Keeping an apartment empty: The perils of embracing a belief too early

When I first heard it I thought it was an unorthodox way of looking at faith. However, over the last few months as I have talked to various believers it has become almost the universal response. " Me, I am not about religion, I don't subscribe to all these creeds and rules and pastors pontificating as if they know it all, I am just about following my God who transcends all of these man made religions."

It is the kind of response that  sometimes  makes  Christians who stumble across my blog consider that we are in agreement.  When they see title ' No Religion Know Reason' they nod and say, "Yes I don't believe in religion either, we would probably be better off without it we should just concentrate on God." I think this is actually quite a remarkable shift in the way people look at things, particularly in the Caribbean. When I was growing up it would have been considered nothing short of blasphemy to decide you were going to just go with your own personal faith, turning your back on the tenets of your church's teachings. So perhaps that makes these persons consider themselves progressive believers within there own environments of conservatives, but to me they still have a way to go.

Often when you ask these believers to describe what THEIR God is like, you get some very vague descriptions.  However, in many cases their God is not so far from the  religion they claim they are free of as you may think. Some I have spoken with still consider themselves to be strong believers in Jesus and many still view the bible as the text that they live their life by. Some will say they are unsure about the Jesus thing, but still say they believe in ONE God who they would often still call HE. Now these people, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, I still consider religious. And when I say   'No religion' I am including them too.

Greta Christina recently talked on this subject about the problem with such believers hoping that atheists will give special acceptance because they are saying, that they don't fall into the neat box of a  traditional belief system. You can read her account here. I feel her a lot when she says that. When they construct or customise their personal belief system they use the building blocks of religions and faith traditions they have been exposed to. Are they saying that Jesus was their own private revelation? What about the one God? It is interesting that everybody I have met who clams to have found God on their own acknowledges one and only one. I have found no one who has told me their personal search in faith has led them to GODS. As vague as the deity they claimed to have found there is always ONE of HIM, just as is the case in the Judeo- Christian - Islamo faith that they claim to have no link to. But why? If you admit you really don't know much about the deity how can you be sure about attributes of gender and number?

The people who  have these very loose God definitions regularly admit that they are not sure at all about many of the characteristics of their God and will concede that there is indeed much mystery about him we have yet to unravel. From this perspective they will consider that they are not much different from the atheist, in that they are not making presuppositions. Their minds are open, unlike many of their colleagues who have dogmatically declared in detail exactly who God is, what he wants and how he will judge our actions. When atheists asks these moderates why they are insistent that there is a God at all, they constantly point out the gaps in science. They rightfully claim that science has not adequately answered questions of origins either of the universe or biological life. They feel that with these gaps they are at least justified in tentatively assuming a God exists  until such time as science finds better answers. They  can't conceptualise a universe without some sort of starter upper and they just throw in God as that entity even if in practice God at this point becomes no more meaningful than unknown variable'X'

Placeholder God

This kind of God belief I see as a ' placeholder' God. The believer is simply putting God in for the time being in the absence of better evidence . This type of approach is not altogether unreasonable. I have done it in my working career  from time to time. There are a lot of software programs particularly that use excel that don't allow you to leave 'cells' empty. So there were times when I had to put in 'dummy' variables to show trends in energy prices or demand when I couldn't get all of the exact data I needed. Electronic surveys sometimes don't let you continue until you have given an answer to certain key questions.  At school, it was considered a 'sin' to not give an answer to a multiple choice question  Even if you had no idea of the answer, you always had a chance of guessing right.

I think putting an idea about God into a scientific knowledge gap in the mind is more like filling the empty apartment than  making that eeny, meeny ,miney, mo determination in a multiple choice exam. For one thing at least the suggested answers in multiple choice have some feasibility about them.Often all are somewhere close to the right answer. The God response on the other hand could be light years away from the truth.

There can be serious consequences for inserting a random belief in your brain where the appropriate response is " I don't know." Just as there are dangerous implications for accepting 'just anybody' into an apartment you have for rent without any background checking. Tenants in a new home, settle themselves in once they are giving the go ahead from the landlord that they can stay, even if they are told they may be one day asked to make way if an estranged family member returns. They pick out their furniture, choose the colour of their drapes and put down their carpets. Soon after their family photos are on the wall  along with the paintings from Egypt that they got on their vacation of a lifetime 10 years ago. Before long they are talking with their neighbours and their kids are running around with the eight year old boy next door. They sing lustily and drink heavily at the annual Christmas party in the avenue. They are a part of the community and feel just as entitled to its benefits as the guy who lived in the area since 1970.

New Beliefs moving in

Beliefs, however loosely held, do the same thing once you give them a place in the mind. They become a part of you and they mix with the other ideas next door and feel just as much a part of you as those others in the area that had to go through a much more rigid vetting process to be allowed in. Yes, faith ideas and scientifically justified ideas run around and socialise in the mind just as the tenants of all different ilk do in the neighbourhood. Not surprisingly, after a while it's very hard to tell different types of ideas apart when they have all been living together for so long. Perhaps many would say it doesn't matter ultimately, but the problem comes when one day that better answer comes along, the one you want to take the place of your 'placeholder' God. You find the tenant you were looking for years ago, the one that will keep the place exactly as you would want it and pay you exactly what you want  for it. But, it's not so easy. What do you do with the incumbent in the place. Yes, you did make it clear that he might be out sometime if circumstances led to it, but how can you just throw a family that was living there for years on to the street? Common decency and humanity just wouldn't let you do that.

Even if you resolved that you would ask the family there to leave, you still at least have to give them time to move out, get their stuff together and find alternative accommodation. Apart from your own misgivings, there will be friendships made in the neighbourhood that will be hard to let go.To me, ideas like 'God placeholders' are no different when we put them into our minds. As much as people talk they will not be able to just let go of them when they find the right answers tomorrow. Ideas have an emotional attachment to the minds they inhabit and there is no way they are just going to get up and get out of there right away. There is always baggage that comes when these thoughts move in and in some cases there may have been a family of ideas that have emerged from the original beliefs  during the period of stay. Getting these ideas out of the mind are difficult. Sometimes  it is so hard you have to reject this ideal tenant, the perfect idea, because it's too impractical to get the old one out. Other times the new one can come in but it has to wait for the moving out process to be complete and this just leads to frustration. By the time the new 'right' idea moves in so much time has been lost its almost not worth it. At the end of it all it would have been so much easier if you had just waited a bit longer and kept the apartment empty until the right tenant came along.

