Trying to deny the undeniable: Why can't God come down like gravity?

"You'll definitely know it when it happens to you." 

It's the trope that I am hearing more and more nowadays as believers tell me that my conversion moment will come and it will be so emphatic that my life will instantly be transformed. God has a special plan for me and I better had be ready for him when the time comes. But there is an element of contradiction in this, because they will also say that I have to accept it, have my heart open to it in order to truly be able to experience it. But an undeniable experience is just that, it is what it is. It is one that by definition just can't be denied. Hearts open, closed, half way locked or on the floor there is just no other way of interpreting it. How could you possibly deny the undeniable, even if you wanted to?

The more in depth the discussions that I enter into with my theist friends, the more it appears to me that if and when I become convinced that a God exists, it will be in a single spectacular event. Something 'experiential' as one person put it. The kind of  'Saul on the road to Damascus' experience which I won't be able to deny. I have to admit that this worries me . It suggests that revelation comes from God knocking me over and beating the belief into me, rather than by just standing back and letting the evidence speak for itself. 


Tampering with the lab equipment

about.com - chemistry

I see it like if you go into the lab to do a chemistry experiment and you don't get the concentration measurement of the acid that you were expecting. Rather than looking at the mixture under review and making sure you prepared the chemicals in the way you were supposed to, you recalibrate the burette and tamper with the pipette until you get the result you want. 

In terms of evidence for God, Christians treat us like that burette. Instead of looking at the compositions of the solutions they want us to accept, they spend all their time trying to bias our 'readings', so we can give them back the 'right' results. What they forget is that just like in chemistry, tampering with the lab equipment is not going to change the nature of the reality under test. Reality is reality whatever the dials on our heart meters may tell us. Pulling my emotional strings to get me over to your side really doesn't prove anything one way or the other. That's why I am unimpressed with the claims of death bed conversions even if they are real. It is telling that a change from non belief to belief even under duress counts as evidence for God, for them. They never take into account that meters often malfunction in extreme conditions.

However, when when we change colours from a red blooded believer to a shade of grey agnostic atheist during the course of our lives, the theists want to dismiss our experimental conclusions as flawed. They insist we throw out all the chemicals that may have affected us, clean out all the beakers and start all over again from scratch. A change from belief to non belief they will argue means nothing, as they will say that God still exists whether we believe in him or not. I tell them that bringing such clear personal bias to an experiment could not get their findings published in any respectable journal but they tell me that the only publication that matters to them passed peer review by their saviour centuries ago.

Still, I am really trying my best to be open and understand what this 'experiential' evidence that theists talk so much about could be like. In trying to construct this idea, I am taking the key aspects of what these believers tell me. I have heard that this revelation is just something that hits you inside, when you feel it you'll know it is there. It is undeniable, impossible to explain from a scientific perspective but you just know that you know that you know.

Ok, I think we can use science and what we know through that method to study this concept of undeniability. I am not trying to compare types of evidence here, just the way that human beings react to something they consider undeniable. The type of reaction we have to something undeniable should be the same regardless of the way we come to the conclusion that we have experienced something we can't deny.

The closest thing to undeniable that I can think of in the natural world is the law of gravity. Sure, the purist will say not even that is strictly speaking certain, but it is as close to it as you can get in science. What the religious people are telling me is that the thing that they experienced, manifests itself in such a way that they can be as certain about it as we as general human beings are that gravity is real.

So, whatever it is that these people who have this personal experience go through, it leaves them with gravity-like certainty. Clearly the difference between the two examples is that the spiritual revelation is not something experienced by everyone, at least not yet. People experience this gravity-like spiritual awakening at different times in their lives. So I am quite open to the idea that God just hasn't gotten around to given me my heart jolt yet. Why God would have some of us wait decades while giving some others revelations at  age four is of course another of the mysteries in this convoluted novel that is God's, but we can wait for another day to explore that chapter.

The point I want to make here is that I would expect the reaction of those religious people fortunate enough to have the spiritually undeniable experience, to be similar to my undeniable experience of gravity. Curiously, when I look further, there are some differences when it comes to undeniablity in this spiritual realm.  Here is a look at some of the things that Christians and theists in general will say about their undeniable experiences that just don't measure up to me and my gravity.

1. The God I believe in turns up regularly

I could perhaps say the same thing about my gravity. Actually no, I would put it more like he came at the beginning of time and never left. Gravity is truly impossible to ignore. He is in our face from the time we walk out the house in a morning and see a leaf fall from a tree, to in the evening when we drop a fork into the sink before washing up after supper. Gravity is indeed so omnipresent that it is difficult to remember when was the last time you saw evidence of him. I mean, how many times did gravity reveal himself to you this week? You can't count because you don't even notice him, that's how eternal and ever present he is.

Compare this to how the believers speak of their 'undeniable' experiences with God. Ask people about how God has touched them and they will inevitably provide you with a list of events. A story about something that happened yesterday, or last week, last year, ten years ago. Some will tell you God has made his presence felt so many times they can't count them, but the fact that they can pinpoint specific God moments is telling.

I don't sit down marvelling about the time when gravity revealed itself in all its glory twenty years ago when I saw a coconut fall on a pavement. I don't have a journal set aside to remind me where and when I saw gravity at work. Even though I see gravity every day, I can't give you a single gravitational testimony, because he is always there.

If the spiritual experience of God was as undeniable as gravity, you would expect that theists would have similar difficulty in pinpointing specific instances of a God manifestation. A god that is always there should be always obvious to the believer. I can provide evidence of my gravity at any moment. Wake me up in the middle of the night and I can pick up a pen on my night stand and drop it. I don't need to give you anecdotes our point towards epic stories of how gravity moved through history.

The spiritual is different, but it shouldn't be. Sure, since I am not in their special club, I cannot expect them to provide evidence to my satisfaction, but they should at least be able to give immediate God examples to convince themselves. I know that people will say that the religious do see God in everything. That not even a breath can be taken unless God gives his say so.

That may be so, but they never go for these trivial arguments when they want to convince us through personal experiences. Whenever I have asked Christians to tell me of their evidence or experience that convinced them God was real, they give me something far more telling. A life transformed from drugs or prostitution, an illness defeated against the odds, a surprising job opportunity that came out of nowhere, or an indescribable super feeling that one day shot them deep down in their hearts. When it comes to convincing us our convincing themselves the more spectacular the evidence the better. But why the need to even bring these up? If God is the one who gets you out of bed everyday why do you need to reach further by bringing out these majestic accounts.

Indeed by emphasizing these major God moments they are in effect saying that the 'he woke me up this morning' proof does not cut much ice.  Interesting again to compare with my gravity. I don't need to look in to a meteor shower or some other once in a lifetime event to strengthen my belief in gravity. A  drop in the bucket is more than enough.

If the evidence is all around, you don't need to look beyond present time and place to prove it to yourself. You can't detect the presence of God without recognising the absence that immediately precedes and follows it. If you have to wait on something to show up at specific times it means it is spasmodic and that's not what you expect from something undeniable. That ex boyfriend that shows up regularly in your life, leaves you standing on your own just as often.

2. You need to understand (insert religion here) in order to understand your experience

Spiritual revelations tend to have a strange mix of the intellectual and the emotional, even as God supposedly can speak directly to the heart. It does make me scratch my head when I hear religionists tell me that it's so obvious that God made the world that even a five year old can see it, yet Prof. Richard Dawkins is unqualified to speak on whether there is a God or not because he lacks a PhD in theology.

Yes, God can move any heart, but you need to read up and learn exactly what he is going to reveal to you before he reveals it. God miraculously manages to reveal himself with a message identical to that which his followers told you in advance. I suppose God is like a lazy university lecturer who has his Teaching Assistant  hand out notes with worked examples on the first day of class and then brings back every one of those questions in the final exam. Not surprising then that students in every religion come back with 100% regardless of the name of the God that does the grading.

Again my gravity seems to beat out all of the religionists. Sure I can present references, resources from all branches of physics and cosmology and even at the quantum level to explain how my gravity works throughout the universe. I can give you all the differential equations that will make your head spin. But you know what? None of that is necessary. You can experience gravity without any prior knowledge in any field.

