The language barrier

Lately I’ve been realizing just how much of a problem the language barrier is when it comes to just about everything. We use language all the time to communicate. Verbal language, written language, body language, computer language, etc. So many of the difficulties we have are caused by the language barrier.

In order for a language to work, everyone communicating must use the same definition. If I say “boat” and you think of what I would call a “horse”, then the language doesn’t work. The whole point is to communicate an idea by evoking in you the same mental image/concept I’m picturing. (Denotation)

But perhaps the most complex and problem causing aspect of language is connotation. Denotation refers to the literal object/concept, but connotation deals with how people interpret/feel about that object/concept. Everyone has their own personal experiences, preferences, and biases. Whenever I write, one of the most difficult tasks is trying to choose words that will convey the same emotions and flavor for a concept that I feel, but to my audience.

So we have two aspects of language that affect how we communicate ideas: denotation and connotation. In order for us to communicate effectively, both must line up. Lately I feel like this is an almost impossible task.

Take politics and religion. Two extremely important topics that impact the lives of billions of people everyday. They are also two of the most emotionally charged topics given how they are fundamental to how many people think about themselves, their identity, the world, their place in it, and how things ought to be. Given the extreme personal nature of these topics, any given concept’s connotation might vary widely from person to person. Same can be said of denotations.

For example, it is almost impossible to have a discussion about religion. In order to have good communication and a rational discussion, both parties must agree on the definition of terms. What is religion? What qualifies as a “religion”, what doesn’t? What is a god? What are the qualities associated with this concept? What is a Christian? What qualities/beliefs are associated with that concept? The answers to all of these will vary from person to person. (This is why I get some much crap when I generalize because what might apply to someone else might not apply to you, and vice versa.) You could spend hours debating these concepts alone before you even got to actually discussing what you wanted to discuss.

Instead, most people skip this phase and go straight into firing off their memorized lines at the other person. Nothing gets conveyed, nobody’s mind gets changed, they might as well be speaking in foreign languages; in fact, they pretty much are.

While I’ve noticed denotation problems seem to populate the realm of religious discussion, problems of connotation are particularly rampant when it comes to political discussion. A perfect example is the term “liberal.” Conservatives are masters of language manipulation. They can take a word, shift its connotation, and thus frame and entire issue in their favor. For decades they did (and still do) this with the word “liberal.” By repeating the word with an ugly connotation, as if it was an epithet, they shifted the flavor and emotions surrounding that concept to something ugly. “Liberal” became something disgusting, something to hide from, something un-American. Today’s hot button word is “socialism.” Conservatives are pushing to shift the connotation of that word to something akin to communism.

So how is a rational discussion of ideas and concepts possible when, at the word “liberal”, you think “un-American, big government, communist, elitist”, and at the word “conservative”, I think “fascist, bigoted, greedy theocratic American Taliban”? Short answer: it isn’t.

The sad fact of life is that rational discussion of the issues is no longer possible. The idea of having a “debate” is a complete farce. In order to actually have these discussions we would need to first agree on the denotations and then connotations, otherwise we’re speaking different languages. Quite simply, we don’t have the attention span for that. Instead, all of our issues are decided by who has more babies, which demographic is dying out, and who gets their voters to the polls. That’s it. Reality be damned.

Macro arguments vs Micro arguments

I feel a lot of times atheists get bogged down arguing the particulars of a religion. While this can be fun sometimes, it can be extremely aggravating as it gives the religious a lot more room to wiggle out of things, redefine terms, move the goal posts, be vague, etc. The way I see it, all of the arguments tailored to their religion can easily be nullified by attacking the source: the existence of god. If you can shut them down here, then it doesn’t matter what some book says, or what they feel in their gut, or what a friend told them. Every single argument they could make about their religion depends on the assumption that god exists.

The simple fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of god; all they have are logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, and “god of the gaps” arguments. With the null hypothesis, burden of proof, and Occam’s razor all in your favor, their claims fall to the floor. Just keep asking for evidence at every turn. For example: “Well who made god?” “Oh, he’s eternal and outside time and space, the law of cause and effect doesn’t apply to him.” “Oh, that’s a convenient ad hoc fallacy. What evidence do you have that god, if he/she/it hypothetically existed, contains those traits of being eternal and outside time and space?” At this point they probably will come at you asking “well who made the universe”, which assumes several things, but you can point out that the way the universe operates, it would be able to create itself without the need of a god. The idea that it’s ok to say “I don’t know” really baffles believers. Uncertainty scares them, hence why they cling to the false certainty and security of faith. Point out that we don’t have all the answers right now, but that you’re willing to work to discover them rather than throw up your hands and declare “god did it!”

