I am frequently accused of being aggressive, bullying and 'looking for arguments' mostly with Christians but the odd Muslim and Hindu too because I seek out theistic claims made online in news articles, blogs and on discussion forums and challenge them. Is this fair? If theists claim that they have an immortal soul which will experience eternal bliss or eternal torment and that they are made in the image of a god who is interested in everything they do, this is one thing. However, they also claim that I do and am.
This is quite important surely and something which I have the right to try to get to the bottom of? If gods or souls exist and impact humanity so seriously, it is essential to human wellbeing that we confirm and understand this. I do not challenge theists' right to claim the existence of gods and souls but simply ask them to explain why they make this claim. If a creationist asks me what right I have or how I dare to tell them they are a species of large ape I accept this as a valid question. I provide them with physiological specifications of apes, our biological classification as hominidae, fossil evidence, genetic evidence and the significance of vestigiality and ebryology explained for lay people like me.
If I ask a theist what is the evidence for these claims about gods and souls and they tell me there is none, this is just what they believe, I am also quite happy to leave it there after suggesting faith is not necessarily a virtue. But so many don't. They then attempt to support their argument by claiming 'scientific evidence.' This puts their claim into an area in which the evidence must be presented and may then be challenged. This is the 'scientific evidence' for gods and souls which I have been presented with.
1) Bodies weigh 21 grams less after death.
No, they don't. The one study which claimed this used six subjects, two of which were discarded and two of which showed weight loss but one of them gained it again and then lost it again. Even if all six of them instead of one had lost 21 grams this would not prove it was a soul.
2) No-one knows what the pineal gland does. It must house the soul.
Yes, we do, it produces melatonin which regulates aging, sexual development and sleep patterns. It is also still there and demonstrably dead after death. Besides which, not knowing what something does is not evidence of a soul.
3) Near death experiences prove there is a soul - see this book by Dr Alexander, a neuroscientist , who experienced it and became a Christian.
No, they don't. He wasn't a neuroscientist, he was a neurosurgeon and already a Christian. Being a scientist of any kind does not mean you apply the scientific method to every aspect of your life anyway. NDEs occur to people of all religious beliefs and none and they all see things in keeping with their own beliefs or those they were culturally familiar with.This is the best evidence for them being psychological. If everyone who saw a god saw the same one no matter which one they'd been raised to believe in, this could be evidence of something. Also for people to remember these experiences means that their brains must have been functioning and storing the memories which means these experiences occurred at a time when they were alive tho their brains may well have been starved of oxygen.
4)Memories of past lives prove there is a soul. Look at this book called Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence For Past Lives by the scientist Ian Stevenson.
No, he was a psychiatrist who spent forty years trying to prove past lives and ultimately failing. Please see the reception of his 'work' by all credible scientific forums.
It is at this point I am accused of being aggressive. Is this fair? I don't think so. I have the right to challenge and ask for evidence for any claims made about me, the nature of my being and my future.
Sagacious Hawk
I think in this case, aggressive is synonymous with winning. Besides, there isn't anything wrong with being aggressive in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, the opposite of aggressive is meek.
But are you being aggressive? Eh, that's really in the perception of the observer.
Dec 11, 2012
Strega
I think all the points and counter-arguments you have made are well thought through, and logical and empirical. You express them well, too.
The problem is simply that I don't think you can counter faith with logic. They are like two parallel highways, or two separate languages. A vociferous theist, to my mind, is one who is scared that their theism might be 'taken away' from them.
As far as whether you have a right to be aggressive when other people make assumptions about your 'soul' or any other assumptions really, perhaps you should consider asking yourself why you actually care.
Dec 11, 2012
Laney
has anyone read that book "heaven is for real"? Does it not seem like the parents are really cashing in on their son's near-death experience?
Dec 11, 2012
Helen Pluckrose
I think its important to care what assumptions large groups in society claim to be truths for humanity as a whole especially when, as in my country, England, they do so in schools and parliament.
Dec 11, 2012
Strega
I'm a Brit, Helen, from London, which is predominantly non-religious. Nobody ever talked about my soul in school. There are specific religious denomination schools, Catholics fund quite a number of them. But in over 50 years I have never felt the tiniest bit of religion being 'force fed' to me either in school, the workplace or anywhere else. You should try living in the USA if you want to see religion at its ghastliest!