Darwin's Accommodation Woes

 Maybe you are still not convinced that the analogy holds. A landlord might reject an 'ideal' tenant but surely no one is going to hold on to a bad idea when presented with one  better? Well that didn't seem to happen when Mr.Darwin came knocking in the 1800s. Armed with his fossils and finches Darwin tried to checked in to many places but so often it was simply a case of no room in the Eden Garden Inn.  Fossils for many just did not seem to fit with their beautiful paradise apartments, so in many places in spite of his well developed theories and answers to so many questions Darwin just could not find a place to lay his head. Even today he is left out in the cold in many places, and there are many that are so snobbish they don't even want to give him the privilege of coming to one of their tea parties.

Thankfully Darwin has found more places to live as the years have gone on , but it has not always been easy for the bearded biologist. There are many landlords who have recognise the value of Darwin and seek to accommodate him in their dwelling, but for reasons we have talked about earlier, they have not been willing to put out the couple that has been in there since the Genesis. So in neighbourhoods all over the world Darwin has been asked to share the flat with Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve. It has been a relationship, that has not surprisingly been filled with tension. It is bad enough sharing an apartment with a couple that insist on running around half naked but Darwin as the new guy has had to play by some strange rules. There are fruits on display that he is told he is forbidden to eat and he has been told he can only study his fossils if he is prepared to complete all his specimen dating within six days. Sleeping has been no picnic either,  there have been many times he has woken up to find a cold slithery body moving up his torso. Yes, he has had to deal with an in house reptile too. However, perhaps nothing has been more scary in this living arrangement  than the old man that has his bedroom upstairs. He rarely emerges from his  room but he  just shouts  his commands and expects complete  and immediate obedience. " My way or the highway!" is the message Darwin has gotten in this place everyday.

Well, us residents of Atheists Avenue have done or best to help Darwin with his difficulties in finding suitable accommodation. By not yielding to the temptation over the years to bring in the young fig leafed couple, Darwin has been able to settle easily into our abodes and do all of his fossil dating and verifying  of nested hierarchies without bother. He can move all over the apartment without limit and no one will complain about bones left all over the floor. He's been able to expand his work and now DNA models are laid out on tables which in other apartments were laden with forbidden fruit.We have really created a Darwin heaven and we believe it  has made the world better.

Likewise we atheists have a special apartment open for the special creator should that time ever come.

When I was a Christian I was often told that it was important to wait on the Lord. Wait on him to provide the right job, the right spouse, the right country to live in. You just couldn't rush him and try to make a decision before he was ready for you. Well, we atheists have been waiting on the Lord too. Indeed we have been patiently looking out the window for centuries, but no one supernatural has yet  come knocking at our door.  Still, the moment that he, she, it or they show up we will be sure to usher whoever or whatever straight into that empty apartment that we have always kept in mind for them.

Atheists of the Caribbean: So much we can learn from each other

Facebook ' Caribbean Atheists'

If I had the funding I would make the movie. Yes, ' The Atheists of the Caribbean.' I can tell you they are an awesome group. I was fortunate over the last two years to meet a few of them as I travelled doing research on renewable energy sources in the region.

Standing on their own in most cases, these atheists are like islands of the Caribbean in themselves. Tiny skeptical land masses surrounding by a raging sea of fundamentalism that constantly batters their shorelines. Yet, in spite of their isolation they are making a difference and you can see no small measure of resilience wherever they are. It was an inspiration to meet everyone of these individuals. I met with atheists living in or with  roots in Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica and Belize. All of these atheists are active online and speak on issues related to atheism generally through facebook, Atheist nexus and/or blogs. Their thoughts are well worth reading. To Lori, Derrick, Seon, Carolyn, Elayne, Omar and Mr. A, I thank you for taking the time to meet and chat.

It was always a step into the unknown when I met with these persons at various restaurants, bars or coffee shops. They say you can never judge a book by its cover and you certainly can't judge an atheist by their online persona either. It is a funny thing when you get together with a total stranger where the only thing you know about them and they know about you is that you both disbelieve in the same Gods. Sometimes you sit down thinking that the other person is just going to  start up on some anti religious rant, taking up a thread of an argument that you have read on one of their blogs or atheist  posts.

Of course it never happens like that. You  realise quite early that the one who sits before you is a real person, one that has a family they love, groceries they have to pick up, a car they need to take to the mechanic, or an annoying coworker that grates on their last nerve. Often  in these chats it took a while even for the subject of religion to come up. I suppose that religion has so much indoctrinated us that even atheists sometimes have stereotypes of atheists. What I found though as we explored topics and issues generally, is that there was always a deep connection. We often would meet a second time to follow up on discussions. I always left feeling as though I had known the people I was talking to for years. It is true that atheists only necessarily agree on the one issue, but there are inevitably many other similarities that come to the surface. Generally it's an interest to learn more about the world around you.

It was also a thrill for me because I so rarely get the chance to connect with someone with whom I share a bond with both culturally and ideologically. Hearing,  "Man, belief in God don't make no sense, you need to show me de evidence!" stated emphatically  in various West Indian accents was like music to my ears. With all due respect to my my atheist and secular friends in Canada there is something about the mix of intellectualism and joie de vivre that makes meetings of atheist Caribbean minds unique.

Transitioning through the faiths

However, as much as there are obvious similarities between atheists,  it is the differences that really provide the interest. What fascinated me was the different starting points that brought people to where there were. One thing that I discovered was that quite a few atheists had gone through transitions in their religious beliefs. This is quite different from my story. For me, once I came to the conclusion that my Christian God did not exist I became an atheist and had no urge to explore the validity of other faiths or philosophies, even though I still found interest in reading about them. Not so with others. I heard stories of Nuwaubianism, Yahwism and Buddhism that people went through before they embraced atheism. In some cases it was actually people in another religion or sect that first challenged the traditional Christian doctrine the former believer  was exposed to and that's how they made their first move. 

At times the challenge had come through criticisms of the euro centric nature of Christianity and the whole idea of buying in to the 'white man's' religion. One person explained to me how compelling this argument was to them until  one day they turned  the skepticism on their new religion and realised that there was no more evidence for the black man's religion as their was for that of the colonisers. This to me is instructive, it supports this idea, common  in the Caribbean that everybody MUST believe in something.  When holes are shown in your doctrine it just means that you haven't found the right one yet. The true religion is out there you just have to keep searching. In the Caribbean faith game, 'not playing' is never an option.

