The Uncertainty of Polls and Ten Reasons why God can't get my Vote

Last Thursday will long linger in the memories of Barbadians. It ended with a night of intrigue that went back and forth as many times as any of the classic cricket test match that people talk about for decades. After the dust had settled the result was a narrow victory to the incumbent Democratic Labour Party (DLP) over the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP).

Tongues are still wagging in Barbados over the result. The fact that a government that came to power five years ago was voted back in is not especially remarkable, but what was noteworthy was that it went against the predictions of the poll conducted by CADRES led by Peter Wickham.

Peter Wickham: Pollster not Prophet

What some people don't seem to realise is that a pollster is not a prophet. Even as we that promote the scientific method try to explain that the strength of science is in its ability to correct itself and not in its ability to give certainty, people are quick to dismiss Mr. Wickham and even  the whole value of statistical tools based on one example where it missed the mark. But to his credit, Wickham's reaction is exactly in keeping with what you would expect from a scientist that prides himself on his work and wants to learn from any errors that he may have made.

He was quick to admit that he got his prediction wrong and immediately went about seeking to find out what factors may have been overlooked. This he did even as some in his corner tried to diffuse criticism by saying he really wasn't that far off. It's refreshing to see Peter stand by his predictions like that. He could so easily have taken the route of trying to rationalise his way out of trouble.  It's the opposite of religion, where outcomes are retrofitted to try to align with obscure statements made somewhere by somebody in the hazy past.  The evangelist's playing field could not be more uneven when it comes to religion versus science. Science only has to be wrong once to fall from its perch, faith only has to be right once to establish itself as the bearer of absolute truth

At the same time that Wickham tries to figure out what went 'wrong', he has stoutly defended the integrity of his method.  That is to say he is defending himself against claims that he deliberately 'rigged' the data to produce some desired result. Some people have criticised Peter for being too defensive of his position but I can definitely understand why he is so keen to confront such allegations. I would do the same thing. For any scientist, criticism on method, theory or interpretation is fair game, but any suggestion that you deliberately skewed your data is essentially implying that you are a cheat. You have to deal with that as seriously as if you are a World Champion 100m sprinter and people are claiming, without anything to back it up, that you are taking steroids.

This idea that somebody has deliberately set out to make things come out wrong is an idea that has always been prevalent in the Caribbean. I noticed it even when I was a kid going to Kensington Oval to watch cricket. If Brian Lara was given out caught behind by an Australian umpire when he clearly didn't touch the ball, that umpire would be immediately labeled by all in the crowd in the stand as a 'tiefin' umpire.' I could never understand it, why was it that everytime someone made an error that ended up favouring one side, people jumped to the assumption that there was some intentional conspiracy.

Looking at it now, I see the cynicism aimed at pollsters. umpires, referees and judges as a spillover from the religious mindset. In faith, you are encouraged to believe things that are deliberately constructed to get a desired result. You believe in God because you want to get to heaven or avoid hell, because God requires it from you or because it gives your life purpose. It is rare that anyone analyses the methodology of faith itself, assessing the strengths and weakness of this way of thinking in leading you to truth. It is easy when you are raised in such a mindset to think that other decisions in life are made on the same basis. People think that  you predict that a certain party will win because you want them to win. To many people in our islands, expressing an opinion on something means you are showing a bias. They don't get that in the scientific world, the outcome is not what really matters, it is the method that is the key. If your method is sound you will be close to truth far more often that not . If your method is fundamentally flawed you'll 'hit' occasionally if you get lucky, but over time people will  come to realise that you are shooting in the dark.

