HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary - Aug 20, 2008 - Printable Version
- Show Me The Bunny
by S.K. Eleton - Theocracy Watch
(Editor's Note: This is the first article in a series called "Theocracy Watch". Column coming soon.) I have a confession to make. I don’t believe in Santa Claus. Oh, I know what you’re going to say. But so many people believe in Santa Claus! There is no harm in believing in Santa Claus! You can’t prove the non-existence of Santa Claus! Santa Claus brings a lot of comfort to people who believe, and belief in him helps keep people good, and makes the world a better, kinder, more moral place to be. I will concede that all of the above are true. In spite of it all, however, I have examined the evidence for Santa Claus, and have come to the conclusion that the probability he actually exists is so low that it is contingent upon me to accept provisionally the hypothesis that he doesn’t exist. I am, however, willing to consider any serious evidence for his existence, should it arise. This seems to me, at this time, to be the only rational position to take in regard to the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus.
I know what’s going through your head now. We know where this is going. We know what’s coming next. All right, I’ll say it. I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, either. Yes, I know that many people believe deeply in a giant bunny that hops around hiding eggs and leaving chocolate-filled baskets every spring. I know belief in the Easter Bunny brings a lot of comfort to those who believe, and belief in him helps keep people good, and makes the world a better, kinder, more moral place to be. I also know that, to date, all the evidence presented for the existence of the Easter Bunny fails to pass muster scientifically or philosophically, and the probability that there actually is a giant, benevolent, egg-laying bunny that appears once a year to deliver chocolate is so preposterously low that it is perfectly reasonable at this time to act on the assumption that there is no Easter Bunny. If you wish me to believe otherwise, I have only one thing to say to you…show me the bunny.
Furthermore, at the risk of offending those few of you I haven’t already angered with my extremist, unreasonable positions, I’m going out on another limb. I don’t believe in the Yeti. I don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster. I don’t believe UFOs have been visiting the Earth in flying saucers abducting rednecks out of pickup trucks on dark roads. I remain obstinate in my refusal to accept such entities without actual, supportable, credible evidence of their existence. I know all the arguments. Yes, lots of people truly believe, and find comfort in believing. Belief helps people be good, and makes the world a better, kinder, more moral place to be…No, wait a minute. Now you’re going WAY too far. Belief in Yeti, Nessie, and ET would give people a reason to be good? That just totally strains credulity. So, leaving that argument aside, let’s press on. All of these things have evidence, in fact. Eyewitness testimony by witnesses who are totally convinced. Grainy, out of focus pictures of something that you can’t quite identify, but you can see a black blob on the film. Of course, proof positive. No, I still hold to my position…all the evidence presented for these entities has to date been, to say the least, inadequate and unconvincing. Some of it has been demonstrated to be downright faked. So, I maintain that, in the absence of any credible evidence, I feel the existence of Yeti, Nessie, and ET has not yet been demonstrated, and it is perfectly reasonable for me to maintain a skeptical position, and act on the assumption that there are no such creatures sharing the Earth with us at this time.
Extremist? Unreasonable? Of course not. As a whole, the entire adult world would agree with the first two statements, and the majority of the world would agree, at least in part, with the final assertion. These positions are not considered extremist at all, and are in fact the mainstream, default position for most people. Now, re-read the paragraphs above, and exchange the word “God” for Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Yeti, Nessie, or ET. How do the first paragraphs read now? Suddenly, you will probably find yourselves nodding in agreement with the arguments in favor of belief, and frowning in consternation at the position of non-belief. You will probably agree with the statement that this is, indeed, an extremist, unreasonable position, and that I should adopt a more centrist, moderate position, and cease “bashing” believers by disbelieving in, and expressing my disbelief in, a supreme deity. After all, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God (or gods), and it is the most reasonable, mainstream position to believe until evidence can demonstrate otherwise. Most believers and a significant number of agnostics find this argument convincing. Few of these people would find the same argument convincing for the other beliefs mentioned above. Few would argue that it is “bashing” little kids for a rational, thinking adult to disbelieve in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Few would argue that it is “bashing” cryptozoologists for a rational person to demand good evidence before accepting the existence of Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. By the same token, I have never heard anyone accuse another person of “bashing” Greeks for expressing disbelief in Zeus, or “bashing” Egyptians for disbelieving in Isis and Osiris. What is the difference?
