Why Atheism Doesn’t Matter, but Skepticism Does.
Summer of 2004. I have considered myself an atheist at least since the summer of 2004. For the sake of feeling smart and consistent, I believe I’ve considered myself an atheist for much longer. But I only have documented evidence of such a stance dating back to the summer of 2004.
Did I have some great logical awakening that roused me to critical thinking and clear-headedness? No. I know I did not. I know I didn’t become a perfect bastion of scientific thinking because, in the summer of 2004, I believed in handwriting analysis.
A knowledge-thirsty little 10th grader, I still believed then that if someone with a PhD wrote a book, that book had to contain gospel truth. I didn’t know the difference between bad science and good science. I didn’t even realize such a rift existed. So handwriting analysis, with all of its certain language and its sheer lack of cited empirical evidence, seemed as valid as medicine or geology.
Only half a year or so later, as I struggled to tell a friend that the dominating middle region in her script belied a permanently childish outlook, did I begin to realize exactly how idiotic this whole graphology thing sounded.
Ouch. It still stings to admit. Should I also admit that I used to take multivitamins? That I preferred bottled water over tap? Evidence supports none of these beliefs.
I hope I’ve made my point clearly: atheism did not protect me from having moronic faith in things not supported by evidence. The empiricism I had used to destroy God did not extend automatically to all other silly things settled in my head. I had to force out all of the cobwebs.
Recently, I’ve taken a more active interest in the so-called Skeptical Community, though my personal skepticism began the day I looked for evidence supporting handwriting analysis. I would recommend podcasts like the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe and blogs like Skepchick and Science-Based Medicine to anyone, even hardened atheist curmudgeons. As I’ve exemplified, even the curmudgeoniest of us can hold on to empty faith of the less godly sort.
Skepticism differs from atheism because it makes for a much more continuous process. While an ideal atheist would forever continue to examine their beliefs and inspect their logic, most of us do place our lack of faith on a shelf and forget about it for extended periods of time. It becomes static and neglected. Skepticism, on the other hand, requires that we scrutinize scientific claims with the mettle that we once used to tackle claims of God. Do these claims follow valid logical reasoning? Does the evidence support this claim? Does the research in favor of this claim follow proper procedure? Does the theoretical explanation make sense? And so on. And so on.
The atheists and other assorted heathens on this blog no doubt already undergo this process rather often. But despite our well-reasoned positions on God, I suspect we all have “cobwebs”, like mine regarding multivitamins and graphology. Skepticism and the idea of a “community” of skeptics comes in handy for this particular situation. Momentously unscientific claims usually get caught in our conscious attention, as in the case of ghosts or psychics. We don’t need help or a “community” to see the flaws in those fakes.
But the really dangerous claims sound plausible, or have a botched attempt at scientific explanation. These ones slip under the radar. Until looking into the Skeptical Community, I took many of these things for granted. Take for instance this post on Skepchick about the efficacy of different lotions and other beauty products. Yeah, I used to think expensive creams worked better, too.
For this reason, I make my claim that skepticism “matters” but atheism doesn’t. Atheism addresses a fleeting, supernatural belief, and doesn’t have any application to real life. In life and outlook, an atheist and a deist measure up about equally; in the end, that last step of denying a “God” is intangible and largely irrelevant. Skepticism, however, deals with actual practical questions- should I really drink eight glasses of water a day? Should I try that new cancer “cure”? Should I fail to immunize my child out of fear of Autism?
The answers to these questions can directly change your habits, and even your life. Denying the existence of a “God”, no matter how important it sounds or feels, has far fewer real life results. I would more quickly trust the judgment of a skeptical theist than a true-believer atheist. It’s the skeptical approach, which often leads to atheism, that has value. The atheism itself does not.
2. Myth: “Climate models don’t work. They don’t even ‘predict’ the past.”
Hansen’s model is shown below as the black line. The blue line with stars is the actual temperature data we have. As you can see the model reflects the observed temperature data very well. This is very strong proof that the models do in fact work. What is especially striking is the fact that the models “are not statistical, but are physical in nature.” Statistical models use training data to find correlations. For example a batting average in baseball is based off of ones batting history. This can be used as a statistical model to predict the future. A physical model of a player at bat would likely use equations based on the velocity of the baseball, force of the swing, etc and ignore the players batting history. The climate models used by the IPCC and NASA are not statistical models. NASA’s climate models make their predictions based off of the laws of physics. Since the models are based off of physics comparing them to the past is almost as good as testing them with predictions of the future. Another advantage of physical models over statistical models is best described by physicist Ulf Bossel: “the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.”
http://www.logicalscience.com
3. Scientists Close In On Missing Carbon Sink
ScienceDaily (Jun. 22, 2007) — Forests in the United States and other northern mid- and upper-latitude regions are playing a smaller role in offsetting global warming than previously thought, according to a study appearing in Science this week. The study, which sheds light on the so-called missing carbon sink, concludes that intact tropical forests are removing an unexpectedly high proportion of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, partially offsetting carbon entering the air through industrial emissions and deforestation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070621140805.htm
Forests are only short-term carbon sinks. A tree might contain carbon for a century or so, in some rare species for up to a couple of thousand years. Then the tree dies, and the carbon returns to the biosphere, troposphere, and on up to the stratosphere. This is because the tree rots (is eaten) or burns and its carbon fuels bacteria, fungi and animals who exhale it. Planting trees can help in the short term, only if they are never harvested.
True carbon sinks are corals, shellfish, and diatoms that grow shells (carbonate) and then die and sink to the bottom of the sea (limestone). The carbon is not released again until that piece of sea floor is subducted, heated beyond 800 degrees, and the carbon eventually vented from volcanoes.
100 grams of limestone (30 cc’s, 1.1 fluid ounces) keeps 44 grams (22.4 liters, 755 fl.oz, 5.9 gallons) of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Venus has no limestone because it is too hot. Once Venus cools below 700 degrees or so, then limestone can form, and the thick CO2 atmosphere will start to rapidly thin by chemical, and eventually biological means.
Lifeformz: As I see it, of course you can be a Christian and a scientist at the same time. Science can’t really make any claims as to the beliefs you listed- you can almost think of them as ascientific rather than unscientific claims. Science deals with observable phenomena, and since a God can’t be proven or disproven, where a particular person falls on that issue doesn’t really matter. As long as a person realizes this, and doesn’t try to infuse science with God, or God with science, I don’t think there is any problem.
Another scientist tells her story. Here’s the link.
“All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.”