Dec 11, 2012
Helen Pluckrose
I think you have been lucky Strega. If you have a look at my profile you will see I am an active atheist because my daughter is seeing a psychologist now after being told at five that God flooded the world, turned rivers to blood and killed all the first born sons and that he still existed and should be worshipped. At school. Yes, her best friend came out of the same class quite happily singing 'The animals came in two by two hurrah, hurrah' and she came out crying and saying 'Couldn't the mummies swim with the children so they didn't drown?' and then she had nightmares about God doing it again and kept asking 'How do you know its not real? Mrs Dalby said its real and she's a headmistress' and then she had panic attacks and then began to self harm. She's doing a lot better now, since we've looked at lots of religions and she has decided none of them are true but she still gets scared sometimes if someone mentions the Christian god. Its just a state school and the headmistress told me she has to, by law, make assemblies broadly christian and include prayers.
My husband managed to go through school without ever thinking about God but I also became very worried by the idea of this immensely powerful mass murderer as a child and my daughters counsellor tells me that it is not uncommon. She deals with childhood anxiety and has several children with this fear at present.
I really do think its essential to stop telling children in schools stories about Noah's ark etc because the ones who think deeply about things will find this deeply disturbing. Or at least point out that global genocide is a bad thing. Its so ingrained people often don't see it - they even do Noah's ark shape sorters, for goodness sake! Imagine if someone tried making a child's toy based on concentration camp gas ovens? Everyone would be outraged but global genocide in the form of flood is completely acceptable because we are so familiarised with it culturally. Well, children aren't. If, like my daughter, the first information they receive about God killing everyone is from a teacher whom they have been taught to believe, some will imagine how terrifying that must have been and have nightmares. My daughter genuinely feared for her life for several months.
If you think back to your schooling, perhaps there was no talk of your soul or hellfire directly but were you not told about Noah's ark and God parting the seas after killing all the Egyptian children? Were you not told that God watches over you? Made to sing 'All things bright and beautiful - all creatures great and small. The lord God made them all?' I suspect that whilst you were happily letting this flow in and out of your mind, another child in your class was terrified and having nightmares.
Dec 11, 2012
Strega
That sounds terrible, I'm sorry your daughter has been made to feel anxious.
I vaguely remember a jigsaw puzzle with the animals as solid wood pieces, the only one I remember well was the giraffe. Noah's boat looked just like Captain Pugwash's. We did sing hymns at assembly, and the head teacher would read some kind of sermon, or chapters from a book - I was riveted to the excerpts from Anne Frank's diary.
I wonder if the fact that the seven or eight Jewish girls used to sit it out in the lecture theater during this process, and then file in to the hall to hear the school notices helped dispel all that Christian stuff. I asked why they didn't have to come to Assembly and was told their religion differed. Once I grasped that there were other beliefs, then the Christian one just became an option I didn't require. I was 7 years old - that would be 1966.
Nobody ever mentioned heaven or hell.
Sure I sang along in assembly, but that was because I liked singing. There was a School Prayer we were meant to memorise (which I didn't) and the Lord's Prayer, which had something about bread in it, in my mind at the time, and was also just something to mumble along to.
All this was nearly 50 years ago. As an adult, when comparing notes with mates, only the ones that went to catholic schools run by nuns seemed to get an overdose of religion, and the nuns were so vile and violent, most of the kids hated them and all they stood for.
I think you should go into the school, meet the teacher and instruct her in what you will and will not permit her to teach your children. Point out the consequences and tell her she is lucky that you don't plan to sue the school for causing your child to need treatment.
Dec 12, 2012
Dale Headley
I never initiate a confrontational debate with Christians; their beliefs are of no concern to me. However, if they attempt to force their nonsense on me, all bets are off.
Example: a science teacher of my long standing acquaintance does not believe in evolution and refuses to teach it because it offends her religious sensibilities. She despises me because I once pointed out that the California Education Code requires that evolution be taught. If I had a child in her school who couldn’t be transferred to a REAL science class, I would be aggressively in her face all the time.
Recently, I had indirect contact with her through a third party, and I said she didn’t teach evolution because she didn’t understand it, which she doesn’t. She informed me that she DOES understand it, but it doesn’t make scientific sense to her. So I compiled a 20 question evolution quiz - questions on aspects of the theory that must be understood if one were to be considered even marginally knowledgeable on the subject. I sent the quiz to her and challenged her to prove her knowledge and expertise. That was two months ago. I’ve received no response. She not only didn’t know any of the answers, I’m sure, but had no desire to research them, either.
Yet another science teacher from the same school also refused to teach evolution (most teachers don't). But he is retired, now, and doing no damage, so I don't confront him. I did, though, when he was teaching.
Bottom line: there are times when it is appropriate to be aggressive, and times when it is not.
Dec 12, 2012