How Creationists Think

Creationists tend to puzzle some of us atheists. Their arguments are incredibly flawed yet it seems it doesn't stop them from repeating them over, and over, and over again. It doesn't puzzle me. As someone with 20 years of experience as a Creationist (from age 5 where I first learned about the controversy to the age of 25 when I actually learned about evolution), nothing they say or do surprises me, and the fact that many of them don't seem to have our rebuttals sink in is also unsurprising. It's not surprising to me because as a former creationist, I know how they think.

We'd all like to think people are fundamentally rational. After all, people aren't paying priests to pray over their broken-down cars, they take those to the mechanic. But for the religious, and specifically for the creationist, the mindset for obtaining knowledge about the world around them is completely different. In the creationist mind, the rules that govern what will fix a car are not the same rules used to determine where the universe, the earth, and life came from. Cold rationality takes a backseat, and it only used when the results don't contradict the primary rule set. What is this rule set?

The rule set is Gnosis--revealed, divine knowledge. Many creationists are trained from birth to accept the words of a pastor, priest or other religious authority as unquestionably true. Even if some sects allow for errancy in their teachings, error is generally not assumed to the same degree as in Skepticism.

Attacking Darwin and his book The Origin of Species when challenging evolution seems foolish to most non-believers. After all, great progress has been made since those days, and the most convincing argument for evolution is found, not in Origin, but in the field of genetics. Evolution owes more to Watson and Crick than it does to Darwin, yet Darwin is the popular scapegoat. Why?

Because creationists have no concept of progressive knowledge gain due to an increase in the amount of available information. They have no concept of this because it is not part of their Gnosis. They are used to thinking in terms of unchanging, unyielding declarations from infallible religious authorities. So when they attack Darwin, they're not necessarily being deliberately incredulous, they're demonstrating the fact that they are unable to fathom thinking in any other way. To them, Darwin is our prophet, and Origins our scripture. When debating amongst themselves, the credibility of their prophets is of supreme importance. If they can undermine the prophet, they can undermine the message. So it's of no surprise they'd use this same tactic against evolution. They think of it in terms of just another religion, just another prophet to discredit. They don't understand that evolution doesn't sink or swim on the reputation of Darwin in the same way that Christianity does on the reputation of Christ.

Five Jehovah's Witness Teachings Atheists Should Know About

Jennifer Fulwiler, an atheist-turned-Catholic, has written an article in the National Catholic Register entitled "5 Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists." Before everyone jumps all over her, I'd like to point out that these aren't teachings she thinks are sure to make every atheist a believer, and she also points out that she is going solely on her personal experience talking to other atheists (which makes me think she hasn't run into a lot of skeptic atheists). But from reading the article it seems like she was one of those atheists who never really thought about why she didn't believe and was just raised without a religion. It's one of the things that kind of worries me when I think of a world where atheism is the norm and illustrates exactly why the emphasis should be on skepticism and critical thinking, with the rejection of religion the byproduct of such thinking instead of the driving force behind it.

Fulwiler's article made me think about being a Jehovah's Witness and how so often the arguments atheists would use against Christians online and elsewhere wouldn't really faze me. I thought it might be helpful to include a basic primer--a map--so that my fellow non-believers don't step on the liturgical land mines. It is ill-advised for a non-believer to debate a Jehovah's Witness assuming they are no different than a southern Baptist or even a Mormon. There are differences that should be kept in mind so as not to derail the conversation. For example,

Jehovah's Witnesses Don't Believe In "Hell"
Hell is something that upsets many atheists, and for good reason. There is a sizable population in the world that believes I deserve to be tortured forever. Granted they also believe that they deserve it as well, but their belief gives them a "get out of jail free" card. The distinction is not very comforting, however.

However, Jehovah's Witness theology doesn't have this problem. They do believe in a place called hell, at least a conceptual place, but not in the same sense the vast majority of Christendom believes in. They believe the Biblical "hell," is simply the "common grave of mankind," that there is no consciousness and it is akin to a sleep-like state. Witnesses will often say that someone has "fell asleep in death."

