality is a sin can lead to gay teens killing themselves. The list goes on and on. The fact is, some beliefs are harmful, and we should feel ashamed for associating with those beliefs.

Personally speaking, I a feel a little ashamed that the scientific community I admire was once really into eugenics. I cannot think of many more examples off-hand, but I am sure there are plenty of things that have been done in the name of scientific progress that were, essentially, terrible things. The great thing about the scientific community, though, is that we really don’t mind disavowing the mistakes of our past. We thrive on self-correction.

Religion, on the other hand, usually isn’t so favorable toward the idea of self-correction. In some religions it’s really discouraged. This is most likely due to the fact that religious beliefs are largely derived from some sort of (usually imagined) authority. To question the beliefs is basically to question the authority of God, Allah, the Pope, or whoever. Thus, religious beliefs seem to have a certain(to use a scientific term) inertia. This inertia has carried some really horrible, stone/iron/bronze-age beliefs into the present day, ones which moral, good people should be really ashamed of associating with.

Religious people, it is past time that you felt ashamed for associating yourself with those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, that the foundational theories of science are bunk, that apostasy is punishable by death, that use of condoms is a sin, among many other things. It is past time that these beliefs got any respect in our world. It is past time for you to publicly disavow these beliefs, and all those who hold them.

I just wanted to let you know that we are working very hard to get this blog up and running. I expect there will be new posts come this Tuesday, and that the blog will be fully operational by the beginning of the 2012!

Stay tuned!

So, hi. I’m Sam. *waves*

I am writing through the lens of a 30 year old bisexual, cisgendered, cissexual, white, feminist, overweight, atheist, orphaned, polyamorous, married-to-a-man, temporarily-abled, female college student in the Pacific Northwestern United States (Oregon, specifically) that really loves ducks.

I blog sporadically over at Yet Another Feminist Atheist Blog. I was president of the bible club in high school, and had fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. If you noticed, I used the oxford comma back there – I’m a fan. I’m now involved with Freethinkers of Portland State, an atheist/agnostic/skeptic group on the PSU campus. I occasionally say stuff on their blog, too. I’m addicted to hyperlinks and citing sources. I like to arrange events and whatnot – there will be one or two coming up that readers of this blog like. I’m a feminist – the definition thereof is a hard one to pin down, given that I’m a  collared submissive, sex-positive, pro-sex-work, woman (I’m what my husband describes as “problematic” for the Women’s Studies department.) I’m a troublemaker.

In any case, I’m pretty big on the atheism, and pretty anti on the religion. I’ve studied quite a few in my time.

Hmm. This seems to be getting more long-winded than I’d intended; this happens a lot with me. I’ll try to tone down the blathering for you, just a bit.

Looking forward to the thought-provoking journey!