If you can master these macro arguments and keep asking for evidence every time they claim god has X,Y,Z attributes, all the micro arguments about the bible’s validity, or Jesus’ divinity, etc, don’t matter at all.

(Note: this isn’t as well worded as I would like, so I’m probably going to edit this, but I just wanted to get this out there before I went to sleep. I’ll fix it when I’m no longer exhausted)

Imaginary conversations

A) Hi, I’d like to tell you about my god.

B) What evidence do you have for the existence of this god?

A) Well, I just believe.

B) Sorry, but personal convictions is not evidence.

A) Well, here, this is the bible. It’s god’s word. Here is my proof. It says god exists.

B) Well here is a Harry Potter book, it says people can fly on broomsticks, how is that any more proof? Until you provide actual, verifiable evidence, I will not believe this claim you are making.

A) Well what about nature? Look around you. Is this not enough proof that there is a god? Look how complex life is!

B) Possible, but unlikely. For centuries science has been showing how things in nature can happen naturally without the need for a supernatural power. Science has a long track record of reversing our notions on how the world works as explained by religion.

A) Well prove god doesn’t exist!

B) I don’t have to. You’re the one postulating the claim that one exists. The burden of proof is on you. Until you provide conclusive evidence to support your claim it cannot be taken seriously.

A) Oh yeah? And who made up those rules?

B)  Reality. That is after all what we’re talking about here. You are making a claim about an aspect of reality, namely that in this reality there exists a god. Reality is independent of our wishes, and as such we can test the validity of ideas by examining how the preform in reality.

B) For example, in reality, it is best to assume a claim is not true until you are given conclusive evidence to prove that it is. If you believed every claim before being given evidence you wouldn’t make it very far. If a stranger came up to you and offered you a mysterious liquid, saying it would cure all your ills, would you drink it? No, you’d want some sort of proof that 1) He’s not just some crazy wacko, and 2) that the potion is not poison. If you believed his claim without insisting that he provide evidence to prove it, you could potentially be in serious danger. Reality shows us that the method of disbelief until positive evidence is provided is a valid one.

So who wins? Religion or Atheism?

So in the great debate who wins? Religion or Atheism? Which makes a stronger case? Well obviously I side with Atheism, but why, when many more people side with religion.

Religion has no evidence to back up its claim that god(s) exist. The religious argue that surely we must have come from somewhere (see Unmoved Mover), but then make a completely unwarranted exception for god when someone asks where he/she/it came from, thus making the logic ad hoc. (The above link has a list of just about every argument for the existence of god(s) and rebuttals)

The religious also argue that things look designed, and therefore they are designed, presumably by their choice god who then takes a keen interest in his creation’s daily lives. Yet science has consistently debunked this idea:

(The “Made Easy” series has a LOT of really great educational videos that explain all types of scientific things on youtube.com, just search for them)

Religion also relies on its position of authority. Many of the religious were raised by religious parents, who in turn were raised by their religious parents. To them belief in god(s) is just natural, something they were raised with, and few ever think to question it. This position of authority is reinforced with elaborate costumes and large, imposing structures:

The whole point of these structures is to overwhelm the visitor with their grandeur, to make them think “Surely, the people who reside in this place cannot be wrong!” Yet they can be, for they are exactly that, people. The believers are also comforted in their belief by the existence of a great many like believers. (See ad populum fallacy)

So, what about Atheism? Well personally, I feel Atheism is strengthened through the weakness of the religious arguments, their total lack of evidence. The thing that really does it for me is the fact that science has a steady track record of discoveries and breakthroughs, religion has a steady track record of being proved wrong. Science has consistently provided natural explanations that are testable, repeatable, and thus proveable, whereas religion just makes claims based off of authority.

For some people, religion’s weak arguments and heavy reliance on arbitrary authority are enough, but for me and a growing number of people they aren’t.

The difference between science and religion

There is a fundamental difference in the ways science and religion operate. For religion, something just is. That’s it. Either you believe X and the religion or you do not. There is no testing or experimenting with the religion or it’s claims. Now sure there are doctrinal debates and the theologians who have them, but in the end it’s still just another flavor of X which the believe must accept to be part of the faith.

Science, on the otherhand, works in the opposite way. Every statement about how something is must be backed up with evidence, evidence that is testable over and over again.

Religion and science both try and provide answers about existence. I think there is an issue with the way science and religion give these answers. Religion gives answers with an attitude of smug, absolute certainty. The answers, whatever they are, are definite and unchanging.

Science gives answers that have an asterisk on the end with a note saying “subject to change if new and compelling evidence is found.” This makes science very fluid, open to revision. Scientists in no way claim they have all the answers. Unlike religion, science welcomes questions. If a scientist has their hypothesis proved wrong, it is just as exciting for them as if it had been proved correct. To them and advance in either direction is still an advance.