An interesting contrast to the going for the  more 'black' religion was given by one person who spoke of how during their youth they started to explore different types of music, art and fashion outside that associated with their black West Indian upbringing. This experimenting with new outside cultures caused them to challenge their religious culture too which led to exploring different philosophies, eventually ending at  atheism. It is amazing how often the road to atheism just starts from a simple decision to step outside one's cultural boundaries.

The advantages that these atheists have had in going through the transitions is that they can now  understand religion from many perspectives. It's also perhaps significant that many of the Caribbean atheists have travelled a bit or even left their homeland entirely. Being able to look at yourself from outside appears to have a huge influence on religious belief.

This is one area where I think the Caribbean atheist may have an advantage over some of their North American counterparts. Most atheists I have met in Canada have just been nominal Christians if that. It's hard for such atheists to wear the shoes of the believer. We in the West Indies seem to have a closet full of old footwear at our disposal.

Two roads to atheism

I suppose because the bible is so often presented in  the Caribbean as the inerrant Word of God, it is the discovery of the atrocities, absurdities and contradictions in this book that put the first chink in the armour of many. One person told me that they were reading a bible story to a child one day and after finishing said, " This is rubbish! I can't believe this anymore!"  For this person  religion became something they wanted to resist and withdraw from and the fact that a parent was a pastor just made them want to turn away even more.  Another person told me that it was science that did it. The mere fact of going to school and learning Biology just lit up something inside. For this person religion never really 'took' and it was easy to see the creation, flood stories and the like as the myths that they were. It does seem to me that this illustrates two distinct roads to atheism. One through acceptance of the scientific method another through identifying the dents in the dogma.

The difficulties in  ' coming out.'

This was perhaps the topic that I spent most time addressing with the atheists in the islands. This is a thousand times more of an issue than those atheists that I know in Canada. There are some in Canada that are apprehensive about declaring themselves, but by and large in this country it is not a big deal. Religion in Canada is something you basically just don't talk about much anyway. Fundamentalists tend to keep their doctrine  and rhetoric behind their church doors. A few people will proudly speak in public of their religion as an important part of their cultural identity, but that's usually as far as it goes. If you enquire about how often they go to their place of worship or what rituals they do, they often look at you in absolute horror and make sure to clarify that they are 'non practising.' So, I have met out of practice, Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Hindus,  Buddhists and Muslims. The way a lot of these non practicers talk they seem  embarrassed about faith even though they feel they have to embrace it for the sake of their families and communities.  Declaring atheism in such an environment may make you appear a bit of a traitor to your people but you certainly won't get arguments regarding the rationality of your choice.

The Caribbean is the opposite of course. Your religion is something you wear proudly like the "S" on Superman's chest. I was in Dominica during Holy Week and I swore there was a competition to see who could wear the biggest cross without spraining their neck. In such environments atheism is simply a ridiculous notion. A caller to the 'Thinking Atheist' last weekend said that in his part of the world, if you don't believe in a talking snake you are the one with a mental problem. The Caribbean is very much the same. In fact one person told me people actually thought their atheism was a mental illness and people wondered how they were able to avoid being locked up in a mental institution and could have the cognitive ability to be able to teach mathematics.

Atheists who have put themselves out there in the Caribbean even in small circles have faced quite a bit of opposition. One atheist married to a Christian told me that their spouse was being encouraged to file for a divorce purely on the grounds that their partner was an atheist. It isn't easy being an atheist in general and in the Caribbean the difficulty shoots off the charts. Every one of the atheists that I have talked to in the Caribbean has revealed to me that he or she is the only one in their family(immediate and extended). My situation is the same. I hear people in North America talking about being second generation and third generation atheists. This is a concept completely foreign to us in the Caribbean. And  so in our islands many who are quite active in the atheist forums and blogs have not come out to close family members. There are two that have told me that they simply will not ever tell their mothers, because the heartbreak would be simply too much for either her or them to bear.

There are concerns over job security and future career prospects. I was hearing a story where someone was asked point blank whether they believed in God in the middle of a job interview. I would say there is considerable anxiety about rocking the boat of religion right through the region although there do appear to be some island differences. I was told in Barbados that a bus campaign like the  'There's Probably no God' ones undertaken in the UK, USA and Canada could be effective. In Jamaica I was told, "Absolutely not!" The buses would be vandalised before they even left the station.

There was also one person who had been living in the Caribbean for a relatively short time and while perturbed by the religious indoctrination of the masses and very supportive of regional secular efforts did not want to be seen as the voice from outside trying to tell the locals how they should live.  This atheist prefers to stick to their online blog where I can tell you that they don't pull any punches.

I understand all these points and respect the fear of victimisation that so many people referred to. I think apart from fear there is not the same desire to knock down religious beliefs as I sense from atheists in places like the US. For my part when I look back at religion it is with a tinge of nostalgia rather than deep animosity. In the Caribbean, by and large religion has not caused the suffering as much as in has in some other places. The mega churches and tele evangelists that swindle their way up north are generally less evident in the Caribbean. Memories of  church from my youth are filled with images of picnic excursions, running about at Sunday School, singing lively action songs and church army ladies beating tambourines There are also memories of intense boredom sitting through services, but being boring is not a crime. Most of us have many dear persons in our lives still very devout and  indeed church is where for many of us our social lives revolved in years gone by.  It is where we would look to find girlfriends and boyfriends. I can think of many couples that met in some form or fashion through the church.

In the Caribbean the main interest by atheists I spoke to is to get the questioning started. Trying to create skeptics rather than atheists. And this brings me to the other main point of the discussions. Should we call ourselves atheists?

Atheists or not?

This is a ticklish one and  views certainly varied. I think we all agreed that whatever the strategy we would have to get our views out into the society gradually. One freethinker that I met who had over 40 years as a humanist suggested that it was better to try to stay clear of the term 'atheist' altogether because of the negative connotation and the history associated. " Atheism doesn't really offer anything, people need something to replace their religion with if you are telling them to give it up." The view expressed was to therefore embrace humanism and promote that.

Other people felt that critical thinking was what really mattered and there was no reason to look at challenging religion at all, just let the Christians be, they may be mistaken but we don't need to be constantly trying to take their crutch away. The other view put on the table was that we needed to put atheism out here because it was important to remove the stigma. The idea of atheism has never even entered into the head of most Caribbean people. Just letting people know that not believing in God is not tantamount to selling your soul to the devil would be a huge step.

I agree to an extent with all these arguments, but I must say from a personal standpoint I think identifying as an atheist is very important.  I believe the time has come  to challenge belief and anything less than an outright " I don't believe you" is going to seem like we are telling religious people that we are fine with you just continuing living by faith. Having said that, I am strongly in favour of letting people be where they want to be as atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, humanists, agnostics or whatever. To me, anyone who is in support of making people think about their beliefs more is my ally.