You don't need to speak ancient languages, you don't need to know Newton or Kepler,  you don't even need to be literate. You don't need to be at the age of reason either, a toddler in a pram understands that her favorite toy drops when she opens her hand. In fact even if you live alone on a desert island and never had a single human interaction, you can notice that things high up tend to fall. So universal is gravitational revelation you don't even need to be a human. You could be a chimpanzee or a primate on a branch of any evolutionary tree, but you know that when you let go of that twig you will fall.

Yes, the revelation of gravity has the ability to come down from on high and touch everybody, everywhere in the same way. But spiritual revelations not only seem to be open only to the privileged X %, followers apparently need to come with specific pre existing conditions as well.

3.  Sometimes in moments of weakness I have doubts

Doubts!!!? Doubts!!? How on earth can you have an undeniable truth and yet readily admit to moments of uncertainty. But this is exactly what believers who have this experience with God will tell you. They will speak of dark, desolate hours where they wonder what God is doing or if he is even there.  Then they will tell you they will get through after prayer or directly through a revelation of the same God.

I know they always have an explanation, but remember we are speaking of the UNDENIABLE. If something is clear and certain to you there is just no way you can doubt even for a second. Again I have never had this issue with my gravity. Not once in my life have I gone to bed with nagging feelings that things may not fall for me tomorrow the way that they did today. And it's not only me, nobody has ever taken me aside to tell me that they have worries over a drop in their gravity faith. You can only have doubts if you have some evidence that is in opposition to your certainty. Doesn't matter how fleeting or rare, doubt in any form means you have something that can be denied. Once again the spiritual experience falls flat in the face of gravity.

4.  You can never get the experience if you don't want it.

This is another very strange condition of an undeniable truth. This statement is a variant of 'your heart must be open.' When it comes to undeniable truths, there is literally no way you can reasonably come to another conclusion when presented with the facts. It doesn't matter how much I don't want to gravity to be real. How much I wish I could just take off in the morning and fly to work over the traffic. I can rationalize about how much better my life would be without gravity. The benefits of a life without gravity at least some of the time can easily be seen. If only we could turn off that earth attraction for just a moment.

But no matter how much we dream of these things, how many sci fi movies we come up with where this is possible, how much we wish upon a star or pray to a fairy, we can't will ourselves into becoming anti-gravitationalists. We would indeed feel justified to lock away in a mental institution, anyone that denied the existence of the law of gravity.

It's strange that in the spiritual realm, desire can have such a telling effect on the experience that you get.  No alarm bells go off when someone says no to their undeniable experience. No move to throw those who don't accept the revelation into an institution for the spiritually crazy. In fact, many believers have told me that to have a spiritual experience and not accept it as real is quite reasonable. Undesirable, but reasonable just the same. But it just doesn't follow, it's like telling someone you're a bit sad they don't believe in gravity, but you can accept it so long as they don't impose their anti falling dogma on you.

So I am left in confusion. I am to expect an experience straight to heart from an all powerful God that I have no power to deny and yet I have to make a decision to be open that heart and allow his omnipotence in.

Whatever the case, I simply wish God would leave my heart alone, it seems a bit of a cheat to circumvent the brain he gave me and just go inside and turn on some magic switch in the ventricle.

I would prefer if he left my internal organs alone and just provided the evidence for me like my gravity does. You would think that a deity that has dropped the ball so many times in the past would have grasped this simple concept by now.

Bolt or Blake for Olympic gold?: Speed not important in deciding who to back

'Tis the season! The one that comes by once a four years, where some chosen few whose training behaviour has been good, will see officials come bearing them gifts of gold, silver and bronze. It's that global festival called the Olympic Games. And unlike the more common ones like Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving and  Independence it is free of faith controversy. Not to say that we don't see images of religion on show, there were enough hymns during the Opening Ceremony to make me feel I was in St. Paul's Cathedral, but at least we secularists are not being accused of starting a 'war' on this particular historical celebration.  Thankfully there are no religious fanatics saying that we have lost the true meaning of the Olympics and need to get back to paying homage to the gods that live on top of Mount Olympus. It's a relief to be able to watch the games online or on television without having believers telling me that I have no right to be enjoying the spectacle when I have not accepted Zeus as my personal Lord and saviour.

Celebration of science, nature and human evolution

Yes, the Olympics is at least one party that the atheist can feel completely a part of. It's a chance to sit back and marvel at the super natural rather than the supernatural. Olympic sports are indeed a true demonstration of the beauty of science. The laws of gravity, angular momentum, centripetal and centrifugal forces are on show in every dive off the platform, somersault in gymnastics or hurl of the discus. Water currents are critical in the whitewater rowing, wind resistance when sprinting or doing a sport like archery. We see biology in how our physiology has evolved over time to make our bodies able to perform tasks that were once necessary to our basic survival. Being able to run fast to escape a predator,  fight to overcome a rival from another tribe, lift heavy objects to construct a place to live or throw a spear to kill an animal for food. To a large extent the games remind us what it is to be a basic human, trying to adapt and survive in our natural habitat.

Some of my friends in faith will no doubt tell me that the Olympics is also about 'spirit.' Digging deep to produce what you could never achieve with body and mind alone. Maybe, but I like to think of this 'spirit' as unlocking the potential which the body always had but the mind up until that moment didn't think was possible. It's not that there's a special non natural entity that makes the body do what the body really can't do.

If God, as many people think, is one who intervenes in nature, it is a miracle that the Olympics actually works at all. All the athletes in training or preparing for an event rely on the consistency of natural laws. They assume that if they toss a ball in the air it will take the trajectory that is predicted by Newton's Laws.They expect that there will be no trans dimensional being looking on that will throw things off a bit to favour the one that believes in him a little more strongly.  During the Olympics, athletes from every nation appear to have complete faith that God will not interfere with anything during their events. It seems that they are quite sure that whatever God they believe in will simply standby and let nature prevail.

Fans of the various events, regardless of their views on faith also appear to have no worries of spiritual interference. I have talked to a few of my Christian friends about their predictions of what will happen in London. Likely winners and losers and who will carry away the lion share of medals. Strangely enough, the belief system of the athletes never factors in. No one ever says that it depends on who prays more on the day, who has the right interpretation of theology or who has been washed in the blood.  But if God exists and cares how we worship and serve him and will punish and reward accordingly, these factors should at least matter a bit in the final analysis.

No, curiously this God factor never makes it to the discussion table. It's all about who is better prepared, who is in the best physical condition, who is stronger mentally or who is a better tactician. Of course the spirituality factor always comes in afterwards. God in his wisdom works retroactively, arriving after the fact is his trademark. So you will often hear the statement, " I prayed to God and that's definitely why I won" but almost never the statement, " I prayed to God and that's why I definitely will win."

Some Christians will hear athletes thanking God and tell me that it's foolishness.They will say flat out that God isn't interested in sports. He may like to watch but he doesn't care who wins. God has no favourite team. They will tell me that sports is actually too trivial for God to worry about anyway. Games are just something that we humans build up to be important, but they don't ultimately matter. God has bigger fish to fry, so to speak. I suppose they have a point. Perhaps he has  more critical things to do like ensuring that every human being gets at least one meal everyday, that there is no abuse of people based on gender or race, that epidemics don't ravage poor communities, or that earthquakes don't destroy cities. OK, forget that argument. On second thought, maybe Christians should stick to the idea of  a God of the games. At least the sporting God ensures that somebody comes out a winner.

The idea of a God that keeps entirely out of sports, I think would be an unfair God anyway. Why should people who dedicate their lives to be the best they can be in a discipline be singled out to be ignored? That would be almost as bad as the amputees that get snubbed everyday. It's strange also because athletes are some of the most religious people around, many with strong faith convictions. If God does not care about sports that means he has never answered a single one of their prayers to help them improve their performance . Who among people among faith would ever argue that God has never helped an athlete become a winner in the sport he or she has dedicated their entire life to? But that is the only logical conclusion we could come to if God is only a spectator when it comes to sports.

Well, I won't dwell on that anymore. The track and field starts today and I want my Caribbean friends to all focus on the competition. The showdown between Bolt and Blake, and Campbell and Frasier Price of Jamaica, Kirani James of Grenada, Bailey of Antigua,  Kim Collins the evergreen from St. Kitts Nevis,  the Trinidad male sprint relay and the depth of the Bahamas squad. Even dare I say it, Barbadian Ryan Brathwaite trying to make a comeback in the hurdles. The Caribbean has a lot to look forward to in these games and in spite of my criticisms of the region at times when it comes to the role of faith, there is no doubt that when it comes to sprinting our islands are not just on track but  proudly leading the way. I will certainly be screaming my lungs out for the region over the next week. Maybe this will be truly our time, I mean even our cricket results have been looking up recently.