There is a negative outcome for non-belief in the Witness theology: death at Armageddon. Instead of being killed and tortured forever, the penalty for rejecting their message is simply death, marginally better, but it still doesn't make their God merciful or loving.

Jehovah's Witnesses Don't Believe In The Trinity
The Trinity is a weird doctrine, and sometimes atheists like to point it out as an example of how little sense Christianity makes. But Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the few Unitarian Christian sects, and thus an argument against the Trinity would likely be met with "you're right, that's why I don't believe it!"

Jehovah's Witnesses Don't Believe In Souls
Witnesses believe the "soul" is the physical body, not some sort of disembodied consciousness. They do not believe a part of a person survives death. So how does God resurrect someone if there aren't any souls? The witnesses believe that the resurrected will actually be re-created, given new bodies and their memories restored by God.

Jehovah's Witnesses Realize the Holidays Have Pagan Origins and Don't Celebrate Them
Many Atheists love to point out how Christmas is an entirely pagan celebrate and doesn't really have much to do with Jesus at all. The Witnesses realize this and haven't sanctioned the observance of Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Valentine's Day, or even Father's Day and Mother's Day for decades. In fact, any Jehovah's Witness caught observing such holidays is excommunicated.

Jehovah's Witnesses Don't Get Involved In Politics
Another sticking point between atheists and the religious is the fact that, especially in the U.S., many religious legislators and officials attempt to legislate their own morality, forcing their religious beliefs on the general population, and clearly violating the establishment clause. Witnesses abstain from any and all political activity. Even working for a government agency can stir up controversy in certain congregations. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a strict policy of political neutrality. They do not vote. Nor do they go to war (another morally ambiguous road other Christians find themselves in) or try to pass any sort of legislation. The extent of their political activity is centered around their legal right to proselytize, and they have a slew of SCOTUS decisions backing that right. Jehovah's Witnesses are the reason a child has the legal right to abstain from reciting the pledge of allegiance at school, for example.

This of course is not to say the Jehovah's Witness religion is perfectly logical and demonstrable. It's not. Not by a long shot. They are no closer to demonstrating their god exists than any other religion. They still make fantastic, unsupported claims about the universe. They are still creationists who often prevent or undermine the education of their children. They still suppress those in the LGBT community among them, forcing them to behave against their nature or face expulsion from the congregation. They still shun those who change their minds and leave the faith, even to the extent of immediate family in many cases. There are plenty of reasons to complain about Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is useful to know what some of those reasons aren't if one wants to have a productive discussion with them.

Gimme That Old Time Religion

I used to think Judaism was one of those really cool, moderate religions that has mellowed with age. After all, most Jews I've met are pretty cool people. I thought Judaism had waved goodbye to its extremist factions a few thousands years ago.

Apparently I was wrong. According to this BBC News article, there are tensions in Israel right now because two rabbis have come out to support the book King's Torah, which, among other things (emphasis mine),

...justifies killing non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances.
The fifth chapter, entitled "Murder of non-Jews in a time of war" has been widely quoted in the Israeli media. The summary states that "you can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews".
At one point it suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat.

The point I, and many other atheists are trying to make, is that correction of this belief is impossible in the context of that religion. People like this accept only religious dogma--not observable, empirical reality or a secular-based system--as their moral compass. They can only be persuaded by scripture, and there is no basis in scripture to correct them.

This justification of infanticide is derived directly from the Torah, and most importantly, there is no correction for this behavior in the Torah.

This is the danger of religion. It does not change with increasing moral sensibility. History has taught us that when life expectancy is low, it tends to be valued less. To the ancient Hebrews, life was fleeting and difficult. We now live in a world where it isn't, but the words of the holy books have not changed. Moderate and liberal theists have played a fine game of mental gymnastics, using the values we've gained from a stronger society to reinterpret their scripture and take it less seriously.