So, what have I come away with from all of these discussions and interactions? Well, I am thinking that in the Caribbean there is a need for two groups.

1. Critical thinking advocacy group-

 This organisation would be designed to promote general skepticism and critical thinking towards claims both inside and outside of religion. It should also have the general promotion of science as a pillar in its mandate. This group could include atheists and agnostics as well as moderate religious people (yes, believers). I think having a group that contained people of faith and no-faith would take away the fear that our mission is all about taking God out. Yet, it will make it clear that  there are believers out there that respect atheism as a viable position which can emerge from skepticism. Who knows? There may even be some believers that will be attracted to a group like this and lose their faith as they apply more skepticism in their lives. Whatever the case, beliefs of everyone involved in such a group are likely to become less rigidly held as the process goes along.

2. Atheist support group

This group would be purely for atheists and designed to support people who find themselves isolated and perhaps even depressed after letting go of faith. A society that has more critical thinking ideas in its mainstream is invariably going to lead some people to lose their belief in God. It's important to reassure people that this is OK and there are people to support them on this side if they happen to land on  non belief after they have investigated their faith. This would not be a group in any way seeking to make anyone an atheist. The message would simply be , "If you are an atheist, we are here for you!" I think this would help people a lot. I believe the reason people stop short of atheism is because they don't see any way of landing softly on the other side so they think it's  better to go back to that good 'old time' religion safety net that they know. We have to be standing outside holding our trampoline aloft when they feel they want to jump out of the building that is on fire for Jesus.

These  are just preliminary recommendations, I am still processing it all. I have to add that I have had some great interactions with other Caribbean atheists online who have given their views on the topic as well. I thank you guys too, and look forward to meeting you all one day. I have to make special mention of  Andre a well known musician in Barbados who has recently put his atheism right out there. It's such a pleasure to have someone who I admired through music now working on the same team with me promoting atheism and skepticism.

Well, there it is my exploration of the ' Atheists of the Caribbean.' I enjoyed it and hope that one day I can do a sequel. I am optimistic that this opportunity will come when we organise our meet up . I am very committed to this idea, there is so much we could learn from each other. The Caribbean has  generally speaking not been successful in coming together as one, maybe freethinkers could lead the way. Thinking of having all these people I met in the same room is a very exciting prospect. I think it is something that would change us all and encourage us to keep pushing forward. I invite any Caribbean atheists I haven't met out there yet to make contact with me. I encourage you to join the facebook group Caribbean Atheists and the Atheist Nexus Caribbean group as well. I also invite those of you that are not from the Caribbean but have an interest in our region to join us. We definitely need your support. There are many atheists who have been very encouraging when I have spoken to them about promoting secularism in the Caribbean and I am very grateful for that.

I  just have to mention one more thing about my Caribbean sojourn that will always stand out in my memory. I sat with an atheist who said to me they have never spoken with another atheist face to face before in their life. Hearing that made me sit up in shock, since this person was very active on line, and well informed on secular issues. I realised at that moment how different my atheist experience is, having quite a few like minded people in my community in Canada. I gave the person the "A" pin which I myself had worn on my jacket as I left Canada for the Caribbean just weeks before. I  spoke of that experience in an earlier blogpost. It had sentimental value to me, but I felt this atheist should have it. When I gave it, the  atheist looked at it held it securely and gazed down at it in silence for nearly a minute with a smile as broad as the Caribbean Sea. The next day a photo of that actual pin was their profile picture on facebook. That just made everything seem so worth it.

Oh how my head hurts! : Reflecting on a common response by theists to my arguments against God



Photo from Start line Physiotherapy

 I was fortunate enough this week to get another taste of the Caribbean as I went to make a presentation in Curacao. It was a short visit, where the time travelling from Calgary equalled the time I actually spent on site in the island. However, as has now become the norm, the journey itself was filled with meeting new fascinating people and the subject of religion never seemed far away. Once again I had chance to discuss the idea of God's existence.

 I must say that now I have had the opportunity to talk about  my atheism with theists of many different flavours in the Caribbean I am starting to notice certain patterns in how the discussions have gone. There have been a few surprises along the way in terms of the objections I have received or in many cases not received. Yes, I keep going into these discussions expecting push back on assumptions about first causes and  fine tuned universes. In reality these have seldom come. What I have got a lot of is, " Oh how my head hurts!" A basic comment suggesting that the  points I am making are just too high level. They claim that the arguments are just too intellectual and philosophical for them. After this point the debates often ends or peters out. Over the last few days I have been reflecting on this "Oh my head hurts" phenomenon.

I must admit that the first response that used to come to me upon getting the ' head hurt'  comment was  a sense of satisfaction that the person in the discussion was basically conceding that I had won out intellectually. I suppose there is a part of your ego that is fed when someone tells you that your level of understanding of some topic is greater than theirs. Perhaps it is that type of raising of ego that leads so many Christians to consider that atheists are arrogant. However, now that I have had the response more times and have had more time to reflect on it I see it differently now. The truth is that I consider that the people I have talked to are in no way inferior to me intellectually. I am no brighter than them.  It's just that critical thinking in our society is so widely discouraged that most people are simply just not able to follow what we as full time skeptics would see as straightforward logical arguments.

Exercising Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is like  a muscle and sadly for many in the Caribbean it is a muscle that has atrophied due to lack of use. It means that often when you enter the debates with theists about religion the lack of critical thinking conditioning appears early. It's feels like as you are out on your gentle morning jog, you can hear them panting for breath behind you begging you to slow down so they can keep up. It is not  that there is any lack of intellect in the Caribbean. Indeed, we can boast in our region to having some of the finest brains internationally in a number of areas. It's just that our strength tends to be in learning the core disciplines in our chosen fields. We can then apply those  fundamental principles to become successful practitioners in our  careers.

Where we fall down is in being able to criticise other ideas especially when they fall outside of our domain of expertise. We are often good at expounding and representing our own positions but comparatively weaker in  being able to ask the searching questions to others when they bring  ideas that we have not previously been exposed to. The lack of this ability in our general populace I think relates back to our education system and where we put our focus. I definitely do not think that there is any inherent  weakness in us that makes us incapable of being critical thinkers.Actually, I think that in Barbados there is a desire to learn more and develop that ability to challenge. It's just that in the 'intellectual gym' of the island there are no critical thinking machines available. Therefore you just can't spend the hours doing the necessary reps to get fit .