Blake versus Bolt: The clash of the games

So, let the games begin! The swimming, gymnastics, rowing, diving and volleyball are all well and good, but we are now about to get out of the starting blocks for the REAL Olympics.  From a Jamaica, Caribbean and world perspective, much  has been made of the rivalry between Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake. This dual is certainly a mouth watering prospect. It's remarkable that just three years ago, it was inconceivable that Usain Bolt could have a rival. Back in 2009, the only dual on the track in the men's sprints was between Bolt at the clock and the clock was usually second best.

The first sign of Bolt's vulnerability was at the World Championships last year where he was dramatically eliminated from the final by a false start. That opened the door for Yohan Blake to take the gold and he has really not looked back since. He came frighteningly close to Bolt's world record in the 200 metres just weeks later. The indication that Yohan Blake "The Beast" meant business came in the Jamaica trials leading up to these games when he beat Bolt in both the 100 metres  and  200 metres.

Now the battle is really on. No longer is it a case of sitting back and wondering how many records Bolt will break in the meet. Things have changed in the last few years and many who would have backed Bolt without question just a year ago are now not as confident or have changed their minds. And why have people changed their minds so quickly? We can sum it all up in one word. EVIDENCE. Yes in watching these two over the last year there is evidence that Blake is on the up and Bolt may be on the way down and so predictions for who will win the gold have changed.

When I look back at what has happened in men's sprinting this year, I am reminded of that charge that we atheists have to face almost daily. Until now, whenever they have asked us the question, " Do you believe in a God?" The answer has been 'no'. It is 'no' today, it was 'no' ten years ago, it was 'no' 100 years ago. They see this consistency in answer and come to the conclusion that we are just 'no.' people. The answer has always been 'no' to the God question and will always be 'no' to the God question. There is no evidence we could possibly accept for the existence of a God. But that's simply not true, at least not for all atheists and I daresay not the majority.

In terms of where we are, we are about as convinced about God not existing as we were about Usain Bolt as a 100m champion a year ago.  For the years between 2008 and 2011, if you had asked anybody into track and field who would win a 100m with Bolt in the field, everyone (or close to it anyway) would have said Bolt, and they would have said it without thinking. It would have been said so naturally that it would have come across as a presupposition. As if Bolt was the only answer that could be given to the question. A person asking this question outside of the track and field fraternity could be excused for thinking we were all brainwashed 'Boltisciples', just following the herd, that none of us could think for ourselves. They could be excused for thinking that regardless of the evidence we were presented we would always go for Usain Bolt as our winner. They might have argued that we were just choosing Bolt as a winner because we liked him and wanted him to win. That was true for some, but definitely not all. I know quite a few who were not a fan of him and his antics but it was just impossible to deny that he was the fastest man in the world. The facts were just too clear. It's the same with God, many of us actually would like him to come and at least carry the baton for us a bit. However, we haven't even seen him hanging around the stadium with his track suit on.

Boltisciple apologetics

So, one year later we see that not all track fans are 'Boltisciples'. Not everyone believes in him as a track and field God. Some people at least have changed their position based on the evidence. I have no doubt that many atheists would change their position in God if the evidence came. To say that we won't change our minds even with evidence is to make the Bolt assumption, which was clearly fallacious. To test your theory, you just have to bring us a Yohan Blake, but unfortunately none has come.

Another thing important to note from this Bolt versus Blake story is that in making predictions on things its better to wait to get as much information as you can. If you make decisions early about something you deny yourself the opportunity to benefit from knowledge you may acquire later. Even now, it is a bit premature to say who will win the 100 m final. We will no doubt get more evidence after seeing the heats and semi finals. Indeed in two days time we may be predicting neither Bolt nor Blake. That's the nature of sport.

It's unfortunate that when it comes to the God question so many Christians want a decision right away. I don't know if it's because we have so many sprinters in the Caribbean, but it seems all the evangelicals want a fast decision when it comes to Christ.

" Come to Jesus now before it's too late!" is their eternal cry.

 But I think making a decision like that today is definitely jumping the gun. If you commit to Jesus now and evidence comes that he is not the one later, THEN it will be too late for you as a Christian. I don't know about you, but I prefer to wait before I decide. I don't see the need for the rush. If God provides the evidence one minute before judgement, I will make it before the bell, I  promise.
I don't think this jumping on to the bandwagon thing has only affected Christians, I think that some of the track fans have revealed themselves as true 'Boltisciples' as well. Let me make it clear, I am not saying that those who still believe Bolt will win have an irrational allegiance. There is definitely in spite of the Blake surge, still many reasons to support Bolt as champion. He's done it before and he is a bona fide star, that counts for a lot. However, I have heard from some people a fair degree of Bolt apologetics. Claims that Bolt deliberately let Blake win in the Jamaica championship out of generosity. That he wanted to give  Blake part of the spotlight or even wanted to lure him in to false sense of security. Without any evidence to support any of these conspiracy theories they are convinced they are right about Bolt and are angry that anyone could even consider the possibility of Bolt losing in London in spite of seeing what happened in Jamaica. I would have thought Bolt would have relished the opportunity to stamp his authority and send a strong message before London and put on a show for his adoring home fans. But this is a theory quickly dismissed by 'Boltisciples.'

 Some were saying after the 100m loss, that Bolt would be back for revenge in the 200m at the trials. We know what happened to that prediction, but these fanatics just moved the goalpost, determined to deny any anti Bolt evidence. That's what happens when you commit to an idea too early, whether it be Bolt as the Olympic champion or Jesus as the eternal saviour. That's way I say it's better to wait.

So, who do I have to win the big showdown right now? Well I'd have to say Yohan Blake at the moment. I am of course in no way discounting the 'Lightning Bolt', but Blake may just be a little more hungry and he seems to be on an upward trajectory. I am sure that the world at large would prefer a Bolt win, it's just hard to match him for charisma. It will of course be a great race either way, not forgetting Powell, Gay and Gatling who also could be in there. Of course many of you will probably be reading this after the result is known. If Bolt has won, I am sure that the 'Boltisciples' will be all over the place saying that they never ever had a shadow of a doubt about it. But I would be skeptical of all their  big talk after the fact, because deep down inside 'Boltisciples' just like born again Christians, always have a fear deep down of the "Mark of the Beast."

Listening to my data when it speaks to me

 

The chart above probably looks like a set of lines and coloured blocks to you. Well, I am here to tell you that this apparent mish-mash has deep meaning to me.I have a personal relationship with this data and it continues to reveal many things to me every time I look upon its face. The magnificent thing is that even though I don't pray to it, it speaks to me every single day. Still looks like a random pattern of squares? Well, you just need to open your mind and accept that it is what I claim it to be. I can testify to the fact that since I started studying this data my intellectual life has been fundamentally changed.

For many years, I have tried to ask Christians who tell me that God speaks to them, what they really mean.  I have had quite a few explanations on how Christian voices in the head can be differentiated. How to tell the difference between the voice of God, the voice of the devil or the voice of your own conscience. Apparently all three of these voices can be speaking to you at the same time. However, there are not three distinct tones or accents. You know who speaks by what he says. You know the sort of things God would tell you, you know the ideas the devil would want to put in your head and you know yourself well enough to know when you are talking to you. One wonders why any supernatural entity would need  to talk to you in the first place, if you know what he would say before he says it.  Anyway, I can now report that I have heard that still soft voice myself and it has become louder as I have got more submerged in my research over the last few weeks.

My data's voice is not always audible, it often manifests itself in a way that you couldn't record on a digital device, nevertheless it unquestionably speaks to my mind.  Other times I do actually hear a voice. It happens in a way that it is just impossible to ignore even if I wanted to.Yes, my data is made up of voices,  75 to be exact. A number of interviews that I have conducted in the Caribbean over the last three years as part of my doctoral research on renewable energy development. Whenever I read my transcripts, I can hear my interviewees voices. I hear their comments in my head and am immediately transported back to the time and place where their words were uttered.

