Understanding the believer and the nonbeliever

I've pointed out before that one of the frustrating things about being an atheist is having people tell you what you think. I've heard so many believers, from fundamentalist Christians to "spiritual" agnostics, explain what my point of view is only to get it spectacularly wrong on every occasion. It's getting to the point where I'm honestly of the mindset that once one is able to accurately and honestly articulate what atheism is, one has become an atheist.

The strange thing to me is that theists often turn atheism into something much bigger and complex than it actually is. Even when you flat-out say that all it means is a lack of belief, it needs to turn into something far more than that. It's frustrating, but it's understandable. With that said, it's my sincere hope that this blog entry will serve as advice to both the theist and the atheist when engaging in these debates.

When trying to talk to theists, it's really tempting to explain atheism by saying that it's the same as not believing in werewolves, leprechauns, The Smurfs, etc. We don't believe in any of those things, but we'd be convinced with evidence of their existence, and the same goes for any God or gods that might exist. This seems like a really easy and accurate analogy, but it doesn't work for the theist. 

And why should it? None of those beliefs carry the same history as the world's major religions do. Nobody bases their entire life philosophy on those beliefs either. People who believe in God claim to have a personal relationship with their deity. It's not like even like believing in other supernatural beings that actually do have a significant number of people accept like ghosts. To say that God doesn't exist would be to deny something that they would claim to know to be true - not just believe. It's something that affects their very identity.

So, to make an analogy with leprechauns comes off as ridiculous because a belief in God is not like a belief in leprechauns - AT ALL. I would hope that any atheist can see this and understand why a theist would bridle at the suggestion.

But here's the thing, and I imagine that most atheists reading this by now would have already caught what's going on here. And this is what I'm hoping that the believer will understand when this point is brought up:

To the believer, a belief in God is nothing like a belief in (insert supernatural being here). However, to the nonbeliever, the nonbelief is exactly the same.

What gets lost in the discussion is that the believer is talking about something that's more than just a belief to them while to the nonbeliever, that doesn't matter. However, the believer thinks that it absolutely should matter, and that's why it's not right for the atheist to be so dismissive. I'm not entirely sure what the resolution to this should be, as while I understand both sides, I ultimately think that the atheist is under no obligation to grant religious belief more weight simply because of the importance of the belief to the theist. Perhaps it's a reason to at least treat the believer with some sympathy and not just go for the jugular, but the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim of something's existence, not on the person who doubts it. To suggest that it's somehow different when it comes to a belief in God is to elevate the theist position based on reasons that nobody would accept for anything else. 

Because what if belief in leprechauns DID become as important to people as belief in God? Would that affect the belief's legitimacy one way or the other? I would suggest not, and I think that most honest theists would agree with me there.

Sincere questions for the "Just Label It!" crowd

I've written a few blog posts about GMOs now, having started about a year ago. I think that my best post was on the scientific consensus, as I think I did a good job appealing to those who accept things like climate change, evolution, etc. Since then, I realize that I was just a small part in a significant shift in the conversation, and more and more people are starting to accept that there isn't anything inherently bad about the technology. (Perhaps the most comprehensive overview came out recently on Slate's website.)

If you're against GMOs, or you think that they're inherently dangerous, then this post is not for you. Instead, I would like to address those who still feel that GMOs should be labeled even though they're not inherently dangerous. The reason why is that while I'm seeing less hysteria about GMOs being bad, I still see a lot of people who still don't understand why they can't be labeled. In my opinion, I'm against it, and either my reasoning is sound or somebody out there can show me where I've gone wrong and convince me otherwise. (Honestly, I've flip-flopped several times on this issue. What's another flop?)

Let's make one thing clear right from the get-go. The most common argument regarding GMO labeling is the phrase: "We have a right to know what's in our food." This is a completely reasonable position to have. After all, we have ingredient labels and all kinds of information listed on the products that we buy. Why should this be the exception? Again, that's completely reasonable.

Yet I'm still against the GMO label. How can I believe that we have the right to know what's in our food but not believe in labeling them?

