Share this video.
Videoblogging Week 2007 is Atheism Week on The Mickipedia Show. Day 3: Fact vs. Faith. Music provided by No one, aka Yuri. <3
Keep track of Videoblogging Week 2007 on Technorati and
Mefeedia.
And remember if there’s something you want me to talk about this week, leave a comment!
{ 1 trackback }
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
Religion has been shunting our science for many, many years. It’s hard to answer all the questions that could possibly be asked, religion is just one way people deal with it.
That last sentence was spot on! Keep em coming, Micki, this is awesome…
Mickipedia:2 Faith:0
Why do you hate Freedom Micki?
Fantastic.
Wait a minute — so you’re saying I shouldn’t take a leap of faith because my clothes will get muddy?
Great one, Micki!
Nice music, No one.
Micki’s in UR heads deconstructing UR gods…
QUESTION:
If a religious person yells at me for being an Atheist, I mean really berates me with verbal abuse, but I “turn the other cheek” – does that make me a religious person?
Your use of the phrase “leap of faith’ is interesting. As the originiator of this idea (if not the actual phrase), Sören Kierkegaard in his book “Philosophical Fragments” (http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2512) was putting for a case for a reasoned response to the question of Christianity. This leap (Chapter 3) is based Reason attempting to answer the question of the Unknown. (Be aware of the absurdist underpinings of many of his arguments – he was a thinker in tune with his times.)
Your qustion, “…is it an answer at all?” is missing the existential point that Kierkegaard is making. Because we are beings capable of reasoning, we are able to decide when a ‘leap’ is the appropriate response to a situation where we have all the facts, yet are required to make a choice. Many a scientist has done this – how else has our knowledge expanded so greatly in the past 400 years? I would venture to say that you have made more than one of these leaps during your lifetime, and will continue to do so as long as you are capable of reason.
I recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Any one with an ounce of logic would agree with you Miki. Must be hard being an Atheist in America though!
Randy, scientists do make leaps of faith, however they need to come up with hard evidence. Religious leaps of faith require no evidence at all.
San, if you have read the Philosophical Fragements, tell me where the lack of evidence is posited. For more reasoned arguments, I recommend two other sources: “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis and an article called “Scientific Faith,” written by a PhD in biology from MIT: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0012fea1.asp
Wow – I’m the odd one out here. But I have to say, when you said “if the answer to any question demands a leap of faith” … I was thinking of atheists!
Seriously – For me, atheism requires a HUGE leap of faith. My guess is that, at most, the smartest person in the world knows (if I’m amazingly generous) maybe 1% of the knowledge of the universe (again – highly generous). So… an atheist is basically guessing (ie., a leap of faith) that the other 99% doesn’t have any sort of higher being.
Most rational people, when they really, truly think about that, would possibly adjust their words and claim to be agnostics – someone still searching (and open-minded) rather than someone who simply chooses to not believe, based on, well, a lack of evidence (ie., an argument from silence).
Just some thoughts…
Thanks for your comment, David, but your logic is flawed. It does not require a leap of faith not to believe in something that has never been proven to exist. Every atheist I know says that if sufficient proof for God’s existence were provided, he would become an instant believer. And every person I know agrees that we do not have the answers to everything. If you don’t have the answer for something, the next logical thing to do is not to invent one. To use the now classic example, I am no more agnostic about the existence of God than I am about a flying spaghetti monster. Still, if He made himself apparent to me, I would worship his yummy meatballs.
@Randy – no offense but that “scientific faith” article is crap. A bunch of sophistry to try to turn the argument around to show failings in science. The scientific method is currently our best way of determining truth. It’s what separates fact from faith. If you can’t use it to prove the existence of God, does that mean the method is faulty or is it the hypothesis?
Regarding “Mere Christianity,” I haven’t read the book. But I’m familiar with the idea of Moral Law which I believe is the centerpiece of that argument. Basically, because people have a sense of morality, there must be a God. Is it not possible that this sense of morality might be a product of evolution because it’s good for the species? You know, primates exhibit social behaviors that coincide with a moral code too. Do good monkeys go to Heaven? Anyway, we’re gonna get more into this topic later in the week.
Micki, thanks for looking into the articles I sent. Every generation will bring forth apologists for both sides of this argument that will use the zeitgeist that colors their perspective. I am still interested in your response to the Kierkegaard book “Philosophical Fragments” which is the basis for your question.
Is an answer that requires a leap of faith really an answer? Sure. Is it necessarily a good answer? No.
