Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criticism. Show all posts

Saturday, July 6, 2013

"Atheism is a Religion" and Other Fallacious Criticisms by Believers

As someone who is fairly open about being a strongly not-religious person, it often happens that I get into discussions (they start out that way, at least) with people who disagree with my worldview (or lack thereof). As any non-believer can tell you, there aren't very many criticisms of disbelief; there are actually only a few, and they inevitably come up in any discussion about belief and non-belief, and I'd like to point out why they're silly. 

The first is that atheism is a religion. The second, that "militant" or "extreme" atheism is just as bad as religious fundamentalism. The third, that blind faith in science is the same as blind faith in God. Lastly, that believing things based on evidence rather than faith is "arrogant." I've chosen these particular sentiments because they've all been lobbed at me by people I know, many of them more than once, and because they're all nonsense.

1. Atheism is a Religion

This is a very common retort, and perhaps the most easily dismissed. One need only look at a dictionary definition of the word religion to end the argument, I should think. Dictionary.com says:
  1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
Atheism in no way fits either of these definitions. That's because there is no dogma in atheism; there's nothing you must believe in order to be an atheist. It's not even a set of beliefs - it's simply the rejection of other belief systems. It's saying to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, et cetera that you simply don't think their beliefs are true. [If you can't understand the difference between the statements "I don't believe that x is true" and "I believe that x is not true," please stop reading and come back when you can.] If you ask an atheist what they think about these things, namely the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," you'll get many different answers, with a common one likely being "I don't know."

As somebody once cleverly noted, if atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel. Actually, atheists can't even agree on what word best describes themselves. Various suggestions come into and go out of fashion: atheist, non-theist, non-religious, free-thinker, humanist, bright, agnostic - the point is that it's really just "none of the above" on the religion list. The only thing that atheists are united by is simply what the word means: a (not) + theism (belief in god.) The reasons for not believing, and the explanations or answers to the questions to which religion generally provides answers, will be different for everyone. Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion. 


2. Militant and Extreme Atheism

I like this one a lot, because it is self-evidently nonsensical after about 30 seconds of contemplation. Hijacking these adjectives which are generally reserved for religious fundamentalists and applying them to atheism is an exercise in utter futility. When someone is labeled a religious "extremist," for example, it's generally because this person has either killed other people because of his beliefs, or he at least judges it perfectly acceptable to do so. Religious extremists tend to be quite dangerous and frightening, as these are the most devout and hard-core followers of the literal word of their holy text.

What is a militant atheist? An extreme atheist? How often do you read a news report about someone who has violently murdered someone else in the name of atheism? There are degrees of the seriousness of one's religious convictions; there are no degrees of atheism. A casual atheist says "I don't believe in god." An extreme atheist says "I don't believe in god." Does the extreme one say it louder? Does he write it on a sign maybe? Write blog posts about it?

Generally I've found that anyone who is vocal about his atheism or openly critical of other peoples' beliefs gets labeled as "militant" or "fundamentalist," simply because people really don't like to be told that their entire worldview is based on lies. These are complete misuses of those negatively-charged words, and the comparison is laughable at best and offensive at worst. Nobody in the world is rioting in the streets and slaughtering innocent people because of atheism. While thousands of people in the Muslim world chant "death to the atheist bloggers," people at free-thinking rallies hold up signs like "What do we want? Evidence-based change! When do we want it? After peer-review!" People who are vocal about their atheism and critical of others' absurd beliefs are not dangerous, so stop throwing around these awful words as if they're apt.


3. Faith in Science and Faith in God

Religious people try as hard as they can to assert (and they all think they're clever, as if they're the first to do it) that atheists simply replace God with Science and worship it in the same way, so at the end of the day it's really the same thing. This is a woefully irresponsible comparison. First of all, "science" is (if I may use my good friend the dictionary again) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Most important in that definition is what's missing, not what's included. There are certain fundamental questions, such as the meaning of life, or what happens after you die, or what sort of moral code we should all adopt, which science does not try to answer. Science is fine with not having an answer to some questions; it's perfectly fine to say "I don't know," or "I don't care" about these sorts of questions.

The scientific method, for example, is an empirically testable and productive process of finding the truth about the world in which we live. It allows for independent verification, actively tries to eliminate bias, and is perfectly happy with getting results that prove hypotheses wrong. There is no need to use the word "faith" when talking about scientific observation. We needn't simply have faith that gravity exists, or that the world is a sphere, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. We can go find out all of that for ourselves and prove it to be true, and understand why it's true. It's easy to trust the scientific method because it produces verifiable results. Using it cures disease and develops new technologies and explains phenomena in the world around us.

Faith is a particularly nasty attribute of religion, and it amounts to nothing more than claiming to believe something to be true when you have absolutely no evidence that it is. Christians, for example, have faith that they will go to heaven when they die. They have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever, but assert it as if it's fact, even though they couldn't possibly prove it. This is a nice way to transition to the last complaint about atheism, namely...

4. Atheism (or Science) is Arrogant

This sentiment is the most irritating to me personally, because it's so inherently contradictory that it's baffling that religious people can possibly think this way. Again, I think the dictionary will help us sort this out quite succinctly: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement. 