Basically, it's because I don't believe that a label reading "GMO" tells us what's in our food. If it did, then I'd be for it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. First of all, GMO is not an ingredient. An ingredient might be a GMO, but GMOs themselves don't mean that an ingredient has been added to the corn (to give one example) the way salt is added to a jar of peanuts.

GMOs are a process, much like artificial selection is a process. As far as I know, we don't label any processes for the food that we consume. Now I realize that you might be rolling your eyes and thinking that I'm obfuscating a bit here. Clearly we're discussing two different things, right? Artificial selection is something we've been doing since the advent of agriculture. GMOs are created in a lab. That's the difference, and that's what the label tells us.

But not quite. Mutagenesis, where plants are subjected to chemicals and radiation, has been around for decades, and they aren't considered to be GMOs. In fact, they can be labeled as organic, unlike GMOs.

Okay, so a GMO label tells us about a process where the genetic structure of a plant is altered in a lab process that isn't mutagenesis. Assuming that you're still okay with this premise, and if you are, I'd really like to know why, we still have a problem, and this, for me, is the biggest one. The following is a list of techniques where genes have been altered in plants that produce food. While reading through it, ask yourself if you can tell which ones are considered GMOs and which ones aren't. (List courtesy of Kavin Senapathy.)

1. Corn engineered with a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis to express an insecticidal protein. 
2. Corn created by scientists by crossing genetically homozygous corn genomes, resulting in more robust heterozygous varieties. These are commercialized and sold. 
3. Watermelon created by crossing a parent with four sets of chromosomes with a parent with two sets. The offspring, with three sets, cannot complete the process of meiosis, rendering it sterile and unable to produce seeds. 
4. Papaya with a short viral sequence in its genome, allowing it to resist harmful ringspot infection. 
5. Kiwi created by applying a chemical to induce multiplication of the number of chromosomes (polyploidy) causing the fruit to be larger and more commercially viable. 
6. Apple created with reduced expression of the enzyme that causes it to turn brown (it will still brown when rotten, but not when bitten.) 
7. Grapefruit created by exposure to gamma radiation to induce artificial genetic mutations. Those with beneficial mutations are then commercialized and sold.

Now, you might have been able to guess at a couple after my explanation of mutagensis, but if you're really not sure which ones are GMOs (only 1, 4, and 6) then the question is this:

How does a GMO label tell you what's in your food when you don't know what a GMO is?

Please don't think that I'm trying to insult you or get one over on you by pointing out what you don't know. I only got about half of them right myself when I took the quiz. But the point still stands, doesn't it? If not, please, tell me what I'm getting wrong and how the label still informs you.

I once had somebody express to me concern about "Roundup ready" corn and soy, as they're sprayed with glyphosate, which has some people concerned. This was in a discussion where the person was trying to convince me of the wisdom of GMO labeling. But not all GMOs are "Roundup ready". So isn't what's needed, if you think that you need to know that, is a "sprayed with glyphosate" label? And if they're going to label that, then why not also label the other herbicides and pesticides which are potentially as, if not more, harmful?

So, I managed to successfully avoid discussing Monsanto up to this point, but that's always the 800 pound gorilla in the room when discussing this matter, so I guess I'd better get to it.. When California had its GMO labeling initiative on the ballot, the most commonly cited reason (to me) as to why they should be labeled was because big Agri-businesses like Monsanto were paying a lot of money to defeat the measure. This is absolutely true. However, I don't find that to be a compelling reason to be in favor of labels. It certainly is worth considering, but I feel that one can't simply make decisions based on who else is for or against something. After all, Monsanto was awarded as "The Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality" by the Human Rights Campaign. Am I going to change my position on equality for gay people just because Monsanto supports it? Certainly not.

I guess what I'm saying is that even if one accepts the most negative view of Monsanto, it can be agreed that nobody (and no corporation) is wrong 100% of the time. They could be against labels for purely selfish reasons as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that labels are a good idea.