I am the least religious person I know–that is to say not religious at all, I was raised a total blank slate–but there’s still something about religious faith that I find…I have no idea how to put this…nice?
Sure, there are countless examples of zealotry that are atrocious all over the world as well as right here in our backyards. I’m talking about old fashioned, run-of-the-mill-faith. I always have a pang of envy in my heart when the ladies I work with discuss their time in church. A brief pang, but a pang nonetheless. I’m not quite sure why.
I’m charmed by the idea that one can believe so strongly in something that they cannot see, touch or smell. I really think it’s sweet. Doesn’t that sound terrible? Sounds like I’m designating all believers as “precious”. I don’t mean for it to sound like that. I don’t need hard answers about why we’re all here. Never asked those questions. Fact is, we’re all here so let’s make the most of it. I’m utterly freaked out when people say they believe that the world was created in a week by a dude. But when someone says “God Bless You” in a non-sneeze related way and means it with all their heart, I’m touched. I’m not quite sure why.
Faith? I’m all for it. Zealots? Not so much.
Loving it loving it loving it loving it loving it. Haha, i’m going to church on Sunday to make my Mom happy, then bringing her home to watch all your videos
I just want to say that you’re doing an awesome job and I’m enjoying watching, reading about this particular topic. Also I thought I would throw this out there if anyone wants to read an amazing book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by the late Carl Sagan (my hero). Read it.
I was that kid. There IS an answer to everything and damn it I want to know. Great week of vlogs Micki.
“Thanks for your comment, David, but your logic is flawed. It does not require a leap of faith not to believe in something that has never been proven to exist.”
An atheist has made a conscious choice – and that choice is what I’m referring to as a leap of faith.
“And every person I know agrees that we do not have the answers to everything. If you don’t have the answer for something, the next logical thing to do is not to invent one.”
Right… atheists choose to say they don’t have the answers, so then they refuse to believe in something beyond their own experience. But most atheists I know don’t then go the next step and try to figure out if there’s something to believe in. Instead, they simply decide in their teenage years that God doesn’t exist, and then write it off without actually exploring the concept to figure out whether or not their assumption is correct. Sloppy intellectualism.
“To use the now classic example, I am no more agnostic about the existence of God than I am about a flying spaghetti monster. Still, if He made himself apparent to me, I would worship his yummy meatballs.”
Really now, that’s sidestepping the issue. Sloppy intellectualism again! One is supposedly rational, the other obviously isn’t.
Science has the answer to every question.
Religion has the same answer to every question.
Ignorance is not bliss.
@missb – I don’t understand how faith is charming at all. Why is it sweet that someone would believe in something just because they’ve been told to? And make no mistake, that’s exactly what faith is. If a child grew up away from all religious influences, I’m certain he would not come to the conclusion that there is some dude on high pulling the strings. He would probably come to wonder if there is a greater order to all of this and THAT kind of thinking is great and brings me to David Lee King’s comment.
@ David – scientists are constantly working to find more answers about the universe and our place in it. If you think religion is the only thing that can provide the answers to these questions, you’re being closed-minded and arrogant. There is no sloppy intellectualism in discounting an idea that makes no sense and then admitting that there are answers you don’t have yet. To say you have the answers when your “answers” have no basis in fact and science just because it makes you feel better to have an answer – THAT is sloppy intellectualism. Atheists are continuing the search for the real answers. They’re not stopping when they find one that makes them feel better and then discounting all other possibilities.
The mere existence of other religions doesn’t make you question your own?
Comparing God to a spaghetti monster, while silly on the face of it, is a completely valid intellectual comparison. As Sam Harris likes to say, we are all atheists when it comes to Zeus, who we all agree has the same probability of existing as a spaghetti monster. Would you say that the belief in Zeus is rational? Heck no! If someone came up to you on the street and started encouraging you to pray to Zeus to protect yourself from a lightning strike, you’d probably call social services. Yet somehow the belief in Yahweh or Allah or whoever is rational? Just because lots of people are deluded about the same thing does not make it true.
Since you seem so well-versed in how atheists become atheists (yeah, we’re all a bunch of angsty teenagers), let’s look at how Christians become so and then convince themselves that their faith is “rational.”
1. I believe in God because I’ve been socialized to do so.
2. My faith is rooted in fear of what happens after death.
3. I am afraid of what it means to question my faith.
4. I will do whatever I can to invent reasons why my faith is rational. I will not use reason to find real answers but I will use tricks of language and logic to support my rigid beliefs.
