That's a sweet line.

One thing I hate about movies and TV is that bad science fiction (most science fiction) talks about an experiment having been a success or a failure. For the real guys, an experiment's only a failure when you can't collect any good data from it. You can guess what's going to happen during an upcoming experiment if you want to, but it's not necessary, so long as your design is in order. Hypotheses are optional.

Religion is about believing in the absence of evidence

You keep saying this, but it's obviously not true.

For religion, anything but blind acceptance is really bad for business.

On the contrary: being constantly challenged is good for intellectual rigor.

Religion is about believing in the absence of evidence
You keep saying this, but it's obviously not true.

Really? Because god dropped by to visit you on your porch and left you two stone tablets you'd like to show the rest of us?

And yes, being constantly challenged is good for intellectual rigor, but that's not what religion is about. They tell people god did this and that and the other thing, and they'd better believe it or they're going to hell, and they accept that.

Amy, you have a very limited view of religion. Lots of religion are about experience, not about listening to someone tell you you're going to hell.

I'm no fan of organized religion, but that quote of Einstein's should be applied to atheism, as well. Atheists that I've had personal contact with have no interest in any evidence that may contradict their faith in the absence of a higher power. Agnostics, on the other hand, remain open to evidence from all sides.

"I see no evidence there's a god, therefore I do not believe in god."

Amy, do you see evidence of the "extra" dimensions, invisible to our experience, which, according to the physicists and mathmeticians, make our universe what it is? Whether you believe they exist or not, your existence depends on them. In other words, "blue" still exists, even if a blind man cannot perceive it.

Most of us are really agnostic. In my opinion, any confirmed atheist is as much a "nutter" as any religious fanatic.

My house might levitate some day in the future. I can hope! :)

I guess I'm somewhat of a freak. I'm okay with the fact that I don't know whether there's some sort of higher power or not. It's an interesting concept, and until we have explored all of space and time, I don't feel arrogant enough to discount the possibility altogether.

No arrogance necessary, Jessica. The chances of your house starting to float by itself (or a god starting to exist) are beyond tiny. In the last couple of hundred years, most arguments along the lines of "I don't know how that can happen, therefore a god did it" have been replaced with scientific theories that really explain something about the world.

Science makes God go away, not arrogance.

P.S.: One thing I never understood about god: If he is so all-powerful, why does he need all that money?

P.S.: One thing I never understood about god: If he is so all-powerful, why does he need all that money?

Marketing.

Most of us are really agnostic. In my opinion, any confirmed atheist is as much a "nutter" as any religious fanatic.

In that case, I am nuttier than a granola bar.

I am amazingly tired by the fact that we give ANY credit to the ones dressed in fantasy/medieval grabs fantasming about their feelings for a sky-daddy. To accept the tenants of Agnosticism, I have to discard reason and being ready to accept that (Yahve, Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Osiris, Zeus, fairies, Elvis, dancing penguins, the Gay Telletubie, pick one or many) is the one making things spin behind the curtain.

Amazingly, those same Agnostics don't have the same scruples toward a ten dollar bill...

Atheist: Here we go (give piece of paper)

Agnostic: This is not a ten dollar bill, it's a scrap of paper!

Atheist: You can't prove it.

Trying to get people to stop believing in God by drilling home that there's no evidence for a God is pointless. People will continue to believe because they have a psychological need to believe.

Religion has helped societies survive for thousands of years, even as it has been the cause of unspeakable suffering. It's like an abusive relationship in which God rubs our backs every once in awhile when he's not smacking us around.

Sure, but other religions focus on meditation, trance, possession and other ways of establishing a personal relationship with their deity. The followers use their physical senses. Someone on the outside might think they are hallucinating. Perhaps they are. But are they stupid to doubt the evidence of their senses?

You keep saying this, but it's obviously not true.

Really? Because god dropped by to visit you on your porch and left you two stone tablets you'd like to show the rest of us?

No, because the word "evidence" is too weak for the use that you are attempting to get out of it. Clearly something in those peoples' experiences led them to believe those things; they didn't make it all up themselves. Perhaps the phrase you're looking for is "preponderance of evidence" or "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "proof" but, without knowing someone else's experiences, we can't say those things either (and nobody really has "proof" of anything they believe anyway; it's all preponderance of evidence inside our heads.)