I am sure it is not surprising for skeptics to find that a lack of critical thinking is one of our main problems. It is something I have spoken about a lot in blogposts and is a point made many times by writers from parts of the developing world who are working to promote secularism. But, I think there is a part of the 'head hurt' response that goes beyond the lack of emphasis on critical thinking. Regularly in discussions I will make a statement similar to the one below.

" The fact that I cannot  disprove the existence of Big Foot  is not good reason for anybody to come to the conclusion that Big Foot exists. The persons out there that claim they have seen Big Foot have the burden of proof to show the rest of us the evidence for what they claim. We are justified in saying that Big Foot doesn't exist even if we can't prove it 100%."

Everyone that I have put an argument like that to has been able to follow my line of reason immediately, regardless of educational background. Many would tell me that it is so obvious that it doesn't even make sense to even state it. However, when I simply substitute the word 'God' for ' Big Foot'  the old 'head hurt' phenomenon comes back to the fore. I hear comments like

 " Oh, that's too deep for me!"
" Woah, this is so intellectual!"
 "I will have to back to my grad school philosophy notes."
 "You are the big doctoral student writing a thesis this is far too much for me to take in."

All of a sudden it seems their brains become incapable of  the cognition required to do the necessary reasoning. It is the equivalent of asking a child at kindergarten how many cherries you would have if you had three at first and added two more and he answered, " Five of course!" You then ask  him what you would get if you had three pears and added two more and he tells you that this level of maths is  far too difficult for a student in his class, and  that he would have to do an advanced course in pear arithmetic to answer that one.

It's interesting that cutting out 'Big Foot' and putting in 'God' suddenly changes an obvious statement into a super intellectual one, but it's true. Say you are having a debate " Does God exist?" and many would tell you that is a deep intellectual topic that only  the elite theologians, philosophers and theoretical physicists can weigh in on. Say you want to have a debate on the topic " Do fairies exist?" and you would be laughed out of court with  people telling you that you must have the intellectual development of a five year old, that is if they don't send you to a mental asylum  first. The truth of the matter is that the two questions, at least as far as the atheist is concerned, are absolutely equivalent. Substituting one invisible being for another is no different than substituting a cherry for a pear.

Probability Phobia

It all makes me wonder if there is a defence mechanism in the brain that actually affects your ability to understand when you have an argument that potentially calls into question a strongly held belief. Could the brain actually be capable of causing itself not to function? Can a person become momentarily less intelligent on account that their core belief is being challenged? It certainly has me thinking. I remember at school that many of my colleagues used to tell me that of all the topics within Mathematics, they hated 'probability.' I always found this baffling because to me 'probability' was my favourite part of Maths. I could easily grasp the concept of the ' lottery' and how the chances of outcomes would be affected by adding or subtracting cards with hearts or spades from a box that someone was drawing from. For me it was  easy to visualise what was happening and I couldn't understand why it would be so confusing to other students. On the other hand there were topics within 'Pure Maths' that really did make my head hurt. The second order differentials and double integrals were almost impossible for me to solve yet many of my colleagues with the 'probability phobia' seemed to get through these calculations relatively easily.

Now, I am wondering whether the underlying worldview of their religion was playing a part in their inability to grasp 'probability'. For many theists there really is no such thing as 'probability.' In their world view everything is ultimately ordained by God. There is no such thing as chance, coincidence is simply an illusion. As a lady I met recently put it, it's all divine arrangement. Maybe when such theists are presented with a paradigm that suggest that whether I get a ripe or rotten golden apple from a bag is something that only depends on Maths, the brain rejects and becomes incapable of grasping the entire concept. Meanwhile other aspects of Maths that are more deterministic, where there is one correct answer, are easier for them to get. Such aspects fit neatly into a worldview that suggests things must be the way they are as God knows what will happen with every atom of every piece of material. This is all of course just hypothesis but I think it is an interesting one for the psychologists to look at.

Anyway, regardless of what is going on at the conscious or subconscious level, the fact is that in many of these 'God arguments' theists will give you the compliment of suggesting that you have defended your position with sound logic and that they are at least not at that point able to respond to much of what you have raised.  To many atheists this will seem like a victory and maybe it is. But the thing to understand is that in their mind you have won not because your position was stronger, but because you were a bit more prepared than them for the fight. Also the fact that they don't fully understand the points you made gives them a reason not to change their position. Rightly, they take the view that they would have to spend some more time going over what you just said before they could even begin to consider changing their position. So, if the objective is to keep your faith alive there is definitely an advantage in not understanding. I think they are often convinced that there are arguments that persons like Lee Strobel and Deepak Chopra have that could have your argument for dinner. They just have to study them and come back for you next time.

One lady I spoke to was literally beating up on herself for what she thought was a personal failure on her part to defend her position properly. She vowed to go back and read up on her arguments so she could be more convincing next time. I felt like telling her she was just being too hard on herself. That is the problem with religion, it always makes the individual follower feel they are not worthy. They have problems representing their side because the underlying belief system is flawed with internal contradictions at every turn. The problem is the message not the messengers.

It is ironic that within religion itself, not understanding is a virtue. Christians will tell you quite freely that there are many things in their faith that they don't understand fully. The trinity, transubstantiation, the problem of evil, many theists will confess to their inability to understand these things. But most will never think of reconsidering their beliefs due to their lack of understanding. In fact the mystery just makes the thing more beautiful . They are confident that their faith is the right one whether they understand it or not. All will be revealed one day and even though they have no idea what the revelation will be it will confirm that it was the right decision to have accepted what their faith is telling them now.  It's a curious double standard. They withhold judgement on things they don't understand when they come from outside but will accept prior to understanding when the argument comes from within.

Well there is nothing we atheists can do about such things but it does seem to me that so long as the average theist feels that he or she is not our intellectual equal we will have problems in promoting our point of view. We have to level the playing field in that respect. The only way to change that is through the education system, especially in the Caribbean. Logic, reasoning and  especially logical fallacies should be topics that everyone does alongside Maths and English. For sure everybody should understand and appreciate how the scientific method works. It is unfortunate that currently it is only people that take the decision to pursue Science at the highest level  that actually get to be taught exactly how the system works. Understanding the scientific method and how hypotheses are developed and tested  is easier than grasping the rudiments of long division and the latter is a staple part of the primary school curriculum.

So, maybe if we put the critical thinking as part of the core exercise regime in education we will see more Christians who have the strength to defend their position . The only downside is that  by the time they reach their optimum condition, they will almost certainly find that there is no position there to defend.