5. Wow! My faith is both holy AND rational! Take that, science! Now I don’t have to think about it anymore. I have the answer. I’m done.
Very good! I hope your message reaches young people while they are still at the questioning stage of life. Before they get set in their ways and just blindly accept what society feeds them. I pondered the same thoughts in my teens and once I came to the conclusion you did, I never turned back. It won’t always be easy. “Believers” will condemn you for your clear thinking. I hope this next generation continues to question and continues to think logically and rationally. Thank you!
Wonderful video, and even better responses Micki!
I think I am in love.
“Right… atheists choose to say they don’t have the answers, so then they refuse to believe in something beyond their own experience. But most atheists I know don’t then go the next step and try to figure out if there’s something to believe in. Instead, they simply decide in their teenage years that God doesn’t exist, and then write it off without actually exploring the concept to figure out whether or not their assumption is correct. Sloppy intellectualism.
Since you seem so well-versed in how atheists become atheists (yeah, we’re all a bunch of angsty teenagers), let’s look at how Christians become so and then convince themselves that their faith is “rational.””
“1. I believe in God because I’ve been socialized to do so.
2. My faith is rooted in fear of what happens after death.
3. I am afraid of what it means to question my faith.
4. I will do whatever I can to invent reasons why my faith is rational. I will not use reason to find real answers but I will use tricks of language and logic to support my rigid beliefs.
5. Wow! My faith is both holy AND rational! Take that, science! Now I don’t have to think about it anymore. I have the answer. I’m done. “”
Both of you are practicing “sloppy intellectualism” at this point. Neither of you can truly diagnose how an individual becomes an atheist nor a person of faith. To try and do so is heresay. Furthermore, it is just an attempt to belittle the others argument.
David, the term atheist literally means non-theist or one who does not believe in a God. There are a seemingly infinite number of ways of defining reality. I like to think of it as an individual map or guidebook to your existence. Some people have decided that it would be better to publish there map (for the sake of helping others in their journey). Some people prefer to use these published guidebooks to help them with their complicated existence. Some people choose to cheat and dip into those guidebooks on occasion, but live their own lives. Others (like our brave Miki) choose to go it alone and create their own map.
Miki, unfortunately, their are those people in the world who are so confused, sick even, that they need the extra assistance of these pre-fabricated maps. And there are DEFINITELY those assholes in the world that believe that their guidebook is the only true one and are scared shitless that someone would use another book or WORSE go it alone. They perceive non-believers as a danger to their brittle view of the world.
This is a great blog. It will be better if both sides agree to disagree and be careful not to make large errors in logic or large errors in faith.
Peace
PS I good friend of mine in college pointed out to me that humans are naturally tool users and map makers. I have always heeded his advice, “Never mistake the map for the territory, when in doubt, trust your senses.”
If people are going to use the Bible, they should update it to cover the modern existing territory.
“It does not require a leap of faith not to believe in something that has never been proven to exist.”
Yes, it does. Rather the existence is proven or not there still requires faith. Being an agnostic, I am definitely closer to atheism than I am to being a theist…but, there is no doubt in my mind that no matter what path is chosen it requires a huge leap of faith.
Micki, the simplest way to put it is to say ‘you don’t have to prove something doesn’t exist, you have to to prove it does’.
However, I do agree with David partially. I deny existance of Christian God or any other known to humankind but I have no ground to say that -some- superior power exists or not, just like no-one knows how alien life looks like.
//hock
@David
I am an athiest. I have been since…well, as far back as I can remember. I never “made a conscious choice” about it; I simply have never believed in God–ever.
I didn’t suddenly decide to not believe when I was a teenager.
Well, Hock,
You are up a creek. The only thing you can absolutely prove is that you exist as an individual. Everything else relies on theory. Granted, there are some theories that are stronger than others. Theories for which many, many experiments have been created to prove (No one really doubts gravity, for instance). That being said, most theories are built on experimentation and using the theories and proofs of other scientists/theorists.
From the beginning, you are basing your proof on faith. Faith that someone else is telling you the truth. Do you really know that Mozambique exists?
Secondly one of the quandries of modern science is that even the most well designed experiments still relies on the perspective of the observer. So, whether we like it or not, we bring our past experiences and assumptions into our reality proofs.
Besides, this all seems so dry and uncreative. Why don’t we all just admit that we don’t know anything and then just make up good stories. We’ll have a rule that everyday you have to make up a new version of reality. That would be more interesting than the present argument.