And yes, being constantly challenged is good for intellectual rigor, but that's not what religion is about.

That's what life is about, and this blog raises many religious questions. Answering them for myself improves the intellectual rigor of my belief system.

One's religious beliefs are orthogonal to one's intelligence. It is possible for a religious worldview to be intellectually rigorous and internally consistent. Stereotypes about the intelligence of people with a particular religious belief (such as the belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural) are a result of confirmation bias.

> they didn't make it all up
> themselves.

There's something in a child's experience that makes Santa Claus seems plausible, too.

> It is possible for a religious
> worldview to be intellectually
> rigorous and internally consistent

Yes, and there are plenty of brilliant psychopaths. 'Internal consistency' doesn't count for much. By definition it's not of interest to others.

Toubrouk - Not to be pissy, but since we've had an ongoing good-natured battle at work all week about improper word usage, and I am primed for it ... A "tenant" is a renter or occupant; a "tenet" is a belief or doctrine considered true.

And thanks, Amy, for making me feel less like a Godless freak hiding my true beliefs from most of the world!

Peevishly yours ...

@Pseudonym:

One's religious beliefs are orthogonal to one's intelligence. It is possible for a religious worldview to be intellectually rigorous and internally consistent. Stereotypes about the intelligence of people with a particular religious belief (such as the belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural) are a result of confirmation bias.

Well, they might (!) be orthogonal in a kid, before scientific education starts, but statistics tell us this: The better your scientific education, the lower the odds that you are a believer. If you are educated like a university professor with a "hard science" background, you are almost certainly an atheist.

@MonicaP:

Marketing.

Monica, you crack me up! Thanks for a good laugh!

@Amy: Keep the non-faith! Your blog continues to stand out like an oasis in the desert!

Mr. Teflon: Thank you for the information. English is not my first language and sometimes I misuse some words. I will remember this.

I am still wondering why some people are ready to discard reason at the second we enter the realm of metaphysics. Reason is the tool mankind use to interact with the world. It should be used in all times.

There's something in a child's experience that makes Santa Claus seems plausible, too.

The existence of a silly, weak or wrong belief does not imply that all beliefs are silly, weak or wrong.

'Internal consistency' doesn't count for much.

It's useful for demonstrating that someone's belief is incorrect. If you say you believe A and B, and they can't both be true, then you're wrong about at least one of them.

Well, they might (!) be orthogonal in a kid, before scientific education starts, but statistics tell us this: The better your scientific education, the lower the odds that you are a believer. If you are educated like a university professor with a "hard science" background, you are almost certainly an atheist.

This survey disagrees, saying that 23.4% of professors are atheists or agnostics. The breakdown across type of institution and field of study is interesting; clearly local subculture has a big influence, which is not at all surprising.

Religion has helped societies survive for thousands of years - MonicaP

Really?, Look at history again, society progresses when religion fades into the background - Every time religion becomes the focal point of society it grinds to a halt

Clearly something in those peoples' experiences led them to believe those things; they didn't make it all up themselves - Pseudonym

Really? So you belive in demonic possesion, alien abduction and mysterious Planet X that revoles around the sun perpendicular to the rest of the planets in the solar syatem as well then?

The existence of a silly, weak or wrong belief does not imply that all beliefs are silly, weak or wrong - Pseudonym

But a lack of evidence does

lujlp: Agreed. But I didn't say advance. I said survive. It has given groups identities that have helped them bond and unite against the "them" just out of reach, ready to kill them. It has given societies laws and rules in the face of what must have been madness before modern science. I think organized religion doesn't have much going for it these days, but it was certainly an advantage for people who had nothing else.

"Clearly something in those peoples' experiences led them to believe those things; they didn't make it all up themselves."

You do a lot of things without any reason other than it's what your folks do/did. Most folks get by because the choices they make w/r/t what they believe aren't immediately fatal.

This doesn't mean they know how they formed their belief, no matter what the topic.

But as the link shows, it's not a mystery.

It has given groups identities that have helped them bond and unite against the "them" just out of reach, ready to kill them.