Let's just take some commonly-held beliefs among Christians, since this is the belief system with which I'm the most familiar. Christians believe that God created the universe for the sole purpose of the existence of human beings, and that he loves us and watches/cares about what we do. We now know that our planet is only one of several in our solar system, that our solar system is one of many in our galaxy, and our galaxy is one of many in the universe. With each increasingly powerful telescope we create, we reveal just how completely insignificant and unremarkable our existence is, and yet this completely self-centered belief that it's all for us persists among believers. This sort of thinking is both bafflingly ignorant and tenaciously arrogant. Many people of faith also deny the truth of evolution simply on the grounds that humans are somehow above having evolved from primates, so it's just not possible. 

The scientific worldview, on the other hand, is one of extreme humility: human existence in the grand scheme of the universe is staggeringly insignificant, and our time on the Earth is but a blink in the massive extent of geological time. Science admits when it's wrong, even after it thought it was right for a long time. I've collected a few catchy little epigrams about religion to make the point:

"Science has questions which may never be answered. Religion has answers which may never be questioned."

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

"Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told regardless of what's right."

The Point

The only reason atheists even have to call themselves something is because irrational people invented gods; there wouldn't be any need for such a word otherwise. If you're a believer in some sort of god and have faith that a bunch of extremely unlikely things are true, fine. But don't try to bring us non-believers down by insinuating that we're just like religious people in any way. We define ourselves by not being like you at all.

Monday, June 11, 2012

5 Ugliest Cars On Sale Today

Automotive design is a tricky thing. Apart from being a completely subjective matter, the design of a new car's exterior has to consider many different factors, from efficiency to beauty to simplicity to brand awareness. Very few people would buy a car which they did not believe was at least acceptably attractive to look at, if not absolutely stunning. 
Not every manufacturer gets it right though; sometimes car design goes horribly, horribly wrong. Here are the five ugliest cars you can buy in the US right now.

5 - The Nissan Juke

I prefer to call it the "Joke," because I feel like it was designed as a total goof somewhere in the Nissan design department, but somehow it was accidentally put into production. I suppose in the inundated "crossover" market it's difficult to make your product stand out, but there has to be a better way than making it look like this mongrel. For as little as $19,990, you too can drive around in a vehicle which is not spacious, fast, impressively efficient, or attractive.

4 - The Cadillac CTS Coupe



For some reason Cadillac decided that they weren't content with Florida pensioners being the only ones even slightly interested in purchasing their vehicles, so they asked their design department to get rid of any instrument capable of producing anything but a straight line. Now Cadillacs are hip, totally cool cars that everyone wants! Actually now they're just pointy messes instead of huge floaty boats. The worst offender is this, the CTS Coupe, mostly because the back half of it looks like they haven't finished designing it. I don't think I've ever seen a rear quarter-panel that big on any motor vehicle. If your favorite geometric figure is the rectangle, $38,715 will grant you the ability to drive around in one.

3 - The Hyundai Veloster



This really is a shame, because Hyundai seems to be on the right track with a lot of their cars these days. The Genesis is fairly impressive, for example. This though, this thing is simply inexcusable. It wouldn't be so bad if you never walked around the back of it. The picture doesn't really even do it justice; you need to see one of these mutations in person to take in just how staggeringly inelegant the rear half of this machine is. I think they've also reached bold new heights in terrible hatchback design; not only is the rear window about 8 inches high, but the whole hatch itself doesn't even begin until about 3 feet off the ground. There's also the name, "Veloster," shamelessly borrowing the completely faddish "-ster" suffix which you might remember from other such successful ventures as Napster, Friendster, and Netflix' ground-breaking Qwikster service. At just $17,300, you can't afford not to show people how much you don't value beauty in the world.


2 - The Porsche Panamera




I expect better than this from the Germans, really. First of all, I completely fail to understand the need for a 911 that holds 5 people, so really this car should not even exist. I would be much less angry about its existence if it didn't look like a distorted, diseased version of Porsche's iconic sports car. It is massively long - 16 feet - and just unbalanced and awkward from every possible angle. Just like the Cayenne SUV models, they've desperately tried to make it look like a 911, which is doesn't. Aston Martin have proven with their Rapide that it's possible to make a beautiful 4-door sports car. Porsche have proven that they don't really know how to design a car with more than two doors. It would be perfectly fine if they stopped trying. It'll cost you $75,850 to cruise around in this vomit-inducing gargoyle.

1 - The Toyota Prius 


 
The Prius is probably my least favorite car in the entire world, I happily confess. Everything about it infuriates me. It has the sex appeal of a rotting skunk carcass. It's the farthest thing from a driver's car that money can buy. It was conceived and designed by incredibly boring people and is bought and driven by even more boring people. Wonky and offensive from every angle, it puts efficiency ahead of style. Of course it fails at being everything it wants to be; there are smaller cars which get better mileage, electric cars which use no petroleum at all, and almost everything is more green to build and recycle than these abominations with their high tech batteries. Perhaps some of that could be forgiven if it just looked like a normal car. Not even a pretty car. Just something that wasn't doodled by a 5 year old. The Prius tries to save the Earth while being a horrible scourge upon it. If you're an incredibly uninteresting person with $24,000 and no concept of style or taste, run to your nearest Toyota dealer.