This idea of thinking that everybody that has an opinion, comes to it with a clear pre existing bias, helps me to understand why believers respond to us that are atheists in the way that they do. While we continually seek to promote our method for coming to the conclusion, all they see is the outcome. For them, we don't believe in God, because that was the outcome we wanted. That's what we wanted our 'polls' to say. If we want it to be that way there must be a reason. Perhaps we are angry at God and want to get back at him, we want freedom to do as we like or we just hate the hypocrisy of church people and want to see their cherished institution brought down to earth. Of course  by thinking those things, they show us their hand. They think we make our decisions the same way that they do. We think about what we want to be true and then go out to prove it. But like Peter and CADRES, all we are doing is applying a method. If like Peter our 'polls' turn out to be wrong, we will admit our mistake and look to see where we made our mis- step.  We will admit our mistake but we will still stand by the principle that we used the best method of assessment given the data we had. We do not rig numbers to get we want. Because what we want is not what we want. What we want is truth.

Our theist friends will no doubt tell us that we are wrong about the existence of a God for the same reasons that Peter Wickham was wrong in predicting the result of the elections. Indeed, immediately as  the final results were clear, Sandra a Christian facebook friend of mine, with whom I have had several lengthy exchanges on the subject of God's existence posted the following:

' Father God you are sovereign. We declare you as king over our nation. Continue to confound the wisdom of the wise!'

I laughed. I knew exactly where she was coming from. Apart from his reputation for being a pollster, Peter has gained some level of notoriety for his stance against religion on the local 'Brass Tacks' Call- In programme. Peter has been a true champion of reason when he has been on the air. He speaks of how people require him to back up his polls and predictions with evidence and he demands the same level of accountability from his callers. He is not prepared to accept any argument on faith from them and he let's them know it. He openly ridiculed those people who were trying to suggest that Reinhard Bonnke had done miracles when the government were getting ready to usher him in to Barbados. He said that it was a disgrace that a country like Barbados with its high standard of education in this 21st century was endorsing such superstitious nonsense. I was following from a distance online in Canada, but I  was punching the air in delight while he said that. It was as if I was on "Freethinking Island" listening to my co host Joy go off on one of her famous rants.

I was overjoyed, but deep down I knew there would be more than just a little consternation from those on the evangelical side. Hitting out at God is something that you just don't do in Barbados. I was sure that the faithful would not forget. As it turned out election night was when they and their God got their own back. Sandra's post said it all. God had come out of hiding to reign supreme and show Peter who was the real boss.

But what kind of God would that be to deal with? One who refused to reveal himself to a skeptic like Peter directly; but went through the trouble of making sure the polls he published indicated one thing and then knowingly inspired voters to do something different purely to leave Wickham with egg on his face. A God that would do that would be nothing more than a petty prankster. But that's not only Sandra's God, that's  the kind of God that millions in the Caribbean and the world believe in. Prankster or not, the global electorate have kept faith with this leader and his rather unfathomable style of governance for many years. Why? I have no idea. Sovereign or not there is no way this God could ever get my support for leadership. For so many reasons, I could never give him my 'X.' Below are just ten that immediately come to mind.

Ten Reasons why God can't get my Vote

1. Poor management of his Ministers and Ministries

God has a strange way of choosing his ministers and there just seem to be way too many. I suppose with all the ministries he has to administer he needs staff, but they often just get in each other's way. Messages conflict, divisions in the party happen almost daily and everybody just tries to one-up the other. We never know what criteria he is using to choose Ministers either. At one time he did not allow females to serve, but that has changed. Once he was firm in not picking those who were openly gay, now that's changing also. We just don't know what new rules this Prime Minister will bring. Also, in spite of his omniscience, he doesn't seem to pick the right people for highest office. For example, just a couple of weeks ago his most senior Minister resigned suddenly. People say that this event shows that he isn't careful enough it putting the right people in the right positions. My opinion is that the whole thing is simply a case of far too many square pegs in round holes.

2. Where is his Constituency Office?

For years now God's party faithful have told me that I need to get off my backside and try to find God. I have always found this a strange request. God wants MY vote apparently more than anything else in the world but it is ME who has to go out of my way to find HIM. Whenever I ask his supporters to ask him to at least come into my veranda and put in an appearance, they tell me I am being unreasonable. That God doesn't work on my terms. Excuse Me??? Not on my terms?? He is the one that is looking for a term in office not me!!