Ever consider that had religions not grouped us into us and them we would have "thems" out there trying to kill us?

It has given societies laws and rules in the face of what must have been madness before modern science.

Madness inflicted by the religion which cause the decline of civilization to begin with

I think organized religion doesn't have much going for it these days, but it was certainly an advantage for people who had nothing else.

The reason they had nothing else was because the church took it from them

You do a lot of things without any reason other than it's what your folks do/did. Most folks get by because the choices they make w/r/t what they believe aren't immediately fatal. - Radwaste

Here you go

A young newlywed is eager to have her new friends over for dinner. Carefully she prepares the roast she purchased as she had been taught. She cuts off the end of the roast first before adding the special blend of herbs and spices. In eager anticipation, she puts the final touches on her table pleased with her careful preparations.

Upon arriving, her guests exclaimed their appreciation over the mouth-watering aromas emanating from the kitchen. Proudly, the young newlywed brought the meal out and generously served her guests. They so enjoyed the meal that one young friend leaned over to ask her secret in making such a delicious roast. Pleased to be asked, the young women carefully explains how to prepare the roast, making sure her guest understands to cut the end of the roast off first before applying the herbs and spices.

“Why?” asks her friend.

Startled, the young women replied, “Well, that’s how to prepare it.”

“Yes, but why? Why do I have to cut the end of the roast off?”

The young woman wasn’t sure exactly why this was so important and couldn’t answer. The following day, she called her mother and asked that same question. Unfortunately her mother was just as uncertain as she was.

Together, they decided to ask the Grandmother. When they put the question to the Grandmother she didn’t have the answer either. The Grandmother decided the only one to answer that was her Mother and so all three headed over to Great-Grandmothers home to find an answer to this perplexing question.

When they arrived, the Great-Grandmother was pleasantly surprised by the unexpected visitors. She invited them all to sit and enjoy a glass of sweet lemonade.
Once gathered around the table, the Grandmother asked the question that had the three women thoroughly perplexed;

“Mom,” began the Grandmother, “you know your famous roast recipe that we all love to make, we were wondering Why You always cut off the end of the roast first before doing anything else?”

Great-Grandmother shrugged and replied, “Because the roast was always too big and it wouldn’t fit in my pan.”

Is religion any really different?

You do a lot of things without any reason other than it's what your folks do/did.

I agree, and if your folks tell you something that's evidence of it.

I like your blog post about belief formation.

I realize that I'm being anal retentive when I insist on accuracy and praise precision. Probably what Amy means when she says "There's no evidence that God exists" is "Amy Alkon hasn't been convinced that God exists." To the pedant, those are two very different statements.

Is religion any really different?

Mine is, because it's true.

@Pseudonym:

Probably what Amy means when she says "There's no evidence that God exists" is "Amy Alkon hasn't been convinced that God exists." To the pedant, those are two very different statements.

Well, let's paraphrase this with a false statement to see if it is anything but a thought-terminating cliché:

Probably what Amy means when she says "There's no evidence that the earth is flat" is "Amy Alkon hasn't been convinced that the earth is flat." To the pedant, those are two very different statements.

Uhmm... no, isn't.

Is religion any really different?
Mine is, because it's true.

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs, Pseudonym. But why is it so hard for you to accept that you don't have any evidence for them?

Well, let's paraphrase this with a false statement to see if it is anything but a thought-terminating cliché:

Probably what Amy means when she says "There's no evidence that the earth is flat" is "Amy Alkon hasn't been convinced that the earth is flat." To the pedant, those are two very different statements.

Uhmm... no, isn't.

Yes, they are. The first says something about reality. The second says something about Amy Alkon's understanding of reality.

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs, Pseudonym. But why is it so hard for you to accept that you don't have any evidence for them?

Why is it so hard for you to accept that "evidence" does not mean "proof", "enough to win in a court of law", "the result of science" or anything that implies intellectual rigor at all?

Every nonfiction book constitutes evidence. Everything somebody tells you constitutes evidence. Every chain of logic a person constructs constitutes evidence. Every observation we make constitutes evidence.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that "evidence" does not mean "proof", "enough to win in a court of law", "the result of science" or anything that implies intellectual rigor at all?