But I think this upsets people who are looking for absolute answers. They see science and they see uncertainty, where as when they look at religion they see absolute certainty. A lot of people don’t like uncertainty in their lives. They like to know what is going to happen. Yet it is a false certainty that they have. People have been certain about a great many things since the dawn of time, but that never made them correct in those certainties.

Look at the track records of science and religion. Religion’s entire history is a history of making “matter of fact” statements on just about everything, only to have science come along (relatively recently) and slowly, but steadily, prove many of religion’s “certainties” wrong. The first example of this was when Galileo proved that the earth was not the center of the solar system as the bible said. (He was later convicted of heresy and imprisoned under house arrest for the rest of his life and his works banned by the church)

Given these track records, which one would you rather put your “faith” in? Religion and it’s smug (and misplaced) sense of superiority and absolute certainty? Or science, and its humble skepticism, where ideas are open to debate and experimentation in an atmosphere of free inquiry?

Rules of the game

Apparently some people dont’ understand how reality and arguments work when it comes to debating religion, so I’ve decided to try and explain. An argument about religion has to follow the same rules that any argument has to follow. Some people blatantly try to ignore this, and it only hurts their claim.

Firstly, when you make a statement, you are making a claim. “I ate cereal for breakfast, I have $20 in my pocket, I have a diamond the size of a car in my backyard, there is a god.” Those are all claims. When you make a claim, no matter how big it is, you have the burden of proof. That means that it is reasonable for someone not to believe your claim until you prove it. We have this same idea in our legal system: Innocent until proven guilty. When someone makes the claim that you committed a crime, you are innocent (meaning the state doesn’t believe the claim) until they prove your guilt.

This applies to every claim that someone makes. Religion does NOT have special exception status!

To “prove” a claim, you need evidence. Evidence is support that backs up your claim. The more evidence the better. Again, this is valid everywhere in day to day life, and religion is not immune.

However! There are many types of evidence. There are 8 criteria to decide how good a piece of evidence is. They are:

Reliability, Expertise of the source, Bias, Consistency, Recency, Relevance, Completeness,  and Accuracy.

The more of these tests a piece of evidence fulfills, the stronger it is, and thus the more weight it carries in an argument.

Reliability: How many times has this been proven correct in the past?

Expertise: Is the source competent on the subject that it addresses?

Bias: Does the source have a stake in the claim?

Consistency: Is the evidence consistent with other data from the same source? (Internal consistency) And is it consistent with data from other sources? (External consistency)

Recency: How recent is the information? The more up-to-date the better.

Relevance: Is the evidence related to the claim? Does the data support the claim?

Completeness: Does the source provide enough information for a critical thinker to accept?

Accuracy: Are the citations complete? Are the sources of evidence fully identified?

Now remember! These tests apply to EVERYTHING we do in our day to day lives. A critical thinker is someone who uses these tests to access the validity of any and all claims. If the evidence supporting a claim is numerous and pasts these tests, the claim is most likely true. Again, we know this is true from day to day living. Religion DOES NOT get a free pass. It has to pass these tests just like everything else. Making a special exception to reason that can’t be applied to all arguments is invalid and logically dubious.

So lets apply this shall we? Christians often bring up the bible as evidence to support at a claim.  How does the bible hold up as evidence when put to the 8 tests?

Reliability? There are numerous times the bible has said things that were incorrect. List of scientifically unsound claims

Expertise of the source? The people who wrote the bible lived between 400 BCE and 600 CE. They had no knowledge of germs, evolution, chemistry, biology, physics, etc…so no, they’re not competent about the things they make claims about (namely existence)

Bias? Yes, the people who wrote the bible had a personal stake in it. They were writing a book that would become their religion. They wanted to put themselves in the most favorable light. Hence why god is so similar to an angry, jealous, misogynistic desert dweller.

Consistency? World renowned biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehram points out that there are more inconsistencies in the manuscripts making up the new testament than there are words in the new testament. For a small list of 408 of them, go here.

Recency? Again, the bible was written between 400 BCE and 600 CE, it’s not recent at all, and the scientific and moral contradictions reflect that.

Relevance? Depends on how the bible is being applied to an argument

Completeness? So far it has failed all the tests up to this point. There is almost no evidence around today to support the biblical claims.

Accuracy? While we might know some of the authors of the bible, we don’t know the countless number or scribes that hand copied their words and changed things. Again, you must see “Misquoting Jesus”

After applying these critical thinking tests to the bible, it shows itself to be weak evidence, yet christians keep holding it up as proof.  It is important to remember that these are the rules we use everyday to evaluate all types of claims, be they advertising claims, your spouse’s claims, or a minister’s claims about god. Religion is not exempt from the tests of logic.