My last point is that if you STILL think that GMOs should be labeled, they kinda are in a way. At least, there are plenty of products that proudly label themselves as "Non GMO". Also, if it's certified organic, then it's not a GMO. Beyond that, you can educate yourself as to which products are likely to be GMOs and which aren't, and then you'll know which ones to avoid. (I once had a person tell me that he could tell the difference between organic and GMO tomatoes. I thought that was remarkable considering that there aren't any GMO tomatoes on the market.)

If you've stuck with me this long, hopefully you can at least see why I don't understand what a GMO label tells us. It seems to me that it would simply confuse people. Perhaps there is some way to inform consumers more than they already are, and I'm all ears as to what that is, but you're going to have a ways to go in order to convince me that a GMO label is even a good first step.

An Honest Liar - Movie Review

I got excited when I switched on Netflix last night to see that An Honest Liar was available to stream. It's a documentary featuring one of my personal heroes, James Randi. I've written about his role in my journey from theist to skeptic/atheist before, so he's obviously an important person to me. I've read most of his books, and I saw the old NOVA special that featured him, so I did have some concern that it was merely going to tell me stuff that I already knew. While there certainly was some overlap, I was really impressed with the insights given into the master debunker/magician's life.

If you've never heard of James Randi, he started off as a magician, and he had made several television appearances as "The Amazing Randi" going back to the mid 1950s. By the 1970s, he started to become famous for being a master debunker. It all started with so-called "psychic" Uri Geller, who could supposedly bend spoons with his mind (although he suspiciously always needed to have them in his hands). Randi showed that he could duplicate all of Geller's feats using pure magician's trickery. From there, he went on to debunk psychic surgeons, dowsers, faith healers, etc., even offering a one million dollar prize to anybody who could demonstrate paranormal/psychic phenomenon under proper test conditions. (Many have tried, nobody has succeeded.)

Anybody who knows me can see why this man is one of my heroes. I love a good debunking, and while it's probably not an admirable trait, I enjoy bursting people's bubbles. (This is why I would just LOVE IT if global warming was a big hoax, but as a proper skeptic, I have to go with the evidence and admit that it's happening.)

Without spoiling any specifics of the movie, here are the things that I found enlightening:

1. Exposing somebody as a fraud doesn't ruin their careers. There are several cases, including the time Randi ensured that Geller wasn't going to be able to use any magician's tricks on The Tonight Show, which resulted in Geller failing miserably and making excuses as to why he couldn't perform his "psychic" feats.

There was also the time that Randi exposed Peter Popoff, a supposed faith-healer who seemed to be getting messages directly from God, only to have it turn out to be Popoff's wife talking to him through a wireless set.

In both cases, if we lived in a world that made sense, both of those men would have seen the end of their careers. And while their stars faded a bit, they still managed to continue on selling their snake oil to the masses.

The sad truth that Randi had to learn - as did I - is that most people don't really want to know what's true. If you ask them, they'll say that they do, but if somebody wants to believe something, nothing will stop them from believing it, and they'll keep finding excuses as to why they should keep believing it.

This is something that has taken me until fairly recently to make peace with. I remember when I read Randi's book, Flim Flam!, which exposed all kinds of frauds; I lent it out to a relative. I'm not even sure if that person read it, because she insisted that she wanted to believe in the things he debunked. For me, when I find out that I might be genuinely wrong about something, I want to know. And when I find out that I am wrong, I want to tell everybody about it. The assumption that I had to get over is thinking that everybody else cares, but they don't.

2. We get to learn about Randi's personal life. I had never known this until he came out a few years ago, but Randi is a gay man and has been living with his partner (now spouse, as the two were legally married) for the past couple decades. Their relationship takes up a fairly large portion of the film, as it turns out that Jose Alvarez, Randi's spouse, was convicted of identity theft. It's ironic in many ways considering that Randi is a man who's devoted to exposing the truth. And it's doubly interesting because Jose was a part of one of Randi's biggest tricks, where Alvarez pretended to be able to channel a spirit and managed to fool many people before revealing that it was all a hoax.