Still, just to satisfy his supporters I have tried to find him, but it is a fruitless search. His 'yard fowl' followers can't even tell me where his Constituency Office is. I can't even get a hotline number or an email address to get him at. Come on! How serious can this candidate be?

3. Who really has the right Manifesto?

God must be a very good campaign manager or at least a convincing one.  He may never do house to house, but his workers in the constituency never seem to tire of going all out for that one extra vote. To their credit they usually come armed with manifestos that  give details on what God's programs and policies are. The problem is that the language of these documents is usually not the most simple and things are often open to multiple interpretations. Sometimes the people that are soliciting you are themselves unsure about what their party leader really wanted to say. Also,  all the people working the area for him don't seem to have been given the same manifesto. Sometimes there are little discrepancies I see between the documents, probably because they are different versions, other times it seems like I am looking at a  different book altogether. Perhaps there was some printing error or somebody picked up an outdated stack of literature by mistake. Whatever the case it points to poor administration. I can't give my vote to someone who can't get something so basic right.

4. Lots of services provided but no social development

One thing you have to say about God is that he knows how to provide services. He can provide services for any one of the electorate at any time. The most common one is his morning service but he can also give noon service, service at sunset and even mass service at midnight if you really want it. Any time you want a service, you know God will provide.

The problem is that in spite of all these services, the communities he serves never seem to progress much. We are not seeing the social development or transformation we would expect. Clearly the services are not achieving what they were set up to do. Somebody is failing big time and the buck stops at God. Another reason I have to withhold my 'X.'

5. When is he going to call elections?

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart in Barbados received a lot of flack for delaying the calling of elections. Some people thought that this one of the big reasons why he almost lost the government. They wanted a PM that would throw down the gauntlet and positively seek his new mandate. The thing is that God has been far more tardy than Freundel in setting a day for humanity to go to the polls. I have met several people who believe they are ideal candidates to get into heaven, but God just refuses to set a date when they will finally find out whether they have made it into that house of assembly. Over the years there have been rumours that God has already set a date, but in spite of many hopeful glances upwards into the clouds there is still no sign of a Returning Officer. I am not going to vote for a God who holds up the democratic process like that.

6. Slow in adopting new policies

For an all powerful deity, God moves awfully slowly, especially when it comes to matters of policy. He seems to follow the trends in society rather than lead from the front. I find this worrying. He only realized slavery was wrong after we realised it. He only recognised that women should not be forced to marry their rapists after we pointed it out to him. He only realised that mental illness was not caused by demon possession after doctors and scientists gave him the evidence. If you want to be a leader I can support. you have to lead on policy, not change your view because of the electorate. I understand that people have power, but God has to start acting like a real leader. So far I just ain't seeing it.

7. Never turns up to speak on his platform

Invisibility has to be God's main weakness in trying to get a vote from me. Ok, maybe he thinks the door to door thing is beneath him, but surely he can turn up to speak on a platform in front of the masses, right? But election after election he is conspicuously absent. If God is the best candidate he has to show us. If he doesn't make his presence felt and get up and demonstrate to us what he can do for us, he can't expect to win. I will vote for the man or woman who presents the best case to me. If God has what it takes but doesn't show me, I am not going to vote for him. If you don't communicate your message properly to voters and they reject you at the polls, choosing the weaker candidate as a result, it's not the electorate's fault it's yours.


8. Shabby treatment of his staunchest supporters

This part is really bothersome to me. When I look at the people most enthusiastically waving God's party banner and showing the colours, I don't see prosperity. Some of God's supporters have done pretty well for themselves but the vast majority have not. In fact the constituencies where he is most popular are usually the ones that are most impoverished. God has not treated those that have been loyal to him well. Illness, poverty and natural disasters plague those that give him the vote every election day. If God treats his followers so badly how will he treat those that stand in opposition? I shudder to think. Another reason for me to keep far away from this God candidate.