It isn't. Stop playing with words and stick with the facts. You claimed:

Is religion really any different?
Mine is, because it's true.

The burden of proof for this claim is on you, not on us. Do you have any evidence to support your claim? (Since it's an extraordinary claim, it had better be extraordinary evidence. "I read it in the bible/the torah/the qur'an" or "I met god in a dream" won't cut it.)

"God is subtle, but he is not malicious" — Albert Einstein.

Found here, with a few opinions about what the other great E. might have meant.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/335104

Keep up the great work Advice Godless! ;-) E.

Pseudonym you poor ignorant man you missed the point of the story.

The woman thorwing the dinner party was telling everyone that the reason the roast tasted so good was beasue she cut one of the ends off.

Her "evidence" of that fact was her mother did it. Her mothers "evidince" was grandmas did it. Her grandmas "evidence" was great grand ma did it.

Only problem was great grandma didnt do it to make the roast taste good - she did it becuase she had a small pan.

3 generations of cooking a smaller roast becuase they all had "proof" that doing so made it a better roast.

But it wasnt really proof at all was it.

Now you say your religion is the true one.

So how is your god better than the thousands of others worship by humainty throught the agaes with no more proof the "because my parents told me so"

My parents used to tell me masterbation resulted in hairy palms. I've been reaserching that little gem for more than 15yrs now and my palms have yet to sprout hair.

My conclusion? Parent lie in order to influence beavior.

The falacy of religion is that mankind needs to be beaten own by some sort of theology in order to behave properly.

It doesnt, religion is a lie, your god is a lie, your faith is a delusion that prevents you from reaching your full potential.

Quite frankly in my opinion religion is a crutch for people too lazy to reach for their potentioal

It isn't.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You claimed that I don't have any evidence of my beliefs. You then agreed with me that evidence is widespread. Which is it?

Her "evidence" of that fact was her mother did it. Her mothers "evidince" was grandmas did it. Her grandmas "evidence" was great grand ma did it.

By stating (correctly, by the way) that those things are evidence, you concede the point to me.

Sorry, I should have included this with the earlier post. My fault.

The burden of proof for this claim is on you, not on us.

Absolutely.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Yes: I read it in the Bible. Also, someone told me it was so. See how little is required to constitute "evidence"?

(Since it's an extraordinary claim, it had better be extraordinary evidence. "I read it in the bible/the torah/the qur'an" or "I met god in a dream" won't cut it.)

Not correct. I do not make any claim about how convincing that evidence is, only that it exists.

Pseudonym you are being willfully obtuse at this point.

Cutting off the end of the roast had nothing to do with the taste of the finninshed meal.

So "my parents did it" wasnt evidence of the flavor.

Seriously do you have brian damage?

Also did you fail to notice the sarcasm quotes?

I read in a book that Jack climbed a beanstalk, and people told me about it to. Does that mean giants live in sky castles with geese shiting gold bricks and the odd human light enough to walk on cloud vapor makes good yeast?

You say your religion is true the PROVE it, show us something other than a book proven to be fasle and people other than you who read the same flawed book and share the same delusion

Pseudonym: "This survey disagrees, saying that 23.4% of professors are atheists or agnostics."

You're not reading what Amy said or the what the survey said. Amy was referring to professor's with a "hard science" background. Assuming the accuracy of the study, the 23.4% figure includes ALL professors in all disciplines, including at community colleges, etc. That's a pretty wide range, including English professors and divinity school professors, etc. Most such professors don't have a "hard science" background.

If you take a closer look at your survey, it says:

"Looking at the top 20 BA granting fields, we find that atheists and agnostics are more common in some disciplines than others. Psychology and biology have the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics, at about 61 percent."

Personally, I wouldn't include a psychology background as hard science. I'd like to see a more specific breakdown in the sciences. I'm betting that in many fields it's more like 90-95% athiests.

I am dating a biologist, and have a bunch of scientist friends, mostly biologists. Not one of them -- not one -- believes in God.

GAAAAH! Sorry for the typos up there. That's what I get for rushing through a post. It's "what", not "the what", and "professor's" shouldn't have an apostrophe. I need more coffee.