Well, for one thing, belief in Santa Claus is not usually common in the adult community. We believe, sometimes very deeply, when we are little, but children are expected to grow up and outgrow Santa Claus (and the bunny). This is not true of our choice of deity. These beliefs are widely held, and deeply believed, by individuals throughout their entire life. Only a small percentage of people abandon their belief in God as they grow up, and since it is widely believed by respectable, responsible adults everywhere that there is some sort of almighty being that is both creator and final judge, we are expected to accept without question that it is a reasonable, rational belief system. Anything else is regarded as bad manners. Although many respectable, responsible adults belief in Yeti, Nessie, or ET, these beliefs are not widely held, and are considered fringe beliefs, existing at the margins of society, and tolerated, with some amusement, by those who do not share the belief. As for Zeus, Isis, Osiris, and many other gods that are now dealt with under the heading of Mythology, these gods are no longer worshipped, and have moved to the status of literary characters, interesting and somewhat quaint parts of a long distant past. Of course it’s not disrespectful to Greeks not to believe in Zeus. The Greeks don’t even believe in him anymore.
The common conceit these days is that atheism, literally the condition of being without god, is an extremist position, as extremist as the most fundamentalist of Biblical literalists. The only reasonable position, according to many, is either a moderate form of belief in something or a sort of wishy-washy, noncommittal agnosticism. This position simply fails to hold up philosophically under examination. In fact, the most reasonable default position is one of non-belief in the absence of evidence. Humans have been on this planet now for about a million years. For at least the past several thousand years, we have had literature and art and music. We’ve had gods and demons that have populated our stories and enchanted our minds. What we haven’t had is any hard evidence of any gods, at least not any evidence that can’t be explained by perfectly natural, material causes. To believe in something in the absence of any evidence is not a centrist position. In fact, the acceptance of something without any evidence (in other words, faith) is actually a rather extremist position in itself, no matter how moderate your belief, how nice a person you are, or how well you tolerate other beliefs. As for agnostics, I do not consider their belief extremist, and in fact do consider them centrist. In fact, agnostics and atheists believe essentially the same thing – they believe that there is no evidence for the existence of god, and as a result, feel that it is reasonable to suspend belief in a deity until evidence has been put forth that demonstrates such a being exists. Agnostics will often describe the difference between them as a willingness to look at evidence and accept the existence of a deity if such evidence should become conclusive. This is a false dichotomy. Almost all atheists agree with this statement, and would willingly give consideration to accepting god if any evidence should ever be forthcoming that demonstrates the existence of such a being. The main difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics, while not believing in god, also are unwilling to disbelieve in god, either. In fact, they take a position that they simply don’t know. While I agree that this is a supportable position, it does not make the atheist position any less supportable. They are simply two different levels of the same position, and neither position is extreme.
I have little doubt that there are many out there who will continue to brand the position of non-belief as an extremist position. They will continue to use firebrand rhetoric to smear the good reputations of good people who fail to be convinced by their personal revelations and their devout convictions. These accusations and challenges come from across the spectrum of religious belief, being leveled against non-believers by both the fundamentalists and the moderates. In the long run, such rhetoric becomes dangerous. It places the non-believer in the realm of the “other”, and makes them seem threatening to civilized society. Branding non-believers as extremists conjures up pictures of bomb-lobbing radicals bent on destroying the fabric that holds society together, and bringing human culture to the brink of disaster. Few atheists are truly radical. Most of them are very respectable, highly productive members of society, going about their business quietly and calmly, about as radical as a poodle. We share the same general values and principles as believers, believing in love, kindness, sharing, and charity. We love our children and our spouses. We value music, art, and literature just as believers do. We abhor murder, rape, and lying, and we want to leave a better world behind for our children. We share nearly all the values of the believer, but we simply see no reason to filter our values through a higher power until there is evidence to support the existence of a supreme being.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).