Intelligent design: a cognitive cop-out

Creationists believe in the words of their holy book to tell them how the world came into being. Atheists understand that while science answers many of the mysteries of our physical world, it does not pretend to KNOW all the details, nor does it attempt to fill any of the gaps of knowledge with a weak contrivance of an explanation passed off as truth. Proponents of intelligent design, however, bait you in with science - deductively, not inductively - contending everything is designed by a supernatural creative force with some unknowable overriding intent.

I can understand why someone might be tempted by such thoughts. It is often presented to you like a gilded lily. For the weak minded, the one that understands some science, but who also needs to have a divine creator to pray to or to praise or to even blame, intelligent design is for you. It removes the need for facts in places where none exist, and alleviates your mind of the burden of thought because those gaps exist. Poof! You can believe in scientific evidence AND you get to keep your god! Isn't it wonderful?

Of course not, as one of my twitter friends so aptly put, it's creationism dressed up in a fake lab coat. It parades itself as scientific theory and demands to be taught in public schools. As its basic hypothesis, that there is an intelligent designer, cannot be tested, it in no way even approximates a scientific theory. It does not deserve public recognition as truth or science, let alone deserve public funding or classroom time. It is simply pseudoscience. 

Since intelligent design is a complete cognitive cop-out, I find that I have more respect for creationists. At least they don't try to put their fairy tale in a lab coat.

Don't believe the hype

I saw an interesting comment on twitter today about people speaking In tongues. To one believer, it was all he needed to confirm what he already wanted to be true: God is real. For a skeptic like me, I want to know who witnessed this event, what biases they held, the history of the tongue-speaker, etc. I will not settle for something as flimsy as a report of speaking in tongues as proof of a supernatural being. In fact, I would not settle for my own witnessing of such an event to be proof of a deity without more information. Simple observation of a phenomenon does not provide evidence or explanation as to its origins. 

This conversation led me to do some learning on the topic of 'religious miracles', an idea I have long scorned based on my own science education. But what about my own biases, surely they affected my judgement somehow? I decided that I needed to achieve a deeper knowledge on this subject as I, admittedly, knew of only the most commonly discussed events. 

The first example I came across was exceptional. Father Francis Xavier, a missionary who spent many years in India, China, and Japan, whose purpose was to convert the heathens he and his cohorts encountered into believers and members of the Catholic Church. Well after his death in 1552, reports began surfacing of the miracles that had occurred during his missionary work: He had the gift of tongues (language), he was able to burn holy water instead of oil, a crucifix lost to the sea was returned to him by a crab, he was able to change salt water into fresh water while at sea, and he had raised no less than 14 people from the dead. Pope Urban VIII was very impressed by this, while simultaneously being appalled by the scientific discoveries of Galileo.

Of course, the truth is somewhat different. Through historical documentation of his own writings during these times, he reports on a great many things including his difficulties learning the Japanese language, and the daily work of conversion. Not once does he, or his other companions, mention anything remotely miraculous. In fact, Joseph Acosta specifically states in his letters that no miraculous powers were used during their missionary work. 

So what is the genesis of the miracles of Saint Francis Xavier? It seems likely that oral histories, though recent, had been contorted as they were passed on, like a bad game of telephone. The tendency toward exaggeration is a part of the human condition - an observational bias. As a result, history can become what we want it to be, bending to the needs of our own biases, whether we recognize it or not. 

These events are a direct result of the old school version of media hype. And I don't buy it.

"I'll pray for you"

In the recent past, I have made a public request regarding people praying for me. Specifically, don't. That has apparently prompted one twitter theist to add me to his "desperately in need of prayer list". On the surface this little aspect of social media seems innocent, but is it? What's wrong with praying for someone? Nobody gets hurt, right? Lets think about this: Do I really believe that this list was created so that the theist and his followers can peacefully sit about and think positive thoughts about me? Do they truly have concern for my 'soul'? I fear a far more plausible explanation is that this is a list to identify those individuals present in a public forum, such as twitter, that think differently from them. To identify dissenters. To point them out in such a way as to encourage rabid bigotry so they can feel better about themselves, and even more powerful in their beliefs. I remain unconvinced that this was an attempt to affect me in any kind of positive way. On the contrary, I am certain that this list is a manifestation of passive aggressive hatred. Theists are still just human, and like the rest of us they are often imperfect in wonderful ways. 

So, unfortunately, I have come to understand that "I'll pray for you" is the theist's version of a condescending "fuck you". Lesson learned.

Religious respect?

Does your religion deserve respect? I'm sure you feel that it does, but you need to consider yourself a bit biased. 

Imagine you and your neighbor are of different faiths - you are a devout catholic, he is an equally devout Islamist. You KNOW he is wrong in his beliefs, and that his ignorant unwillingness to know Christ the savior promises him an eternity in hell after his death. But you smile and wave. He looks at you, and with the same conviction, feels and KNOWS that your stupidity in not understanding and abiding by the tenets of the Qur'an is a sentence to eternal torture of the same ilk. And he smiles and waves back. Who is right? Can you both be right? Can you respect the person and not the belief? Of course you can (But no worries, in this scenario both are good people who happen to be deluded by theology).

A belief system does not automatically receive respect from the world simply for existing, or for having a large number of adherents. Comments and dialogue that disparage your belief system, when based on fact, are perfectly appropriate. Ideas are NOT people. Your offense to this challenge is not an entitlement, it is a sign of weakness and an inability to defend your position based on anything other than faith and conjecture. Rational minds deal with facts and articulate questioning is a method of testing the validity of a belief system, religions the world around fail this test repeatedly and predictably. So no, your religion does not get automatic respect. And no, it is not a personal attack. Get over yourself.

Perspective

Our views in and on life are all just a matter of perspective. Major contributors include geographic location, personal philosophy, our current place in time, the theologies and beliefs of our parents, and our own internalized experiences.

Galileo's reinvention of the telescope, and subsequent discovery of the moons of Jupiter, sent the theological world into a bitter tailspin in the 1600's. Identification of sun spots was considered by the church to be pure sacrilege - how could god have created a blemished heavenly body? It destroyed their current concept of reality. The result? The Inquisition took up astronomy and the accumulation of new information was stymied; established science was relegated to the Index. Scientists had to be outwardly consistent with church doctrine for fear of oppression, isolation, and death (Galileo's story is an example). Many of our foundational scientists were indeed devout, but if any of their scientific ideas or discoveries could have been construed as contrary to church doctrine, they would have to be discarded, hidden, or discussed only privately (Newton is a good example). A reflection of the church's control over information: It is well known that for a period of time, stating support for the Copernican heliocentric model of our little spot in the universe was considered to be the most abominable heresy, even ABOVE the denial of god's existence.

The moral here is that change is very dangerous when you have a fixed worldview or theological dogma. Today, science is always questing, reaching, learning, and it is doing this without regard to YOUR personal beliefs. It is not perfect, but without change progress cannot occur. Do not let yourself get stuck in the belief that the perspective provided to you by the times you live in is absolute and infallible. Questioners like Galileo had to endure this challenge. Acceptance of absolute truths without periodic review and skepticism is counterproductive and will cause you to be left behind. And worse, you won't even know it.