My data is amazing. It is made up of many different individual perspectives, yet there is a thread of similar goals, ideas and levels of understanding that go through all the discussions. Wow, 15 countries, 75 individuals, three years and so much agreement! I can show you times where two people said almost the same thing word for word and yet they have never met each other. Of course there are areas where opinions and beliefs differ or even contradict. That should be expected, after all people come from different professional backgrounds and live in places where cultures, governments and even languages are different. It's all a matter of interpretation. You have to understand each interviewee within his or her own context. If everybody said the same thing you would know they were just repeating whatever they heard others say and that you weren't getting something authentic.

I have also had instances where prophecies have been made that came true. In 2009, I spoke to many people about oil prices that had fallen from the previous year. Many told me that they were certain that oil prices would rise again soon. And guess what? They did! Before the end of that very year.  These people were right, 100% on the mark. I tell you, my data has it all. Prophecies fulfilled, a unifying vision shared by many diverse inspired individuals, and contradictions in perspectives on truth which can be explained through differences in location, time and context. I think those characteristics taken together are enough to put my research data at least on equal footing with that super intellectual, who in spite of having only one publication to his name, has more citations than anybody else in history.

Despite the similarities, I cannot match this more illustrious author in terms of level of confidence. I cannot bring myself to claim the things he does about his work. I don't believe my data is divine and I am not going to put in an application for sainthood for any of my interviewees. I am far too skeptical to take what my data says as gospel.  I acknowledge my data's fallibility, and recognise that there are gaps in it. Still, I will cling to my holey data for all that it is worth. I am very serious when I say that my life has changed through my data and that there are things my data can do for me which the Almighty cannot.

For one thing, my data is not jealous data. When it speaks to me, it encourages me to check other sources, look for other data to see what makes sense. In fact when I hear my data speak it often confesses to me it has not got the answer. It suggests to me  new directions  to look in, in order to find out more. So, my data helps me to broaden my perspective and through that I experience greater freedom.  My data is very patient with me and never forces me in any one path. It recognises that I might sometimes misinterpret it, but I am never judged for being wrong. A bad conclusion may make me feel the heat from a journal reviewer or I might be shot down in flames at a conference for making an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but at least there is no threat of an everlasting fire. Any heat that I get from others in the field will just help me to refine my way of thinking and writing. At the end of the day, I will be moulded into the finished article rather than having my insides burnt to a crisp for failing to turn over a new leaf when I had my chance.

Caribou- Photo from Environment and Natural Resources Canada

Apart from the fact that my data is merciful, I like that my data is objective. It tells me how things are rather than how I would want them to be. It also gets me to the heart of whatever I am studying.  At the university here in Calgary, I know people who are studying a myriad of  things, from species of wildlife  and  plants, to volcanoes and underground caves. In each case they gain their knowledge but studying whatever they are looking at in the highest level of detail  possible. If you are studying  caribou and want to determine what's best for them you have to spend time with them, observe what they like or don't like to eat, their migratory patterns, their mating habits, the way they care for their young and how they deal with predators. Yes, in spite of how many experts there may be in an area, nothing beats the knowledge that comes straight from the source, straight from the data itself. I heard a researcher express to me how easier her life would be if only the caribou could talk.The point being made here is that data takes you down to where the real knowledge is. It is as close as you can get to that  which you are studying. That's why my data means so much to me,

It is curious that what is good for studying flora and fauna is not always considered the best method for humans. We don't look to an invisible entity beyond the cosmos to give us mitigation measures for a falling  beetle population, but we choose to look  to a spaceless, timeless, intergalactic being for guidance on how to curb homicide rates in homo sapiens. Even if there is somewhere out there, something that created us, that has a purpose for us, why should we assume its  point of view regarding our lives is better than our own? Why should we consider him the expert on how we should run governments, what values we should believe in, how we should treat others or  who we should be having sex with?

God as powerful and wise as he may be has not had the experience of not being God. To me, even omniscience does not substitute for direct experience. I know  Christians will say that he knows what it is to be a man as he has been here in human form. Even if that is true he, according to them, was still a God when he was here."Fully man and fully God" they say, but that's not logically possible, it's like saying you ate an ice cream that was fully chocolate and fully vanilla. So, however  you look at it, whatever God is, he is not the same as you or me. If he was, then we would be Gods too. Whatever he experiences, it is not the same thing we experience.

The fact is, we are the ones who live in this neck of the woods in 2011 and go through what it is like to be human everyday.  It is disappointing to hear some religious people talk down human knowledge as if it has little or no value. They speak as if the moral codes, ethics and laws we develop mean nothing if we don't get a supernatural stamp of approval. I have no idea why millions of people in the world believe that this is so.

www.superstock.com

When I was a kid growing up in Barbados we regularly  played impromptu games of cricket after school or in the neighbourhood. We would determine among ourselves what the rules would be on the spot. Maybe we would play ' first hop' so that you could be out caught even if the ball hit the ground before the fielder caught it. Perhaps ' tip me two' where you had to try to run for two every time you hit the ball. At times we made a rule that if you hit the ball into 'Ms. Lewis yard ' that would be out. Maybe there was a time limit on how long you could bat. Sometimes we had specific boundaries marked out for fours and sixes, sometimes you would just keep running until you got too tired. The point is, we made up the rules and played by them and they worked because they were designed for us and we agreed on them. We didn't feel we had to refrain from playing because the rules we were using were not those sanctioned by the International Cricket Council. We didn't feel we needed to run home to ask our parents whether the rules we were using made sense. Who cared what anybody else looking on thought about how we were playing? It was really none of their business. If they wanted to join in then they could have a say in how we made the rules. That's the problem, God is a perennial non player and yet we want to look to him to decide on everything in our lives. Some will refrain from playing the game of life altogether unless they know exactly what the Almighty thinks about it. To me, this attitude makes no sense, God or no God.

That's why when I want to find out what is best for the energy sector in the Caribbean I speak to people who work there and encourage them to develop ways of doing things that work in their environment. People who are on the ground and know what is going on can tell what works and what doesn't in that community better than anyone else in the world. Yes, I can read the works of Nobel Prize winning economists and political scientists and gain some insights, but that will not make much impact unless I talk to the people who are part of the daily reality that I am studying.

Any CEO will tell you the same.  If you want to introduce a new policy, technology or process to a company , you have to talk with the people who work on the  'floor.' Make sure that they understand what you want to achieve and why you want to achieve it. No matter how brilliant the plan is from the head honcho, if the people below are unwilling or unable to comply with it, your plan is destined to fail. Success in industry almost solely depends on how clients accept a product, not what the producer thinks of it.  The iPhone took off because  customers liked the product, not just because Steve Jobs thought it was great.  Elmo is a phenomenon in the Sesame Street empire because children love him. The four year olds are the target audience, it's what they think that matters, it's not the opinion of marketing consultants with MBAs. I know tons of adults who can't stand the furry red monster, but that doesn't matter one bit.

It is beyond me therefore, why God's opinion so often comes ahead of the collective wisdom of all humans. Why is it that knowledge that bubbles up from within us is seen as inferior to that which is imposed top-down? For some reason, we just have to accept God's ways because he has more knowledge and can see the bigger picture when we can't. It doesn't follow. If God were an earthly Marketing Manager he would fail on the grounds that he did not successfully communicate his objectives to his subordinates and that  the product he designed was poorly crafted from the perspectives of those who planned to used it. The fact that he himself understood it perfectly  would be no defense. He could give a presentation of how the company would be better if people had followed the rule, but that would not be enough. He would be fired on account of not considering his stakeholders and their limitations. People would ask why he didn't have questionnaires, surveys or a 'complaints hotline' to tell him how his Creation Plan was working out for his creatures.

Yes, we are told that God created everything for us. One would think that we might have a least some small say in how things operate.Well, that's not part of God's way of leading. I suppose he does allow us to pray to him for what we want, but this is a charade really. It is like a government that holds a Town Hall Meeting to get comments on a policy document long after it has been approved by Cabinet. The Divine Strategic Plan was written into law long before we came into existence, any feeling that our petitions, prayers or other interventions have made a difference is purely an illusion.