9. Aligns himself with every party

This is a huge problem because it speaks to God's integrity. It's hard to trust a God who is  a  PIP (Party in Power). Wherever I go in the world, I hear that the ruling government is God's government. Whether it's Democratic, Conservative, Libertarian, Republican or Socialist it is always the party that God supports. This is not good enough. God has to set some clear principles and stick to them. He can't just swing every four or five years from one party to another. Sorry, I am not voting for a flip-flopper God.

10. Shamelessly tries to buy votes from the 'undecideds'

God should be ashamed of himself and his supporters for allowing this to happen, but I see this all the time. I hear talk that the two main parties in Barbados engaged in this, but God's party is far more guilty of this in my opinion. I know God does it, because I have had people from his party coming around trying to buy my vote numerous times. Once they hear that I am 'undecided' they swarm like bees.

Unlike many other political parties, they offer me far more than just money for going in the booth and voting for God.  Sometimes they court me by offering to take me out for a lavish dinner or a fancy show.  But they don't stop with just offering earthly, transient delights. They promise me health, happiness everything I ever dreamed of even sometimes including sexy virgins, not for just five years but all ETERNITY.

It's just ridiculous. If this kind of thing  doesn't qualify as bribing voters, I don't know what is. It's got totally out of hand over the years and it is high time that the authorities clamped down on such disgusting behaviour. It goes without saying that I can't endorse a God or any party members that support such unethical behaviour.

So, Need I say more?

The rules that rule the ruler: The bigger the Bible the smaller the god

It's all about the tough calls. This photo on the left always gives me chills. We see Obama, Biden, Clinton and the rest of the White House staff watching anxiously to see whether the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was successful. The anniversary of this event was two weeks ago and of course it was played out in the media, with Democrats making political capital by reminding the public of this more meaningful 'mission accomplished' moment and the Republicans playing their own politics by claiming that the Democrats should not be political.

Whatever your  political leaning, you have to admit that this was a true leadership moment for Barack Obama. This is why countries have presidents, prime ministers or chancellors. It's to make difficult decisions like these. In the midst of uncertainty and ambiguity, you have to weigh up the options and make the call realising you have to live with whatever the outcome is. The advice may come to you from all directions conflicting and contradictory. History and precedent may be there as a guide, but at the end of it all the buck stops at you. Maybe due to shrewd judgement, maybe through some luck or perhaps a bit of both, Obama came out smiling at the end. You have to take risks sometimes as a leader and you deserve the accolades when it works as much as the brickbats when it goes wrong. To make the decisions when there is no clear answer. That is what a ruler does.

Fast forward to last week and the US president was back in the news again. This time the call he made was also impactful, but in an entirely different way. The president referred to his 'evolving' opinion that now is in favour of same sex marriage. This was indeed  a significant departure from the form of his previously held transitional belief. I hope creationists will now recognise that macro evolution can occur given enough time and the right political environment. To me it was a welcome evolution, but others certainly viewed this mutation as a backward step.

Huge as this statement might have seemed to many, Barack was careful to say that it was a personal opinion. It wasn't a call to go to war to kill the opposing fundamental Christian views. It  wasn't an order to surge into churches and capture clergy. Yet, the vocal response by many, suggests that some saw it just like that. It was a curious response. Surely it is what the ruler in heaven says that  will ultimately matter on issues like these.Why should they even care what Barack thinks? Are the fundamentalists telling us that  Barack Obama is like God? Not so far fetched. Seems at times they give almost as much weight to what he says as to the words of their precious saviour.