But as long as the words are there, and as long as they are revered, even if only paid lip service, someone will take them seriously. As Greta Christina said, the problem with moderate religion isn't that it justifies extremist religion, it's that it justifies religion, the idea that believing in something that is not demonstrable is not only a good thing, but something to be admired and lauded as a virtue. Once you open that door, the only thing that can close it fully is to reject dogma and replace it with a secular, reasoned, logical morality based on evidence.

This is the last one I swear

Just wanted to link to this article by Evid3nc3. So far, it's the most rational article I've read yet, which is quite an accomplishment in such an emotionally-charged topic.

Essentially, we all need to take a deep breath, say "yep, that was wrong, we shouldn't do that sort of thing," and move on with our lives. I think that's all Rebecca wanted to begin with.

An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Professor Dawkins:

I’m not writing this in the expectation that you’ll see it. There must be thousands of letters dealing with this subject in circulation now. But nevertheless I am writing this to give myself sort of a cathartic soothing on this subject.

My feelings on your post regarding Rebecca Watson’s experience are not outrage, anger, or even righteous indignation. Instead, I am disappointed. I’m disappointed that you fail to see the problem with what happened.

This all started because Ms. Watson decided to devote a minute of a video blog entry to the experience in the elevator and express her disapproval of it. She said that it was inappropriate and creeped her out. She did not say that this man should be punished. She did not say he is a rapist. She did not say her experience was on par with that of a muslim woman. All she said was that she found the man’s approach unpleasant. She expressed her feelings on the incident and moved on.

I’m honestly puzzled at your characterization of the incident as having “zero bad.” It’s almost as if you’re saying Ms. Watson isn’t entitled to her feelings. In fact, it seems that’s exactly what you’re saying. Rebecca Watson shouldn’t be allowed to feel uncomfortable when she is pursued into an elevator at 4 o’clock in the morning by a man who invites her up to what amounts to be his bedroom for “coffee.” Since you asked for an explanation of how this is bad, I shall do my best.

When you were introduced to your wife for the first time, was the first sentence out of your mouth “I find you very interesting, would you like to go up to my bedroom for coffee?” No? Why not? Because asking a woman to your bedroom upon meeting her is generally viewed my most with any kind of social grace as forward and rude.

Let’s say the gentleman involved was indeed only interested in having coffee and a discussion. Why would he pick such an incredibly inconvenient time and location to do so? Why wouldn’t he invite her to a public place–the hotel lobby for instance–and at a much more convenient time–later that morning or early in the afternoon? Why would this man insist on a discussion right that instant in a private place that basically amounts to his bedroom, if he had no interest in a sexual liaison? I wasn’t born yesterday. I can read between the lines, so can Ms. Watson, and so can you.

Additionally, this man apparently followed Ms. Watson to the elevator after she had told her group she was going to bed. He was in the audience during her panel discussion where she had explicitly stated her distaste for random sexual propositions. Despite all this, he propositioned her KNOWING her feelings toward such a thing. He completely DISREGARDED Ms. Watson’s explicitly stated desires and attempted to overrule them in order to coerce her into satisfying his need for conversation, or sex, or both. His behavior was out of line.

Ms. Watson’s reaction was appropriate. She did not name names nor describe the man in any way. Nobody outside of those present know who he his. She merely focused on the behavior, and stated, not that this is proof that all men are sexist pigs, not that it demonstrates a problem with sexism in the atheist community, not even that she had a reasonable fear for her life or safety, but only that it made her uncomfortable. Given the circumstances, I and most others with a modicum of social conscience agree that she is entitled to feel uncomfortable.

As thanks for her wholly appropriate initial response, some in the atheist community proceeded to throw her under the bus for daring to suggest that inappropriate behavior across gender lines might possibly be a problem (though in her original video she never suggests such a thing). She responded to those statements in a fair manner (‘I’m glad that she hasn’t experienced it, but me and many others have’) and was further derided by those who apparently believe she should have acquiesed to the man in the elevator’s desires, for some reason.

Yes, it was only words that were exchanged. There was no physical altercation. You said that because only words were exchanged and no violence, that no wrong was done. One could make the same argument that atheists are not oppressed in any way, shape or form in the United States, and that we should all just shut up about it because we don’t live in Saudi Arabia. Why the double standard, Professor?