So, at the end of the day, even if a God exists I still will look to my data first  for guidance. I will make my recommendations for humans based on the experience of  humans. When I am  commissioned to develop the Sustainable Energy Policy  for 'Angels and Heavenly Beings', I promise that calling upon God is the first thing that I will do. I will keep his contact information in my database for when that time comes. However, once my investigations are dealing with phenomena in the natural world I will continue to listen and put my trust in that which my data tells me.
.

A Praisey Mindset: The Sunday School song that starts it all

Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah! Praisey the Lord!

There is no way that you could have grown up going to Sunday School in the Caribbean and not know this song. I know, I know it's "Praise ye" not "Praisey" but it was years after my early Sunday School days that I understood that. So, the song will always be called 'Praisey the Lord' as far as I am concerned. You may laugh, but I used to think that Praisey was just another name for God. After all, the Lord seemed to have so many others, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Yahweh, Yeshua, Jesus, El Shaddai, Elohim, Saviour, Prince of Peace, the Alpha and Omega, why not Praisey? It made just as much sense as the other names at the time. There was even a period when I felt I had a personal relationship with 'Praisey'. Anyway as is the case with so many things you sing at church, the  meanings of words don't matter too much. So, I never asked for clarification.

Although there were other  tunes that could liven up a Sunday morning, none is engraved in my memory as much as 'Praisey the Lord.' It was a favourite of children and teachers alike . That secret weapon that any song leader could  introduce, certain in the knowledge that it would wake everybody up and have bodies moving in the pews. Even back in those days I was not certain that  the claim that Jesus was the saviour of the world  was true, but I knew that 'Praisey the Lord' could bring salvation to any boring Sunday school class.

It's interesting to look back and try to figure out why this song was always such a hit. ' Praisey the Lord' was by no means only for children either. Indeed, I can remember this song being launched in the middle of deanery youth services and even during  traditional Sunday morning 8 o'clock mass. I think what made the song so popular was that it was more than just a song. It was a fun game as well. Children, youths, adults and seniors  all like to play and that's what made 'Praisey the Lord' a winner.

The video above gives some indication of how you do 'Praisey the Lord.' Basically, that is how it went.  The congregation was divided into two halves. Generally each of the halves was assigned a song leader. One side of the church were labelled as team 'Hallelu'  and the other as
 'Praisey.' The introduction of the song would be played and the song leader would signal to the first side and they would  stand  and sing, "Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!"  They would then sit down and the other  side would stand and respond on cue with, "Praisey the Lord!" The leader would urge them to outdo the 'Hallelu' people in terms of volume. More often that not this was achieved. After that, battle lines were drawn, it was up to the 'Halellus' to raise the bar further and try to outdo the 'Praiseys' effort. And so as the song went on it got louder and louder and often faster and faster as people got more into it.

When the pace quickened it meant that you had to be lighter on your feet too, because you found yourself often back up in the air as soon as you sat down. So, if you didn't pay attention or were slow, you could get caught out standing for the wrong part, singing at the wrong time or missing your cue entirely.  Not surprisingly, as people sang faster and louder, tone and singing in key would go out the window. By the third or fourth 'Hallelujah' people were bellowing at the top of their voices, shouting like you would at a local fish market. Probably this was the only time as children that we were allowed to shout as loudly as our lungs would permit.  Believe you me, we stretched the envelope to the max. As a five year old it was simply astonishing to think you could get to that noise level without getting even so much as  a 'Shush' or 'finger on lip' from an adult in your midst. I suppose that was close enough to heaven for us.

The song could go for several rounds as people challenged themselves to take it up a notch next time. This meant that  the tune could easily last over 20 minutes . The climax was generally a rousing long held out ' Praaaaaaaiiiiiisey the Lord!'  Everyone joined in for that, even the 'Hallelus' who would reluctantly switch sides for the finale. Inevitably there would be some 'rebel' who would start up with another "Hallelu, Hallelu"and that would mean on for another lap, and the fun would continue. It was definitely hard to stop " Praisey the Lord" once in got going.

In recent times I seem to be remembering 'Praisey' a lot. It comes back to me regularly when I get into debates or discussions about God with Christians or listen to debates on podcasts or youtube. There is definitely a ' Praisey' mindset that seems to stay with you after Sunday School days.  I remember in my church days in Barbados writing two songs that actually gained some popularity on the gospel scene. One was called " Sing His Praises!" the other was called " Sing Hallelujah!" So I was definitely caught up in the 'praisey' fad myself. Today on Christian forums online you see  a lot of 'Praisiness' in evidence. Below is a fictional example, but it represents what you typically see.

Posted Message: I am happy to report that my daughter that had an asthma attack last night is now doing much better. The Lord is marvellous! Thank you all for your prayers. We must always give him praise.

Responder 1: Hallelujah, The Lord's name be praised!


Responder 2: He is worthy! Praise his holy name!


Responder 3: Hallelujah, Hallelujah!


Responder 4: Hallelu, Hallelujah, Praise his Name!


Responder 5: HALLELUJAH!!


Responder 6: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! PRAISE YE THE LORD


Responder 7: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! HALLLELUJAH!!! THE LORD'S NAME BE PRAISED


Responder 8: PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM!


Responder 9: PRAISE HIM!!! PRAISE HIM!! PRAISE HIM!!


Responder 10: PRAISE HIM!!!! PRAISE HIM !!!!!!PRAISE HIM!!!!!! PRAISE HIM!!!!!!


Responder 11: THE LORD IS SO GOOD! PRAISE, PRAISE PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIS NAME THE MOST HIGH!


Responder 12:  HAAAAALLLLLLLEEEEEEELUUUUJAH! PRAISE HIM!!

You can see clearly here the 'Praisey' influence that goes all those years back. The same two key words 'Hallelujah' and 'Praise'. Today in the 21st century, things have changed a bit. Instead of trying to drown out your neighbour with noise,  you add volume by using ALL CAPS or simply typing the word more times. To take things up an extra notch you bring in more exclamation marks!!!!!! and even bolding.  Then you can just elongate the words and repeat as much as you want. I saw someone actually post the message below, I am not kidding.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thankfully that person didn't bother to tack on 'Praise the Lord.' He would have probably needed a new laptop for that. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with believers using all the features available on their keyboard to get God's attention. It is clear that God is well into this internet age, he has millions of friends on facebook in spite of  the fact that he has no recent posts. I even heard a lady say that God downloads songs into her spirit. Not sure if he is using itunes but it is quite clear that the Lord is very open to working with the latest technology. Now it would appear that he has Steve Jobs himself to do the necessary updating.

I must admit that these things seem a bit comical to me, but in all seriousness, if you believe that God will hear you if you type more EMPHATICALLY, go right ahead. If you think it demonstrates your level of faith to your fellow believers when you do that, that is fine too. If you think that such proclamations in BOLD will bring unbelievers into the fold, that's OK too. If you believe in Him, no one should try to stop you from expressing yourself how you wish. So I can't say I am a fan of the atheists who respond to the 'Praisey' comments with "What the &*%#*@%*$&*%*$*%#@#!" It contributes nothing to the dialogue and only adds to keyboard suffering.

Where I have a problem is when the 'praisey' mindset finds its way into debates or discussions between atheists and theists regarding the existence of God. Similar to the way we did it when singing 'Praisey' as children, these debaters have specific words which the people on their side are required to say. They may 'hear' what the other side is saying, but it is not a matter of responding to an argument as much as it is restating what they said the time before. Maybe faster, in a louder voice in a different key but always the same message. Indeed, maybe they don't respond to atheist arguments because they assume what we are going to say. They think of us saying 'hallelu' and they just get up with 'praisey' all the time. And more often than not from a 'praisey' point of view they win hands down. There are more singing on their side than ours for sure, so we can't match them for sound. And just like the 'praiseys' in the Sunday School song they always seem to get the last word too.  The long held out phrase to end the discussion. It happens because often atheists get tired after a certain point, of making the same argument over and over without them  being addressed. We bow out once we realise we are not making headway. In a way, Christians make us play their game, for we end up being as repetitive as they are. We have to, because if they are not answering our points we end up having to restate them and it becomes as repetitive as "Hallelu."

The only difference is that we don't generally resort to turning up the decibels although we do try to change the rhythm and the tone as we go along, just to see if a different strategy will lead to better understanding. It seldom works, because they are only counting down the time as we talk, looking forward to springing up from their seats and shouting "Praisey the Lord" one more time.