@Gail:

You're not reading what Amy said or the what the survey said. Amy was referring to professor's with a "hard science" background.

No, I said that. But thank you for confusing my point of view with Amy's. I take that as a big compliment, Gail!

Of course, I wrote "hard science" deliberately, because a degree in art history (or psychology, for that matter) wouldn't educate you at all about the many contradictions between science and religious views on nature.

Assuming the accuracy of the study, the 23.4% figure includes ALL professors in all disciplines, including at community colleges, etc.

Exactly, but since Pseudonym seemed to be totally disinterested in anything but playing with words, I didn't find it important enough to refute this point only to find out about another excuse.

I'm betting that in many fields it's more like 90-95% atheists.

Me too. I'd really like to know for sure. Does anybody here know whether there is a study on the web that compares the academic field of scholars with the likelihood of their atheism? (I know I've read something like that a couple of years ago, but I can't find it.)

Religion can be proven to an individual, but not to an outsider, because it is largely a personal experience.

If you've ever seen anyone being ridden, for example, you know they aren't faking it. Are they crazy or hallucinating? Maybe. But it is a personal experience, and you can't know what they are actually feeling or seeing. THEY can be convinced, but you as an observer cannot have definite proof unless you yourself are ridden.

The only way to know whether or not ritual, meditation, prayer, trance or other spiritual techniques work is to try them and to experience what does or does not happens. If you try it and experience, you believe, if you try it and don't experience either you rely on faith or you don't believe.

It cannot be proven outside of the individual. Maybe someday there will exist some sort of proof, but today isn't that day.

The only way to know whether or not ritual, meditation, prayer, trance or other spiritual techniques work is to try them and to experience what does or does not happens.

That statement might have been true in the past. But today, scientists are able to scan the brain of a meditating or praying person. Surprise: Religious feelings can be measured, as certain parts of the brain are activated when people are praying. So indeed, "today is the day".

You can measure brain waves, but you can't see what they are seeing or experience what they are experiencing. You can know the brain does certain things, but you can't know what is actually happening.

Also, if someone is thrashing around in possession, how do you keep the wires on?

You can measure brain waves, but you can't see what they are seeing or experience what they are experiencing. You can know the brain does certain things, but you can't know what is actually happening.

What researchers found interesting, though, is the fact that the same region in every brain gets activated when someone is praying. These experiments have been repeatable for at least ten years, Nicole. If it were a different region in every brain, then it might be another story. But the way things are, it's hardly correct to state that we don't know "what's actually happening".

Also, if someone is thrashing around in possession, how do you keep the wires on?

Since there is no proof at all for the existence of demons or possession, why should scientists even form hypotheses about it? From the Wikipedia article on possession:

Demonic possession is not recognized as a psychiatric or medical diagnosis by either the DSM-IV or the ICD-10. There are many psychological ailments commonly misunderstood as demonic possession, particularly dissociative identity disorder. In the early- to mid-20 Century, "mania" or "hysteria" were common diagnoses, but such terminology has generally fallen out of favor. In cases of dissociative identity disorder in which the alter personality is questioned as to its identity, 29% are reported to identify themselves as demons.[9] However doctors see this as a mental disease called demonomania or demonopathy, a monomania in which the patient believes that he or she is possessed by one or more demons

Looks like there is no need to even apply wires while someone is thrashing around. People with a belief system that includes demons should rather seek medical help if they don't want to end up like this unfortunate young woman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

Assuming the accuracy of the study, the 23.4% figure includes ALL professors in all disciplines, including at community colleges, etc.

Correct, and that's to its credit: previous studies did not, as it explains in the introduction. Read the document; it's not long, and it's a fascinating look at the religious beliefs of professors in the United States in 2006.

From page 5: "Psychology and biology have the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics, at about 61 percent." That's a far cry from "If you are educated like a university professor with a hard science background, you are almost certainly an atheist." Actual university professors with hard science backgrounds have a wide range of religious beliefs.

Since there is no proof at all for the existence of demons or possession, why should scientists even form hypotheses about it?

This is an extremely good point. Not only why should they, but how could they?

Pseudonym, did you have to practice at not comprehending the answers you receive, or does it come naturally to you?