Ask An Atheist Event
Well, today was the day when Warwick Atheists ran the event Ask An Atheist. A chance for anyone to come along and argue things, raise questions etc. on the subject of atheism. We had a small panel answering questions (though usually the audience jumped in occasionally to help answer questions or provide a dissenting opinion) which included yours truly. The questions were mostly asked by Christians, with a few atheists providing some, shall we say nicer questions. All in all, the event turned out to be a success (3 hours was simply not enough!), though there always seemed to be a few recurring themes that kept creeping back in, ones that require a much more in depth answer.
“Atheists have faith in the scientific method”
The event kicked off and we immediately got bogged down in a big steaming pile of philosophy, most of the audience couldn’t keep up, hell 1/3 of the panel couldn’t even keep up. The questions ranged from how we can accept the use of the scientific method, to what is logic and why do we use it. One Christian was arguing how the realms of science prevent and understanding of god and that we, as atheists have faith in the scientific method.
The scientific method is useful because in a world where there is an infinite number of beliefs, we need a method to separate the highly unlikely to the very likely. We need a method to distinguish what beliefs are in step with reality and which ones are not. Let’s take a look at the scientific method, it breaks down into 4 simple steps:
- OBSERVATION – We first of all observe the phenomenon and describe it clearly. We need to know what the hell we are looking at first, this has always presented a problem with some theists, they cannot and do not define what god is. How the hell could you form a belief on whether that thing exists or not without it being defined first?
- HYPOTHESIS – A hypothesis about the phenomenon is formed, this could be a causal connection, an equation or simply an educated guess. Then we perform tests to prove or disprove this hypothesis. If the results disagree, we abandon the hypothesis and go back to the beginning.
- PREDICTION – If the hypothesis is supported by evidence, it should mean that the theory can make predictions. For example, take the theory of gravity, if I drop something, it will fall towards the earth, unsurprisingly, it does. The hypothesis has a lot more going for it now. In terms of god, we get into problems here, we can’t make any predictions, in fact, we can’t even form a decent enough hypothesis to test and confirm it.
- REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS – Now that we have a hypothesis which has been proven to be right and can predict things, we need to be sure it can predict things by other people. This stage involves the testing of the theory by other individuals, I can predict that if I drop something, it will fall to the ground, anyone else can do that, as long as the conditions don’t change. Such as an even more massive object nearer the one being dropped. God has a real problem with allowing the reproducibility of results, take prayer for example, it is pretty damn unreliable.
“Ah!” but they say. God still cannot be explained by the scientific method, he lies outside the observable universe. Thus, you can’t reliably experiment on god! Then how the hell else am I supposed to tell what is true and what isn’t! Which beliefs are most conforming with reality and which ones are not! Personal experience would be a really poor way, I don’t want to find out that exposure to CO2 kills you by subjecting myself to the experiment.
Humans are curious creatures, we want to know how the world works. A scientific theory tries to do that. A theory can only be disproved, never proven. But we use what is the best we have at our disposal because it has been shown to work. To quote XKCD: “Science, it works Bitches!” Bring me a different way of looking at the world and trying to reliably understand it, science and the scientific method is the only option we have. Obviously, since science is the thing which disproves your belief, then of course, science is wrong and not your belief. Even though the whole point of science is to separate what beliefs fit in with reality and which don’t.
Yes, we need to assume the scientific method works, but it has proven itself to work time and time again. Yes, this means we’re using the scientific method to prove science, but it hasn’t failed and it is the best we got. It’s this or we use a 2000 year old, Bronze age book, which is proven time and time again to be false by science. The bigger question is, do you believe in science and everything it has brought us over the past 2000 years, or do you trust a book, where there are many others like it, which doesn’t try to correct itself, which isn’t in the business of caring what is truth, only in what makes people feel better. Stop being so damned scared, throw off your comfort blanket of faith and embrace truth. We should care about what truth really is, not what we wish it to be!
“The Bible is the Word of God”
This crept up fast, while it wasn’t the next topic raised for discussion, it was the next major point. I’m not going to sit here and discuss it for long and considering only Atheists and Christians showed up at the event, this was inevitable. All I’m saying is search for “absurdities in the Bible” and “contradictions in the Bible” in Google and you shall be rewarded with the answer. Some people took severe offence when I claimed that the Bible is many things, but the inerrant word of god is most certainly not one of them.
The Need of Moderation
After the event, there was concensous for the need of a fair moderator. Some people and topics did go on for too long, I tried my best to move the discussion on when we stalled, but that is pretty unfair considering my biased position as a member of the panel. Just something for us and anyone else planning a similar event to keep in mind, if the group was any larger, shouting arguments would have probably ensued.
All in all, the event was rather sucessfuly, we learned a lot and I did too. Atheists and theists really do seem to almost be working with different sets of axioms about the universe, this is a real barrier that needs to be overcome next time for any discussion to move smoothly forward. I loved being the panel, but it is a shame I didn’t get to bring out my depth of knowledge on debunking creationist crap, shame I was really pumped up for that.