So here's how the  'Praisey' mindset works in debates. The atheist makes a point the theists counters, the atheists counters the counter argument, the theists repeats original counter argument without any acknowledgement of directly previous counter argument from atheist. Atheist restates the previous counter argument that was not addressed by the theists last counter argument and the cycle continues. Sounds confusing? Here are two examples:

Praisey Argument One

Atheist:  I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. You are making the extraordinary claim that there is a supernatural being controlling everything in the world. The burden of proof is on you to give justification for that belief.

Theist: But where is your proof that God doesn't exist? You believe in science. I choose to live and praise my God. Science has not proved that there is no God.

Atheist: That is true, but the point I was making is that the burden of proof is on you, because you are making the God claim. It has to be like that, otherwise you couldn't say you didn't believe in fairies unless you could provide evidence for the non existence of fairies.

Theist: I am still waiting on your proof that your atheism is correct. You have not provided a shred of evidence on your side so far. Your position is just one of blind faith.

Atheist: No, it's not,  as I said before the burden of proof is not on the person who is challenging the claim. Atheism is not a faith anymore than 'off'is a TV channel. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Jeez, you just dance all over the place with a lot of fancy talk but you still have given me NOTHING! Not one piece of evidence to support your belief that no God exists. You expect me to take you seriously???? What is your evidence that God does not exist?

Atheist:  Again, I am saying to you that you are asking the wrong question. You are the one required to give support for your claim. I am not making any claim, my disbelief is due to lack of supporting evidence for your claim. Where is your evidence that Santa Claus is not real?

Theist: Well that does it. This conversation is over, you are not responding to me. Now you are answering my question with a question. You guys are so silly, no wonder God calls you FOOLS. Thank God I am not so blind to JESUS as you.YOU BETTER FALL ON YOUR KNEES WHEN HE COMES TO YOU.  All I can do is PRAY FOR YOU. OHHH PRAISE  THE LORD THANK GOD !

Praisey Argument  Two

 (This time the 'praisey' theist starts)

Theist: Oh praise the Lord! How can anybody look at the beauty of creation and deny that there is a God. It just doesn't make sense to me. They would have to be blind. .

Atheist: But the existence of the natural world is not evidence of anything other than the natural world. You can't just assume that God made nature and then claim that the existence of nature proves God, that's circular reasoning. You are assuming what you want to prove at the beginning. In any case if you think God made nature, then who made God? How do you account for him?

Theist: So who made creation then? How did all this get here? A design must have a designer? A painting must have a painter?

Atheist: Well,  we have ideas about origins of the universe through Big Bang cosmology but  still scientists don't have a clear idea of the state of the universe further back than the 'Planck time.' So, there are still many unanswered questions. I have to accept that I really don't know exactly  how everything got here, but a God doesn't help explain. Because you still have to explain his origins. You are just answering one mystery with another mystery.

Theist: Just as I thought. You don't know. I will ask you again. How can you get CREATION without a CREATOR? You think that all this came from nothing? When it comes down to it the answer that you atheists have to the big questions are " Don't have a clue, don't have a clue and don't have a clue."

Atheist: But you don't know either, you still haven't given an explanation for how your God got here. How did God come to be? Did he appear from nothing? You are making an argument from ignorance, putting in a God that you have no evidence to support. Then you claim that you know this God exists because of his 'creation.' Why do you assume that the universe was created?

Theist: You are so arrogant, now you are calling me ignorant. I can't understand why you keep denying God. How do you think you are able to breathe? Who gave you that oxygen? Who woke you up this morning? When was the last time you created a human being, MR. ATHEIST? You can't even do one millionth of what God can do. He created you, gave you life and a brain you could use and you use it to deny the existence of him who gave you everything. It's very sad. Why don't you just give God the Praise. ALL PRAISE AND GLORY ON TO HIM!

Atheist:  All those things are just assumptions. As I said before, you can't just assume that all of those things you mentioned were created by God if we are trying to establish whether God exists or not. You are just making bald assertions. All your arguments rest on the assumption that God's existence is fact. How can you know what God did if you can't even establish that God is? And we still haven't addressed the point about how God came to exist.

Theist: This is really ridiculous. You have no idea where anything came from and  yet you are rejecting my explanation that gives you all the answers you are looking for. God's creatures continue to choose darkness over light, blindness over sight and death over light. ALL CREATION TESTIFIES TO THE MAGNIFICENCE OF GOD. HE IS WORTHY, SO WORTHY, WORTHY TO BE PRAISED. I PRAY  that you will one day accept the LORD AS YOUR SAVIOUR!!! So that we can be  TOGETHER PRAISING GOD FOR ETERNITY IN HEAVEN!!!! SO, REPENT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!  HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LORD MOST HIGH!!!



Well, what can I say?  These are the 'praisey' arguments we see and hear everyday. I have to say that in spite of  what Harold Camping may be saying about October 21st, I feel we will be stuck with these types of arguments for many years to come. We in the secular community just have to be patient and continue to find strategies for survival. It won't be that easy in this 'praisey' world we live in.

Engaging with theists online: Trying to be direct without causing offence

I wasn't expecting it to be so impactful, but engaging in online discussions with theists has been quite a learning experience for me.  I am finding out everyday, that it is rather different from both blogging and face to face interaction and it requires a different set of skills. Online discussions are similar to  blogging in that you have time to sit down and craft what you want to say in the way you want to say it. This is something you don't have the luxury of doing in a face to face chat. In online discussions you have to however be even more careful than you are when blogging. A blog is something you throw out to the online world and people are free to take it or ignore it. It is speaking to the general populace rather than a specific individual and  people  can decide 'if the cap fits' as they read. When you are in a discussion with a single person or group online it is a different story. You are speaking more directly to the individual and it makes me feel as though I am speaking personally about his or her God and a related set of beliefs which is often held very dear.

So, as a result I am regularly bending over backwards to not be offensive in tone to a greater extent than on the blog. (Although I try to be sensitive in blogposts too). I therefore try to avoid the humour and sarcasm I would use to get my point across in blog writing, lest it make the person I am talking with feel uncomfortable. In practice, this effort of trying not to upset people makes writing responses online almost as challenging as writing a blog post. Yes, sometimes you feel like a West Indies batsman being fed an 'easy to hit' ball, short and wide outside the off stump. The sort of delivery that you have seen and played many times in your career. But you have to be careful. If you try to hit it too hard the result could be disastrous. A shot hit too ferociously and the opposition will claim you are taking unfair advantage and the game could be over before it's begun. So you have to try and caress the ball delicately between the fielders like Brian Lara used to do rather than go for a savage pull over mid-wicket in the vain of a Chris Gayle. It is so critical to get that balance right.

For the reasons stated above, it is sometimes takes me a few days to respond to a point a believer raises in a discussion. I am sure that they think the delay is because I am just stumped by the great arguments they come up with. Oh well, I am sorry to disappoint the theists out there. It's often that I am trying to decide on the appropriate stroke to play, thinking of the right response that will encourage more engagement and understanding of my point of view. I also take the additional time to try to understand the position of the person I am talking to and put myself in their shoes. This is actually more of a challenge than you might think. It is easy when you become an atheist to forget what it is like to think like a believer. When I say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, for me it's an obvious fact. However, for most Christians the statement is plain nonsense.  Of course there is evidence for God, it's all around us, every living thing including you yourself testifies to his greatness and power. To say there is no God is to turn a blind eye to the whole universe and even deny your own existence. It is not easy to explain to a person who has always taken God for granted why nothing in 'creation' counts as evidence. I am not sure I have always been successful making this point.

In attempting to be respectful, I have especially tried to stay away from comparing their God with leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I know that equating their God with such characters will tend to come across as demeaning. Yet, there are just times when I have to resort to this because there is simply no other way to make the point that the burden of proof for God's existence lies with them.

Photo from www.nationnews.com

Sno- cone with milk or without?

One of the main sticking points I have in these discussions is the idea of belief being a choice. It is often expressed to me how sad it is that the atheists ' choose' not to believe in God. They make it sound as if a decision about reality is like considering whether you prefer to have your sno-cone on a hot day in the Caribbean with our without  condensed milk at the top. They reason that it is irrational to choose a plain sno cone when you can get something  much sweeter without paying anything extra. I am sorry, you don't get to buy your own personal reality from a vendor pushing a cart.