In looking at Barack Obama as a leader over the past couple of weeks, I couldn't help but think about their own ruler up in heaven and how he compares. In one sense we are told that God is like the Barack Obama who gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Strong and authoritative, one whose orders have to be carried out exactly as he says, one whose will cannot be resisted. Then, at other times we see their ruler like the Obama we saw giving his views on same sex marriage to the press. One who merely states an opinion and gives others free will to go along with him if they choose. He leaves others a bit lower in state to decide whether his will, will be done or not. It is the ultimate mystery surrounding their heavenly ruler, the fact that he is eternally all powerful, except of course for the times when he is not.

It turns out though that this kind of inconsistency is not the only one that the heavenly president faces. Unlike Obama, their commander-in-chief  is infallible.  His opinions don't evolve, and he has no need to wait nervously after giving a order to see if things turn out right. No, their God has no such worries, he always knows what to do and he can tell us what we should do. We just need to listen to him, follow him and all will be well. Sounds simple right? Well not quite, because it doesn't end there. This infallible God has also written a book which is of course, infallible. God is infallible, he writes a book, it has to be just as infallible as he. The logic does seem watertight but again its not that straightforward.

Let's go back to down to earth again for a moment to see how things work in our domain. We have the leader in the form of a president or prime minister who makes the important decisions. There are also laws, policies, regulations, historical precedence and a constitution that give guidance to leaders. In practice we need both the leader and the book, the ruler and the rules. The laws are good but they are not perfect, they fail sometimes because they can't foresee every situation that you might find yourself in. There are times when you just have to throw out the rule book altogether because it doesn't apply or give one rule a priority over another. That's why you need a human leader that can make that kind of judgement and steer the ship through uncertain waters, make the tough calls like going in for the Bin Laden kill.

Our rules aren't perfect but then neither are our rulers. Rules are there to keep the ruler in line. Without them leaders could do whatever they wanted with no transparency and no accountability. They would be no grounds for appealing or protesting, because they would be no yardstick by which to evaluate anything. Because of the limitations of both rulers and rules, it makes sense to have both in any system of government. If both the rules and rulers are strong, you have a recipe for good governance.

The situation is somewhat different in the heavenly realm where both ruler and rules are infallible. Here, it's not a situation of complementarity, its a situation of redundancy. Why would an infallible God have a need to write a book? He is real, people have a personal relationship with him, he can speak to hearts directly. What could possibly be expressed in the book that couldn't  be said through his own voice? There is no need for accountability or transparency because by definition God is always on the right side. The infallible God makes the book redundant. Similarly, if we have an infallible bible, there is no need for a God. The bible would speak to every circumstance, there would be nothing that would need interpretation or reasoning over it. It would just be a case of read it and do what it says. If the rules are absolutely clear and flawless you don't need a ruler to interpret them for you.

Still, Christians have a strange way of explaining how God and the bible work together. A way which makes both the Lord and his word seem to have limitations. You read the bible first and through it God himself speaks to you. He writes the words and then gives you verbal instructions while you read. This seems unnecessarily complicated. It's like a parent instructing a child by going through the process of writing  a book called 'What I maybe want you to do'  and explaining what they want done by letting the child read the book and then explaining what they actually meant to say in the book. Come on, couldn't you just explain to the kid what you want done and skip the extra literature?

Well maybe, but that's not the way God does it. The bible we are told is God's living word. I still can't wrap my head around this. The words on the pages are dead. Dead from the perspective, that once they are written they are written. They can't undergo natural selection and evolve into new species. I am sorry, I can't see how you can have a living relationship with someone, through the printed words in a book written hundreds of years ago in ancient languages. The bible can't speak to you about your life any more than the 'Nutritional Facts' on a box of cereal can speak to you about your diet. Words can't listen to you and give you advice. They can't evaluate options when you have conflicting goals to reconcile within you. Only a mind is capable of doing such things.