To the guy who said that NOT believing in God takes a leap of faith: How is faith involved with me NOT believing in something? You’re positing your logic from a point where god already exists as a given, and that anyone who doesn’t believe in a god is denying this apparent, given “truth”, and thus must do so with some sort of “faith”. Well, the problem is that the existence of a god is not simply a given…if you’re religious then yes…it is a given for you, but not objectively. To the rest of us who aren’t looking at it from a faith perspective, we need evidence to believe…although I don’t even like using the word “believe” in this context because if there WERE evidence….it wouldn’t be belief at all–it’d just be an observation about the world.
Also, as far as this whole idea of a “leap of faith” goes, I’ve always felt that no matter what pathway you take to any kind of “ultimate” truth regarding when and how we got here, it all sort of ends in just having to throw up your arms and say “well, it just happened”.
Think about it:
From a religious standpoint, obviously we’re here because a god made us. Why? While the major 3 religions provide some guidance toward the purpose of life (moral teaching in sacred texts, etc), ultimately one is left to accept the fact that god simply exists because he or she exists–there is no explanation.
Even from a scientific standpoint (which I generally take), if you take evolution at face value, and accept that everything traces back to a big bang, where are we left when we ask the question: “Where did the big bang come from and why?”. Well, of course the idea is that there was some condensed matter or something…or some universes collided or whatever, but ultimately, we dunno. It just happened.
This all may have come across as drivel, and I apologize if any of it seemed amateurish or inflammatory, but I just wanted to get in on the conversation as it’s a fairly good one.
I’ve finished reading posts now and it seem at least 2 of you are okay with the idea that atheism is a weird sort of “negative” or “anti-” faith. It’s almost as if you’re trying to say that all people start off on some sort of “middle ground” where they haven’t yet gone so far as to believe in a god, but at the same time they haven’t gone so far as to believe that there isn’t a god, like so:
ANTI-FAITH START FAITH
Presumably this is because they haven’t seen “evidence” FOR a god nor “evidence” AGAINST a god. Well, it’s easy enough to think of all sorts of direct evidence FOR a god. If I walk outside and the clouds part and a big face appears in the sky and says “hey, I’m god…”, and a thousand people see the exact same thing with me, this is clearly evidence FOR a god.
The only problem I have is, how can we even conceive of what evidence AGAINST god would look like? I’m sorry, but the bottom line is if the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity is proposed, people need evidence to believe in its existence. The fact is that if there is not sufficient evidence for me to believe in this proposed deity, I’m simply not going to. It doesn’t mean that I’m practicing some sort of “reverse faith” in the NON-existence of this deity, it simply means that I’ve rejected the proposed deity because sufficient evidence has not been presented.
I’d also like to add that yes, I understand that at times it does appear that people try to present “evidence” against the existence of god in theological debates, but what I really think is going on here is that this is really just evidence against the evidence a believer presents FOR the existence of a god. Just because one cannot prove that something does NOT exist, doesn’t automatically mean it does. Rejecting evidence and refusing to believe something is not an act of “reverse” faith, it is simply skepticism.
Micki,
You are a brilliant new voice for realists everywhere! Thank you so very much for bringing your strength and rationalism to this age of deception!
Kudos!
She was so damned cute.
“Others (like our brave Miki) choose to go it alone and create their own map.”
what are you talking about? she’s paraphrasing the thoughts of famous atheists. there’s nothing original or gripping here. everything she says has been uttered during the monologue of any given religion-based episode of penn and teller’s bullshit.
I wonder how many of the supporters here are hanging about because she’s a pretty talking head spouting your favorite rhetoric.
bob bless stumble
You’re positing your response to invent one.
Religion has never turned back. The mere existence of faith suggests lots of faith.
I’m charmed by the given for it requires a leap of course, and I recommend to every person the scientific standpoint (which I have no matter what faith is). Fact is, we’re all about to comment, but I am definitely closer to accept what I’m utterly freaked out about.
Is it not to Zeus, who said if there is a just want to make a PhD in my teens and accept what separates fact, then bringing her home will protect yourself from silence? Whether Allah or any other question demands a spaghetti monster, while being silly on the answers to decide on humankind, I would venture to come across as long as a spaghetti monster.
Instead, they get more agnostic about old fashioned, run-of-the-mill-faith.
Science has the existential point where the existence was provided, but, if there’s something that doesn’t exist, and we accept what separates fact from a religion at all, well, the articles I have any of faith, I was putting on for God’s existence of the Unknown.
Anyway, we’re all here for something that the guy who we are deluded about has a religious faith to require a reasoned response to believe in sacred texts, etc, and ultimately one really berates me NOT believing in just making my Mom happy. Wow – I’m amazingly generous.