Photo from bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately in this game of exchanging ideas, this playing field is about as level as the slope of the Pitons Mountains in St. Lucia. Whereas I am required to play carefully and watchfully, the opposition players are allowed to treat me as they like. There are no arguments that are not allowed for them, no limits to the number of bouncers they can bowl at me in one over. I recognise the double standard but I must admit that I am not unduly bothered. I am cognisant of the reality of holding an unpopular minority view, in a part of the world where God belief is almost as natural as breathing. However, I have to say that there is one ball which is being thrown at me often in these debates which I think should be deemed illegal. It's the famous quote from Psalm 14:1.

"The fool has said in his heart. There is no God."

I have refrained in discussions from calling believers on this tactic, but I want to say here that this is a definite  'no-ball' and does not represent an argument made in good faith (irony intended). It is basically just 'name calling.' I know the argument will be made that these are God's words and we shouldn't blaming the believers who are simply the messengers. But this doesn't really cut it because  they always make it clear from the outset that there are making their judgements based purely on what the ' holy book' says. So the words, " You are a fool!" are by default coming from their own mouths. This is in no form or fashion  an appropriate statement to say to someone that you want to have a respectful conversation with. I wouldn't dream of saying or implying that anyone was a fool at the outset of a debate , I wouldn't even want to suggest the person I am speaking with is by any means intellectually inferior. Level of intelligence is irrelevant in any case, because the only thing that matters in a discussion is the strength of the argument that is being put on the table. The quoting of Psalm 14:1 is a further insult due to the line that follows that is almost never quoted but would have to be equally applicable if the first line of the verse is to carry any weight.  Here is a little bit more of what God says about those fools who don't believe.

" They are corrupt, they have abominable works, there is none that does good."

Now I can't believe that the persons I have had conversations with actually think that way. If they did I don't see why they  would want to talk to me at all. You see, that is the conundrum you put yourself in when you go to the bible to argue your position. If you want the first part of the verse to apply you have to be comfortable with the second part as well. It's in the same verse of the same chapter of the same book in the same Book. Therefore you can't yell " Context!" So, my advice to the theists who are reading this is to try to refrain from using the Psalm 14:1 line of attack.

Having got that all out of the way, I thought I would leave you with a sample of an ongoing online discussion that I am having with Rachel (not her real name), a Christian living in the Caribbean. The dialogue has been respectful so far and I look forward to further interactions with her and others.I try to be firm and direct in stating my areas of disagreement while at the same time seeking not to disrespect her cherished beliefs. Have I got the balance right? I don't know. You can be the judge.


Hi David,

Let's use some reasoning from mere observation. If there is such a thing as an invention then one can readily conclude there must be an inventor.If there is a creature there must be a creator. The bible has so many truths. Man has questioned its validity because God allowed man to record His account of life. If the bible was strictly man's concoction we would have excluded all the failures and flaws and presented this perfect account to try to convince people to believe in the bible. We would exclude Abraham's lying, David's adultery, Jesus asking him for the cup to pass from him etc, but God has allowed man to see that sin and salvation are very real.

A lot of scientific discoveries were long time mentioned in the bible but the revelation of God's word is with those who seek Him. Even some of us Christians do not fully understand all that is revealed. There are some things God has chosen to remain silent on, but the things he has revealed are enough to keep us in this life. Many of you who claim to be atheists sooner or later call on the same one you say doesn't exist, that's why there are signs up saying " God doesn't believe in  atheists." One writer said " A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I choose to believe in God rather than man. I think it is sad that (you) the creature are now denying the creator. David, God loves you and I pray that you will one day be drawn to God through that love.

Hi Rachel,

You have raised a number of things which I will try to go through one by one. Firstly, you make the argument that just as every invention needs an inventor, every creature needs a creator. This does not necessarily follow. We know having observed human beings , exactly how man creates. We can see the templates, equations, architectural and engineering drawings. We have seen builders and technicians take these concepts from mind and paper to implementation and we can visit the factories and see these transformations take place.

For things that occur in nature we have no such evidence. That is how we are able to distinguish between the natural and the man made; how we know that a skyscraper was built and an underground cave was not. If we posit that a special creator made all the things in nature that man did not, then we are left with the question of where the creator came from and who made him, her or it. This just creates a bigger mystery, because we need an explanation for the creator too.

I don't see how the portrayal of man's failures in the bible counts as evidence that the bible came from God and how we can surmise that man if he made it up would have left out these failings. Indeed, I think those failings help to make the stories more compelling. It shows how the characters in the bible have triumphed in spite of their own personal limitations. Such stories often move us emotionally, as we may even see aspects of ourselves as we read. Why would biblical writers not want to include these things? I consider that the essential point of showing the human failures is to emphasize how much God is needed to make us whole. That idea is what leads people to think that they need God's salvation and that's exactly what anyone that has the objective to spread that belief system would want.

I have heard it said that many scientific discoveries were mentioned in the bible. Yet, so many things in the bible directly contradict what we have discovered through science. Things like a seven day creation, plants created before the sun they would need for photosynthesis, illnesses caused as a result of demon possession. There is nothing in the bible about microbes, DNA,electrons or black holes. Knowledge of these things 2000 years ago would have saved millions of lives and put our development light years ahead. I just can't see how the bible has served as a benefit to science.

I know that many Christians will say that we atheists when we find our backs against the wall will cry out to the same God that we claim doesn't exist today. I have strong doubts about that, but since I have not yet been in that situation as an atheist, I cannot tell you for certain what I would do. So, maybe I would call out to God. But that would make him no more real or unreal than he is now. You consider that my not believing does make God not real and I agree. But the opposite must hold as well. Me believing tomorrow would not be proof there is a God.

Arguments must stand on their own logic. I think that the decision I come to when I have the chance to consider the evidence carefully without pressure is likely to be better than the one I come to when I am under intense stress or in a highly emotional state. It is one of the reasons why psychologists advise us not to make major life decisions when we are angry.

Rachel, I know that your desire to reach out to me to show me God's love is sincere. I know you consider  you have found something precious and you want to share it, that's great. I hope you understand that I have considered all the things you said. I had years of wrestling with these issues and there are even moments that I wish I could believe again just to be at one with many friends and family. However, I just can't. My heart cannot accept what my mind does not.

What I want to let you know is that I am not sad and you don't have to feel sorry for me. Life without my old beliefs is far from unhappy, indeed it is very fulfilling. Since I have left faith I too have found something precious. a sense of being free, not to do whatever I feel like, but to think without fear.

 

One data point is not enough! : Why personal experience fails as evidence for God

Jeez, they have been so many eventful moments since I have 'come out' as an atheist. Perhaps none has been as bizarre as a few weeks ago when I was out at a dinner in New York. On that occasion a lady told me that I could have a relationship with Jesus if only I would take the time to ask him. I told her that would be a very tough ask, because I had never seen him and have no clue where he is. I told her it felt a bit weird to just start talking out loud in the hope that he would just happen to hear me. In fact even if I was lucky enough to 'hear' something  from out of the dead air it would be impossible to know if it was He. It would be like taking me to a school hall with 900 screaming children telling me I need to talk with Jabari Smith and giving me no further information on how to  identify him. It's highly unlikely I would successfully make the connection.

I honestly  have no idea how to even begin to try to find Jesus. Finding Jesus is a step that most Christians take for granted, but I would not know where to start looking for an immortal, non physical, spiritual being.  I explained to my friend that since she had the personal relationship with Jesus, presumably knew what he looked like, where to find him, what his schedule was like and  the best way to approach him, it would  be better for her to do the introduction. She would be the ideal person to break the ice, so to speak. Once she pinned him down and pointed him out I could go from there.

She laughed a bit at what I was saying but it didn't take her long to agree that I had a point. It would  be better for her to ask her Lord to come and show himself to me. We both recognised in those minutes it was strange that God would provide the greatest evidence of his existence to those who already believed anyway and be stingy with giving the revelation to skeptical people honestly and often painstakingly searching for the truth. So, she agreed to call upon Jesus to explain himself and to my surprise that is exactly what she did. Yes, right there in the middle of the restaurant she cried out loud to her Lord and Saviour. As she closed her eyes, and stretched out her hands in front of her, these words came forth from her lips:

" Dear Jesus, I plead with you tonight, you have never failed me before. Please reveal yourself to David, you know he has a scientific mind so he is asking for more from you, you know exactly what it is that  he needs. So please provide him with that which will satisfy his questioning mind. I ask this in your name, Christ Jesus, Amen."