Trying to avoid the elevator

It was the talk of the secular world for weeks and I tried to stay far away from it. Yes, I was trying my best to avoid the 'elevator.' It is amazing how the  now infamous elevator incident blew up on the internet. Just google the word 'Elevatorgate' and pages of opinions come up.

It all started when a leading atheist blogger, Rebecca Watson, spoke of an incident at a skeptic conference. She was invited for coffee in a guy's room while alone with him in an elevator at 4am. She spoke on a video blog of how uncomfortable she felt about this type of approach and advised males in the skeptic community not to act like that. It seemed a simple enough comment and one that was perfectly understandable. However, since her statements, people from all over the atheosphere have jumped on to the elevator, one person no less notable than  the most famous of all atheists, Professor  Richard Dawkins.

 Dawkins suggested that the incident was blown out of proportion given the far greater atrocities that women in Muslim cultures have to endure. Rebecca was offended by the implication that her experience was trivial and asserted that Richard Dawkins just "didn't get it." Thereafter more secularists stormed the elevator in droves some calling Richard a misogynist and others labelling Rebecca as a " feminazi." Thankfully, it seems that that as quickly as this whole elevator shot up into prominence it is gradually making its way back down to ground level. So why I am I getting on the elevator now when most people have since jumped off? Perhaps its claustrophobia. It's often  much easier to think when you don't have a set of bodies all around you screaming while smothering you in a confined space.

One of the last people to say her piece on the 'elevator' was Greta Christina one of the top voices in the atheist blogs. In this article she explained her internal conflict of not wanting to talk about it and  still needing to talk about it. Ironically, she ended by saying that  we should keep talking about it. I interpreted this to mean not that we should close the doors and ride the elevator up to the top again, but rather that we should keep alive the debate about the issue surrounding gender issues in the atheist movement. It's a great point I think, because the debate as much as a ' mountain out of a molehill' as it might have been has highlighted that there is still much to be learnt by us all.  I have to admit that her call to to the atheist bloggers to talk, made me rethink my decision to walk past the elevator. So, here I am.

I certainly am not going to dig further into who was right or wrong in the story. This is not because I want to take a 'politicallly correct' neutral position. I simply feel that when it comes to gender issues it is better for me to do more listening than talking. From that perspective I agree with Greta's plea  for the men to " listen to what the women are saying." It's the same as how I would expect that if an issue of race came up in the secular community, greater weight would be given to what we as blacks or racial minorities had to say.

In thinking through how this whole episode played out I can't help but realise how in a broader sense we have an 'elevator' problem in the atheist community. A problem that can  prevent us from reaching the heights we could otherwise attain. Maybe is just a natural thing, but we atheists have shown a tendency to 'elevate' those who we perceive to be principal spokespeople in our community. I understand very well why it is tempting to do this. While we constantly go on in atheist circles about how much reason guides us in our lives, the truth is that the action of leaving religion after many years of following God can be intensely emotional. I do feel very moved myself when I reflect on my 'emancipation from mental slavery,' to use the words of Bob Marley. I have heard many people express similar sentiments. When you look at the journey, you can't help but  be thankful to those most visible in the atheist world who have helped you on your passage in one way or another. It is not unusual to hear people speaking of how the strident voices of  atheist activists have liberated them. Non-believers from many different backgrounds have told me how reading Richard Dawkins' " The God Delusion"  changed their lives. I certainly understand the reaction to Dawkins' writing, he was a huge influence on my life as well. Always engaging in style, he speaks with a level of clarity that makes the arguments he makes very difficult to resist.

While, it is no doubt humbling and an honour for persons like Dawkins to receive such plaudits from us, there is a downside as well. When we view people like Richard Dawkins as 'changing our lives' we risk elevating them to a position way above the rest of the atheists on the ground.  This means we can react to situations involving them in a manner lacking in reason and rife with emotion. It can, as we saw in 'elevatorgate', go both ways.

 You  can be led to defend the man purely on the basis of reputation. Chiding those out there for criticising the person who has  arguably done more for the modern atheist movement than any other. Then, on the other side there are those that will respond in a way that those in Rebecca Watson's corner did. They will express an elevated level of disappointment in Dawkins for the very reason that they have or had so much respect for him. " How could you as a hero of mine, do something that hurts me so much?" would be the type of lament that you will hear.  That is the problem with the 'elevators' that send no more than five or six chosen few to the top of the building. If there is a snap in someone's line of reasoning at altitude, tension is released and you can easily be crushed if you are standing underneath.

We have to in all this remember that Richard Dawkins as well as other atheists popular from blogs and podcasts are  human. Yes, those that have worked hard in the atheist movement and made a difference deserve to be recognised and lauded for their efforts. We should lift them up but we should never elevate them. Like the star quarterback, we can lift our main playmakers on the shoulders when they win a game for us, but when kickoff comes  for the next game we all have to be back on the field in a team huddle ready to take on the next challenge. This is as much a message to self as to those out there. I have tried my best to let those public atheists that have inspired me in some way know this, but I have to still remember that they are not authorities in every sphere.

We know that a large number of our believer friends are already laughing at us for getting stuck on the elevator that they ride without difficulty everyday. For them elevation is the name of the game, there is nothing they love more than an argument from authority and they always feel that they are in the ascendancy. They will tell us we shouldn't worry because none of us could ever come close to the three persons that are in the rarefied air of  the top floor office. A significant portion of them will think that once we get on the elevator the only way we can go is down.  We are destined to be stuck in the  basement where the number of bodies in such a small  space will lead to extremely high temperatures. There will be much wailing but no one will hear the alarm no matter how many times we press the 'emergency' button.

I don't worry too much about the Christian elevator views that can't be proven. However, we might just give them an ear when they suggest that we have followed their lead by elevating our elite to the level of their clergy. I cringe whenever I hear them  talk of  'Pope Richard Dawkins.' I do think this is an absurd comparison, but if we don't keep watching ourselves there could be a time in the future where there is a kernel of truth in this type of remark..

So, we have to try to avoid the elevator at all costs and not just because of the level of vulnerability being in such tiny places can bring to those on  the wrong side of a  power imbalance. If we don't use elevators there will also never be another "elevatorgate" and I think all of us would be relieved at that.

To me the stairs seems a much better option for atheists anyway. It may take us longer to get to where we want to go, but we can all make the trek together, encourage each other along the way with no one surging floors ahead. It will also mean that, unlike our friends on the believers' side, we will reach the top through our own efforts without relying on what is above us to pull us up.