Besides, this is all a moral code too.
You are both incredibly articulate and extremely attractive. My hat is off to you.
I love it. Thanks!
Micki,
I really enjoy your vlogs. I myself believe in God, but that’s not to say I’m religious. There’s a great difference in being religious and knowing God. I think today’s modern ‘Christians’ contradict themselves by saying they stand for what’s good, when in all actuality they’re just force-feeding their own beliefs down others throats. What they fail to realize is that they’re disgracing the name of what they’re supposed to stand for. I think that we should all just live our own lives rather than trying to live others and that’s what religions today don’t understand. Very good vlog, I really respect you.
“Because we are beings capable of reasoning, we are able to decide when a ‘leap’ is the appropriate response to a situation where we have all the facts, yet are required to make a choice. Many a scientist has done this – how else has our knowledge expanded so greatly in the past 400 years?”
I think there’s a slight difference between taking a guess that is later validated with evidence and just accepting a guess that has not, in thousands of years, been satisfactorily validated by anything.
You do realize that if god is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, that he planned every single abortion, rape, murder, war, and atheist website in history, right?
The girl in that video is extremely cute.
Atheists are Atheists because they have acquired enough information that tells them that Blind Belief is no longer rational or no longer congruent with the facts we are finding in nature. An Atheist is without god – not because he is searching for something else in the meantime or because someone “indoctrinated” him into it, but because he has come to an understanding of why humans invent gods in the first place and why each generation needs to re-invent it into new ways. Thus, Atheism is not a choice. It is a revelation – a transcendence from theism. It grows on you slowly – whether you are seeking it or not – taking years, decades, or the greater portion of a lifetime. As the years roll on by, the god idea we once clinged to so desperately becomes less and less of a reality without any great fanfare and without anyone having to tell you otherwise. You can’t even put an exact date on when you became an Atheist. You simply realize one day that you have been one for quite some time.
Many theists believe that people become Atheists because they need to “see” something in order to believe – as if there really is something still waiting to be found. This is incorrect. Atheists become Atheists because of what they are ALREADY SEEING in nature. For those of you who profess a belief in a “one true god”, your faith is accidental – a function of time, geography and circumstance. Had you been born in the first dynasties of Egypt, you would be worshipping the “true gods” and “true dieties” en vogue during those eras. Likewise, if you were born only a few centuries ago in the Pacific islands, you would be in tune with their systems of “true ritual”. Would you have been born in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time? According to monotheism, you would have.
Our thoughts about the gods have indeed changed over the course of our history, but, rather than converge to some harmonious “truth”, it has instead, fractured into a bewildering array of conflicting ideologies. And we can see that our ideas of god not only changes throughout history, but through one’s very own lifetime. From a vengeful god that terrorized our youth to a distant god that remains tantalizingly absent, our ingenuity and imagination still struggles to express that same sense of wonder that has always pervaded this beautiful yet terrifying world. As we look back upon all of this, there is only once real choice to make:
We must each decide for ourselves if the word “god” has any meaning left today.
What are your comments on this?
The real true God
1. His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence
2. Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory
3. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him
4. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined
5. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he or she my try
6. His Worth cannot be described even by the greatest rhetoricians of all times
7. Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead
8. He is so absolutely Pure and above nature, that nothing can be added to or substacted from His Being
9. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from
His Person
10. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is ignorant and will always try to believe in some creation of his or her imagination as his or her god
11.There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities
12. He is with everything but not physically and bodily
13. No physical eye has and will ever see Him
14. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being yet He has not prevented them from realising His Presence
best wishes
@ David
Nothing is certain, and as such, everything is a leap of faith. The point is, saying that “Godidit” is like leaping from the empire state building, because there is no reason whatsoever to believe God made it. There is no other reason than the fact that it is there, and that it is awesome (in the classical sense). It’s a much smaller leap to say, “most things I see have a rational explanation, and I can probably apply that universally, even if I haven’t worked it all out.”
Also, you say that belief in God is rational, and that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously not, therefore, you’ve obviously missed the point of the statement. The point is that there is no more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They both have the same things backing them up, which really consist only of religious texts of questionable origins to back them up. “When you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.”
Sorry for the double post, but I felt the need to address Harji as well.
@ Harji:
You’ve basically just said, “you can’t know it because you just can’t.” Go re-watch the video you’re commenting on and see if you can spot the irony. It’s pretty tough, but I think you can manage.