Not a book talk

I have been fortunate enough in the time I have been a part of the CFI community here in Calgary to hear some prominent  authors speak and give lectures on their writings. These include people like Dan Dennett,  James Randi, Lawrence Krauss and Dan Barker. All of these authors have books which represent their views and have been widely read.  When they come to speak  their focus is not on their publications it is squarely on what they are there to talk to the audience about.  Books are always there on show, but their primary purpose is to be scribbled in at the end of the night. The event doesn't start by the speaker asking everybody to open they copy of  ' A Universe from Nothing' to Chapter Three on  Page 35 and start reading together from paragraph five. It just doesn't work like that. Lecturers will speak about what their books contain but they will go further, give more context and give their current thinking and opinions on the issue. They take you beyond the book.Yes, what they will say will tend to be in line with the book, but that's because the book, just like the speech they are giving represents their thoughts. The book can be a useful aid to understanding, but you don't need to have read their work in order to understand the message of their lectures.

It's a similar thing when it comes to me on this blog. Writing articles here has helped me to organise my thoughts on many issues related to faith and atheism. Sometimes I use ideas I have expounded on  here, to explain my position to someone I am engaging with in a discussion. But it is me that is speaking to them when I am debating, not the 'caribatheist blog.'

God on the other hand, should have no need to use references as aids to himself. He doesn't need  a book to remind him what it was he was thinking when he was speaking to his chosen people two millennia ago. He doesn't need it to help himself. It isn't a requirement for communication with us. So, why is it there? But even more important than being there, why is it viewed with almost the same reverence as God? We know  that almost every argument that a theist brings to argue a point about Him begins or ends with a scripture quote.

They say that in the journey of life, the bible should be kept next to you as the manual  for driving. But why do you need to consult a manual when the manufacturer of the automobile is your copilot ready to take over if there's any trouble?

Bibles should be  just for atheists

If there is any need for the manual, it's for the person without the relationship with God. The one who can't access the master directly. To me that means the atheist, the one who has not yet found the way to tune in to God. So, my advice to Christians is to hand the manuals over. Yes, bring the bibles over to us so that we may learn something about the author of your favourite text, because he is obviously not coming over to our university to give a lecture. Yes, you go with God and leave the bibles with us. But we know you'll never do that, you and your saviour's publication must never be separated. I have to ask you again. Why?

One possible answer is that the author of the book is not around. The importance placed on the book might  well mean  that the one who wrote it is no longer here to talk to the masses and answer questions. Any insight into the words on the page would then have to come from your own reasoning and reflection, not from your personal friend outside space and time. Secondary sources like the bible are only really valuable when the primary ones are absent. Contradictory as it may sound, the existence of the bible is probably the greatest piece of evidence against the existence of God. The more that Christians lean on the bible the less they are leaning on God himself. That's why I say the bigger the bible the smaller the god.

The Bible rules

Speaking of big bibles, the book got as large as the supermoon this week, when fundamentalists bashed Obama over the head with it for forgetting that it says that for a man to lie with a man or woman to lie with a woman is an abomination. That's what happens when the bible goes ahead and God stays invisible in the background. It means we have to follow the words written down years ago by his hand, without any way of knowing if it is appropriate for what we are facing now. Once the books of the bible were made into a canon it effectively blasted God out of the picture. He became forever a slave of his text, because not even an omnipotent God can alter the words of an unchangeable book.

If I ever see God I will ask him why on earth  he chose the option of ruling by the book. A leader that needs to govern through only previously existing documents is one that is not sure of himself. It is only  forgivable if you are new to the job and don't have enough experience yet to make decisions through your own reasoning.

Wait, perhaps that's the problem!  God is feeling his way into his role, still needing to stick strictly to what the textbook says. I bet he is having difficulty understanding it just like we do. Maybe he does need the book to guide him in guiding us through on this complex planet. Maybe, he himself is on a trial, only passing down to us what has been passed down to him by someone higher up the ladder that did the hiring.

Well if that's the case, God has been on probation a long time now. I sincerely hope he gets his appointment letter soon, so that he can get on with the job he is being paid to do and put aside the training manual once and for all. I tell you, the world would definitely be the better for it.