I stood there still wondering whether to laugh or stare at her in amazement.Quite a thing to have somebody spontaneously pray for you in the middle of a busy New York restaurant. I kept my composure however and answered her very seriously. I told her that there is no way that I could ignore a prayer like that if I was God. If God was kinder than I was, which was unquestionably the case as far as she was  concerned,  I didn't see how he could not answer such a prayer from a sincere believer. What's more, she claimed God had never failed her before, why would he start now? So we just agreed to wait and see what God would do. Well unfortunately, I have to report that he has not shown up yet. Still, I have to remember that our time is not God's time so I will continue to wait patiently.

While waiting on the Lord, I am starting to realise that Jesus may be delayed because he must recognise the conundrum he is in, trying to answer that restaurant prayer request. One of the consequences of having a 'scientific mind' is that to accept the truth of any claim you require that it be verified by other observers. Yes, one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is intersubjectivity.Other people must be able to do the experiment and get the same result. One person's observation how ever dramatic or amazing is not sufficient for something to be accepted as truth. Even if the one observer in question is ME. To put it simply; one data point is not enough! You can't use a subjective experience to draw a conclusion about the objective world. If personal experience was just used to determine whether God existed in you that would be one thing. No, religious people are claiming God exists for everybody and is part of  a universal objective reality and that changes the game entirely.

Many people think that the reason they know something is real is because they see it with their eyes, hear it with their ears or feel it in their fingers. This is not the case. I know that the sun is there not only because I can see it, but many around me also have the same experience. They observe the same colour as me, the same temperature and the same shape in the sky. If I was the only person seeing the sun or if everybody else saw the sun was green , I would have to question my own powers of observation. I would have to think I have some flaw in my biology. Indeed that is the method through which we determine whether persons are suffering from a mental illness. If what they claim they see is not what others considered normal are seeing, we say the person that 'sees' differently is delusional. A 'shared reality' is an assumption that we all make when examining the world.So, even if Jesus came in front of me, raptured me into heaven, sat me down on his knee, gave me all the powers to do miracles for a day it still wouldn't be enough. For it could  all just be in my head , purely a dream.Without someone else to experience it with me it is just one account, one solitary data point.

I spend most of my days doing doctoral research, specifically looking at issues related to energy. I am trying to figure out what causes Caribbean countries to adopt or not adopt renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. In trying to understand what are the factors I have  visited  11 countries and done 80 interviews in total with various stakeholders who have a myriad of different perspectives on the issue. I am following that up with surveys and more quantitative analysis. Still, even after such a study the most I can do by the end is say that the data suggests that the truth is "X". Just imagine if I had just spoken to one person in one place and said " Aha, now I understand it all !" or worse yet just written an essay of my own experience of working in energy, and presented it as "evidence of truth." Rightfully, I would be laughed out of my thesis defence.

I went through that example above to show how difficult it is to provide evidence to a 'scientific mind.' It also starkly contrasts with evidence from the 'religious mind'. For Christians the greatest evidence for the love of Jesus is the personal experience. How often have we heard that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship.  Make no bones about it, Christians may come with their armoury of cosmological, teleological or ontological arguments but once you dig beneath the surface it is all about faith. I have been told in quite a few discussions recently with Christians that they did believe the bible at first by blind faith. It was something that was taught to them when they were a child and they accepted it. But, they go on to emphasise that through their own lives since then, they recognise that what they learnt was true. When they say this to me they often look proud of themselves, because they think they have followed the scientific method that I promote so strongly.

 However, this is another point of diversion between faith and science. In science we are challenged to disprove that which we first believe. You try to disprove a hypothesis and if it survives these attempts then it can earn the right to be accepted as a theory. So, not only do you need many data points you need to seek out persons who interpret the data differently or have alternative explanations. You have to find the skeptics and try to convince them. This is what religious people almost never do, they go in at the outset looking for data that confirms their initial premise, leading to what is known as confirmation bias. Christians are perfectly happy to ignore alternative explanations that skeptics provide, but still regard the interpretation they have chosen to accept as evidence for their God. This is a fail from all perspectives. They end up with one data point and a questionable one at that.

Perhaps its because my career is in research, but in talking with christian fundamentalists I always try to get to the root of the personal experiences they have had.The personal experience that justified their conclusion that the entire gospel as told in the bible is true. They often speak of one event early in their Christian lives that did it for them. Quite often the great experience falls somewhat short of the miraculous. Here are some examples I have encountered:

Christ without Concordance
- Soon after I accepted Jesus into my heart, I read the gospels which talked about the promises of God and Jesus. Without the use of a concordance or any other outside guidance I was able to see the promises being fulfilled in other books on the bible as I read them. That is something that nobody I know has been able to do unless they had a concordance. There is no way I could have done that without the help of Jesus himself, that's how I know his promises are true.

Playboy versus Economist
- "One week  after I became a Christian I went to a barber shop and was waiting to get my hair cut. On the table were two magazines, one was Playboy the other was The Economist. I took up the copy of The Economist and started to read it. Someone I went to school with, that had not seen me for years came into the shop and saw me reading. He said, " You are a changed man. Years ago I am sure you would have picked up the other magazine." That was a sign to me from God. I had asked him to give me evidence, through other people's observations that I was a changed man. The fact that people like my old school friend could see I was changed after accepting Christ was the evidence I needed that Jesus was real."

My Grandmother was a Christian
- "I grew up in China and one of the strongest relationships I had was with my grandmother. She was always there for me and instilled in me a strong self belief and sense of moral values. Unfortunately she died two years ago.When I came to Canada I found a church where I was taught all about Jesus and how he died for my sins. That really moved me. Recently a family member in China revealed to me that my grandmother was actually a Christian, I never knew that when she was alive. In China life can be difficult if you say you are a christian so you have to keep it hidden. I realised right then that the reason my grandmother was such a loving person was because she was a Christian just like the beautiful people that I met here in Canada. After this I was sure that Christ had a plan for me and I accepted him into my heart and was baptised."

Moving as these accounts may be, it is hard even for the most ardent believer to understand how any of these examples are proof of  Jesus and God. Indeed, when I listen to some of these types of testimonies I make a point of looking in the faces of other believers present.Often their facial expressions and body language indicate that they are not really convinced by their fellow believer's evidence.  They will say something like "well if that's what you believe, hold on to it, that's your testimony, nobody can take that from you." You don't get a "Wow, I understand that is definitely clear proof!"  Yes, that's the great thing about these personal experiences, they only have to be good enough for YOU. It doesn't matter if they are laughable to every other Christian at the table. The only people that matter are you and God. In fact the more individual or personal the experience is the stronger it is regarded. So, in Christianity one data point is actually better than many. The whole thing is just backwards.

Of course, many Christians will say that it is not one data point. There are thousands and millions of personal experiences with Jesus. Surely even by the standards of  the most rigorous scientific study, this is enough data. The problem with this is that many of these testimonies are of the type I talked about earlier. Only accepted by the one who experienced it. Each of the testimonies are like experiments conducted with only one data point. And each experiment is rejecting at least some part of the methodology used by the other scientists, even if the conclusion and results are the same. The thing is, in many situations the conclusions contradict directly, it's as if some people see a yellow sun while others are seeing  green, blue or purple. Not everybody is seeing the same Jesus. In such a case we just can't aggregate the individual 'studies'. It still comes down to many single unreliable data points. There is a view among some Christians that if you  stack  enough invalid  pieces of evidence together at some point you have enough to make one good piece of evidence. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the scientific world. One million multiplied by zero is still zero.

So, given the sample size problem that God will have in giving me an experience to satisfy my 'scientific mind,'  my wait may be indefinite. Still, as my friend in the restaurant noted, God if he is there, knows exactly what I need. He is, after all, supposed to be omnipotent. I tell you, if he can convince me that I only need one data point for evidence, I pray that he also convinces the other scientists at this university. If he does that miracle, he would immediately make my thesis defence a real 'walk in the park.'