My Bizarre Baptism

Whenever people get into discussions as to who is a real christian, inevitably you get into talk of baptism. So big is baptism from a christian perspective that  in the atheist community they now have a
de-baptism ceremony to dry away the sin of being born again. Some say that de-baptism is like being born again, again. When I think back to my own baptism I always smile because for me the process was a bit unusual.

When I was 16 years old I started to attend confirmation classes at my Anglican church in Barbados. There was nothing especially significant about this.I suppose it was a rite of passage, but to most of us it was just something we went through so that we would be able to partake of the bread and wine on Sunday mornings. While it was cute to see  five year olds going up enthusiastically for their blessings pulling there reluctant parents along, it was different once you reached teen years. At that point it was just not cool to be up at the altar and have the priest pull away the cup from your face at the last moment as he recognised that you  were one of those " not quite there yet" members of the flock. In my case things were even worse, since the priest had to reach up a bit to place his hand on my head for blessing. So the way to avoid such continued altar embarrassment was to get confirmed. Yes, we all wanted to get to that promised land not of milk and honey, but of wafers and red wine.

That was the background to my motivation for confirmation.  It was no surprise then, that I didn't start the class with any great expectations. However, I actually enjoyed the year studying my faith and the bible with other young people. Truth be told, it was probably the first time that I gave a lot of thought to my belief system, exploring a number of the moral implications of the faith. Perhaps it was the first of many steps that got me to where I am today.

All went well until I got a call from the priest on Friday, two days before my scheduled confirmation ceremony. He gave me no further information other than I should meet him at the church the next day. He needed to talk to me alone urgently. This was a worry. For one thing it would mean missing part of the West Indies versus Pakistan cricket test match which was at an interesting stage. But ,more importantly, what could he possibly need to see me about? A request by your priest to see you urgently is only marginally second to a similar calling from your school principal.

So, as you can imagine, it was a nerve racking night. What had I done or left undone? As far as I knew I had followed all the pre-confirmation rules and had completed a successful year of training. I even went through the trouble of making up a  plausible story about how I betrayed a friend's trust, so that I could have a "confession." I was so sure I had all the bases covered. What on earth could he want to talk to me about at this 11th hour?

When I arrived at the church office , the priest was holding my baptismal certificate. We were required to provide these before we were confirmed. It was just a formality, or at least so I thought. The 'father' shook his head sadly. "This is not a baptismal certificate." he said coldly. " This only shows that you were christened. A christening is NOT a baptism. As far as we ( the Anglican church) are concerned the ceremony you had was simply to give you your name. To be recognised by us you have to be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You have not gone through that and therefore cannot be presented for confirmation based on this."

My mouth dropped open. What was he talking about? Christening , baptism, po-TAY-to, po-TAT-to what difference did these words make? I, for obvious reasons, don't quite  remember the details of that B-day in question, but I had enough faith that my parents would have had me baptised properly. Surely it was just a misunderstanding. A  frivolous objection like the , "He's not an American"  tirade that Barack Obama has had to fight. It was true that I was not baptised Anglican or Catholic but I wasn't initiated by some fringe cult group. It was the " Church of God"  for God's sake, an established denomination in Barbados. But my priest would have none of it, what he held in his hand was not a bona fide baptismal certificate. I was up a creek.

How could I face my colleagues on Sunday? After a year of dutifully attending classes I had fallen tragically at this last hurdle. Then, out of the blue  my pastor hit on something. A smirk came to his face. I had no idea what there was to be happy about but I certainly hoped it would be some sort of resolution in my favour. He took up a wooden bowl that was lying around and sent me to the kitchen, with the simple instruction to fill it up to the brim. So, I went and did likewise.

On  my return he simply dipped his finger in the bowl, made a cross on my forehead and said, " I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit. There! You are baptised now, all's fine for Sunday."  Once again I stared at the man incredulously. That was it, just like that he was able to get around this administrative technicality? There were no witnesses, no god parents, no prayers, no music, no liturgy we weren't even in the church proper. The priest didn't even have on robes.This was the Anglican Church, the masters of ritual and standing on ceremony, yet for this one evening no such details were necessary. It was a miracle if I ever saw one.

Yes, I was duly informed that all that mattered was that the deed was done in the sight of God. Now, we could proceed.  Still, it just wasn't fitting well with me, it was all too bizarre. I asked whether I could really get confirmed the next day since according to him I had only at that moment truly become a Christian. Wasn't there some rule for moving to 'graduation' so quickly? No, I was told that there are people in the bible who were baptised, confirmed and ordained all on the same day so this was really no big deal.

I went home still trying to take in what had occurred. I swore I was the first person in history that had a 'do it yourself' baptism. I had actually got my own holy water straight from the kitchen tap. I joked that if anyone questioned under whose authority I was baptised that day, I will tell the truth. It was under the Barbados Water Authority. I also remember thinking how unsustainable the whole thing was because I simply poured the rest of the holy water down  the drain when I was finished. At least  it could have been used to flush a toilet the next time the water went off.

Today I still chuckle at the thought that ordinary pipe water could suddenly become holy because a man dipped his finger in it. Even at that time, I remember thinking that he could as well have looked at me and just said " Abra Cadabra !"Anyway, I went ahead and was confirmed with no fuss. It took me 20 more years before I was able to break free of the superstition, but I like to think on that night before confirmation a few cracks showed up in my Christianity.

So, maybe I was baptised twice, maybe once, maybe even not at all. I guess it just depends on who you talk to and what perspective they hold. What I can tell you is that I have not had my de-baptism yet. I can only hope that the 'undo' process is not as complicated. To make sure, when comes my day to go under the dryer, to vaporise the dogma I once was washed in, I will ask the person administering the ritual, to let me go back through for a second cycle.

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.'

What type of non- believer are you?: The Five Categories of Atheism

So, here I am, back on Canadian soil. The suitcases have been put away but there is much unpacking to do in terms of what I have learnt on my trip to the Caribbean and New York in the last couple of months. I have made it a point to try to find freethinkers when I travel. Those interactions I think make the overall journey so much richer. Some of these exchanges will no doubt make their way into future posts.

In talking to atheists, it's interesting to realise the differences in where people are at. It is intriguing to explore their attitudes and feelings about being an atheist or even their willingness to be identified as such. Many people speak of how becoming an atheist is a gradual process and it can't and doesn't happen overnight. That is absolutely true. I think what we often neglect to talk about is the gradual changes you go through after you become an atheist. Based on my discussions,  I realise that there is definitely a process of change within atheism. Richard Dawkins famously developed a seven stage scale for extent of belief or non belief in God. The scale I am proposing here  is one for atheists. I have identified  five distinct stages you go through once you come to the conclusion that, in all likelihood, no gods exist.