How To Ask A Woman Who Has Already Rejected You Once Out for Coffee

The League of Atheist Mansplainers have a new folk hero. Known only as "elevator guy," he has taken up the mantle of mens' rights by proudly declaring his sexuality.  According to the LAM, elevator guy as well as skeptic and atheist celebrity Rebecca Watson attended an international Atheist conference in Dublin. Smitten with the beauty and prowess, Elevator Guy decided to play it cool. However, a chance meeting in an elevator prompted EG to ask Ms. Watson out for coffee, an offer that she (strangely) declined. Watson, a known hyper-sensitive, ultra-feminist man-hater has launched an all-out PR war against EG, with the help of fellow militant lesbian Jen McCreight. Watson's coven of feminists is busy destroying this poor man's reputation.

Now that I've given my required male spin, here are the facts (at least, from what I've been able to glean).

1. Ms. Watson was at the conference, and was part of a panel discussing the inappropriate behavior exhibited by some males in the atheist movement toward females. E.G. was there and heard what she said.
2. Watson and E.G. were later hanging out in a group session at the hotel. E.G. asked Watson out, and Ms. Watson declined.
3. At 4 in the morning, Rebecca announced she was tired and was going to go to bed. E.G. followed her inside the elevator.
4. In the elevator, E.G. asked Rebecca to go up to his room for coffee. She again declined.

There are some important points to glean from this exchange, if indeed the facts are correct. First, E.G. knew beforehand that Rebecca considered his tactics to be inappropriate, as she stated in her panel discussion. Second, E.G. knew that Rebecca was not interested in him romantically. Third, even if E.G. was simply inviting her to a discussion, he did so knowing she was not interested in having a discussion at that moment and wanted to go to bed.

If I can be so bold as to pretend to represent Rebecca for a moment, the issue here was not coffee and it was not sex. It was the fact that E.G. repeatedly ignored Rebecca's clearly-stated wishes. That, my friends, is what Jen and Rebecca and other atheist women are complaining about. When you corner a woman in an elevator at 4 in the morning and ask her to be alone with you even after she has said she wants to do something else, you are sending the message "I don't care what you want. Your needs and desires should be superseded by mine."  Do I think that line of thinking was going through E.G.s conscious mind? Most likely not. It was, after all, 4 in the morning, and that is not a time generally known for making great decisions.

What the women in our movement are trying to do is make some of us aware of this instinctual behavior we have and take steps to correct it. Before the feminist movement, our language was dominated by masculine bias. Most feminists don't think simply using the word "mailman" instead of "mailperson" or "letter carrier" means you have a 1950's mentality of gender equality, but they point those things out because of how it makes women feel, whether you intend it to or not.

So, I exhort you other men in the atheist community to, for once, shut up and listen. For you straight guys, imagine if a gay man followed you into an elevator after you had already politely turned him down for a date, and asked you to be alone in his hotel room. Would that not creep you out? Would you not find that behavior just a teensy-bit inappropriate, especially after you had already made it clear to him you were not interested and just wanted to go to bed?

Aside from the few people who were actually there, nobody actually knows who this E.G. is. If Ms. Watson were on a personal vendetta against this guy, you'd think his identity would be the first thing she revealed. But she is not focusing on the person, she was pointing out the behavior and relating how it made her feel. It's not hard to imagine how uncomfortable a request to be alone with someone you've only just met can be. It's a request for a level of trust that people generally don't give a recent acquaintance. If E.G. had asked Rebecca to meet him in the lobby later that morning for coffee, she probably wouldn't have mentioned it to anyone else. Instead, E.G. ignored Rebecca's clearly-expressed desires (to go to her room to sleep) in order to request an inappropriate level of trust at a highly inappropriate time. Ms. Watson had every right to be upset.

EDIT: I've summed up LAM's response to Ms. Watson's accusations in this comic:

http://i.imgur.com/Fcsd4.png