It's June now, and in the Caribbean that means hurricane season. So in line with that I have decided to label each stage as a 'Category' just like they do with hurricanes. Coincidentally, those storms can also range from Category one to Category five. Please note that these categories basically apply to the deconverted atheist, the one who once believed. Like all classification lists there will be areas of overlap. Nonetheless, I think the categories are distinct enough that we can make the five separations.

So here they are! My Five Categories of Atheism.


Category  One (1):  I am only an atheist in mind

At this stage you realise that God either does not exist or the probability of existence is extremely small. At this point  by general definition you are an atheist but you don't admit that even to yourself. You don't want to identify yourself with 'those' people. You are an atheist in mind alone. The mere thought of being an atheist is just paralysing but you quite readily recognise the logical contradictions within all of the religious traditions and the incoherence of the God concept itself. You would be willing to identify these in discussions with other theists but will still categorise yourself as vaguely spiritual or if pushed say you are an agnostic.

Category Two (2): Ok, I admit, I am an atheist.

This is the stage where you outright say to yourself, " Ok, I have to admit it, I am am atheist." This stage is both exciting and scary. You have the feeling like you've cracked the code and figured out the mystery. You have admitted the non belief to yourself and may even share it with one or two friends or family members very close to you. However if you do share, you beg them not to tell anybody because you feel that you are not ready to face the indignation and shock of those in your immediate society. You are still emotionally invested in the faith and fear being cut off from your loved ones. You have a bit of shame associated with your non belief at this point. Nonetheless, you walk around happy within yourself that you have come to a position that is your own and you can live with. You have eliminated the discomfort of that cognitive dissonance  that you had before in trying to reconcile what you learnt through the scientific method with what your 'holy book' said . At this stage you often start to explore more of the resources out there on the internet and reading the classic atheist books such as 'God Delusion' and 'God is no Great.'

Category Three (3): I am searching for other non believing intelligent life.

At this point you become  more confident in your position that God does not exist but still feel uneasy talking  about your position with those around who  have not had your experience and cannot understand. You wonder at times if you are alone. This leads you to search for other 'intelligent'  atheist life. Looking through the 'galaxies' to find others of like mind in the universe. It's a bit like the scientists sending out the SETI signal. This can be done through actively joining an atheist/ skeptic group or even starting one. The meet ups can be successful  but very often  when you are on an isolated 'planet'  you have to engage people through virtual linking. This might be joining Atheist Nexus or a Facebook organisation or 'chatting' with a friend you met by chance somewhere who you discovered didn't believe either. This stage can be very tricky because as open as you are with non believers at these meetings or online you are still very careful not to share your views with others in your circle that still believe. This is where you as an atheist lead a double life.You have two distinct social lives.The atheist group completely hidden from the theists.  You are ducking and weaving at skeptic events hoping that you won't be embarrassed by bumping into a theist friend at the wrong time. Or you are continuously monitoring your online profiles, using all sorts of aliases to ensure that no one can trace you back to these non theists platforms.

Category Four (4): I am an atheist. Deal with it!

This is the point where you recognise that being an atheist is fine and something you should wear proudly. By this time you have had enough interaction with fellow free thinkers to realise they and you are not crazy. You realise that atheists are actually just regular people with the same likes, dislikes and quirks in personalities as anyone else. Most importantly, you realise that atheists are not in any way morally compromised and indeed discover that atheism in many cases promotes a superior form of ethics. At this point you will tend to feel more settled and perhaps start to see yourself more as a Humanist. Recognising that atheism is perfectly respectable and defensible you at this stage start to share your atheism in a wider circle and basically considers yourself  to be 'out.' You will share your non belief with anyone so long as the time and place is appropriate. You are not worried at this point about backlash and social ostracisation because you feel extremely justified in your point of view. After all, you have thought long and hard about the position you hold having gone through those three prior stages. There is again a degree of liberation at this stage because the double life is over and there is not now a need to pretend to believe in order to fit in. However you still don't consider it necessary to trumpet your non-belief or push an anti God agenda. You just want to be respected for who and what you are.

Category Five (5): I don't believe in God and neither should you!

This is the final stage on the chart. You will say that you don't believe and that nobody else should either, because the whole idea just doesn't make sense. By this time you are not only proud to not believe but  your outrage about the consequences of belief on society means that you are quite prepared to go out there in public and become an active advocate against religion. You are no longer satisfied with the ' live and let live' attitude. You recognise that you will face some antagonism but you are quite prepared to face that because you are convinced that you are fighting for the social good of  your community. You are the type of atheist that many believers will label 'millitant.'  Yet, it should be recognised that even with your 'extreme'  form of atheism you are not advocating forcing atheism on the general population. No, that would make  you a Category six atheist and I can't include that  as a category because I frankly have never met, listened to or read anything from an atheist who has advocated such a campaign. Category six atheists are in the same category as God, purely hypothetical entities.

However, you as a category five atheist will not compromise on the severity of your language. You will unequivocally state your position on faith, calling religious texts ' fairy tales'  without batting an eyelid. You will not worry about the pain such truths may cause. You will always remind the theist or the Category four or below atheist that whatever pain religions feel by hearing these facts today is  much  less than the pain and even deaths that have been caused by the ignorance, lack of critical thinking, discrimination and bigotry that have stemmed from people following a faith of lies. You will emphasise that all that matters to you is that everybody honestly seek the truth and that no free passes be given to certain belief systems because many people say they can't live without them.

So, those are the type of atheists I have met. I have not met any of them who fall outside all those categories. Let me know if you have. Of course, not all atheists will go all the way through to Category five. Some may actually never get past Category one, others may settle somewhere between two and four. I consider myself Category four at the moment. I am still not sure that I desire to reach Category five. However, there are definitely times where I have been pushing up into that 'five' territory. Perhaps I can say I level out at around 4.6. It will be left to see over time what will happen.

So, if you are an atheist, what Category are you? Are you looking to move up? I think its important you know and keep asking yourself that question. I also think it is critical that those of us hoping to drive the atheist movement know. It will be unreasonable to expect people in Category one and two to be out in the vanguard with us that are in the high fours or fives. We have to let people grow and move to higher categories at their own pace, or stay where they are if that is what they prefer.One thing  that should give us hope is that I have only seen  these atheist category movements in individuals go in one direction. Up!

Hurricanes can downgrade, but atheists do not. Once clouds of atheists come together and the system becomes more organised, believers know the winds of change will be irresistible. That's what I think makes those in religion so very, very scared.