There's a really contentious scene in the movie where Randi seems like, in at least one aspect of his life, that he was more of a liar than an "honest liar". This didn't bother me, as I never think of my personal heroes as being perfect, and I know that everybody can be dishonest in the right situation. Still, by the time it's all over, Randi comes out as once again being the most honest guy who's really good at lying.

3. Uri Geller is interviewed. - This really surprised me. At first I thought that it might be some archival footage, but it seems pretty clear that he was interviewed just for the documentary. I tell ya, the most talented writer in the world couldn't create a more fitting character foil for James Randi than Uri Geller. The two of them really are flip sides of the same coin, and you get a great sense of that in the Geller interviews. It actually made me despise Geller a little less as a human being, but I still think that what he did was pretty deplorable.

Overall, it was a pretty moving film, and it wasn't shy about delving into the potential problems when it comes to debunking miraculous claims. Randi is often the mastermind, and he employs others to go about tricking people only to later reveal that it's all a trick. It's a bit easier for him to be behind the scenes of the whole thing, but it's harder for his accomplices when they have to actually deliberately deceive their fellow human beings.

People don't like being tricked, and most of us like to think that we're too smart for that sort of a thing. Perhaps the first step is to convince people that no matter how smart you are, you can be fooled. From there, we need to get people to value truth, which is easier said than done. At least we have guys like James Randi to help show us the way.

Teaching religion at a public school

She quoted The Bible? BURN HER!!!

Did you hear the news? They've announced the plot to God's Not Dead 2. For those of you who don't know the first one, it basically featured a heroic Christian defeating a strawman. The plot for the second one promises more unwarranted persecution complexes and strawmen (straw-women?) so Christians can feel not only that they're right but that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe either secretly DOES believe what they do and/or is a horrible person.

This plot interests me a little bit more than the first, although I don't think that I'll be able to bear to actually watch it. This one features a high school teacher getting sued for making a Bible reference. That gets my attention because I happen to be a high school teacher who makes a hell of a lot of Bible references.

If I had things my way, I'd be teaching a comparative religions class. Maybe I can eventually make that happen, but as of right now I'm simply an English teacher. I teach both freshmen and seniors, and while I hardly mention The Bible with the freshmen, I do a lesson on it with the seniors. In fact, I cover a lot of religious topics simply because it comes up in so much of the literature that we read: Beowulf, Siddhartha, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and more provide me with the opportunity to cover Norse paganism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. And let's not forget the Biblical allusions in Macbeth and Hamlet. Essentially, religion is the foundation of much of literature in general, and The Bible plays an especially big part in all of that.

Now, I've never been sued, although I once had an anonymous parent complain to the administration, insisting that I apologize for one of my lessons. (The administration took my side, and while they related what was said to me, there was no direction given to me about apologizing.) From what I gather, one of the biggest points of contention was that I told the class that I am an atheist. I do this because I want to let them know where I stand so they can suss out any bias that they might detect. Apparently it's bad for me to even say that, I guess.

Hopefully the sequel can also offer rebuttals
to complaints that nobody makes.

The other problem was an exercise I call "Bible or Crap" where I give a bunch of passages and the students have to determine whether it's a Bible quote or a bunch of crap that I made up. The results are funny sometimes, as I include messed up passages from The Bible that they don't expect to be in there, and once they think they've figured out that everything horrible is from The Bible, I throw them off with a passage where Jesus strangles a puppy. (Spoiler alert - that's crap I made up.) When I conclude the lesson, I point out that I have provided no context for any of the passages I gave them and if they care to know what it all means, they have to read those parts for themselves. So, it's an exercise in how people can pull things out of context to further their own agendas, and it concludes with me encouraging them to read The Bible. I guess that's bad, 'cause I use the word "crap" - even though the "crap" is the stuff that's NOT The Bible.

I wasn't even upset about the whole thing though. I just wished that the parent and/or student could have come to talk to me. I'm not interested in making my students feel marginalized or uncomfortable, and I've had plenty of Christian kids get a kick out of that particular exercise. In fact, when I posted about this story on Facebook, some of the comments defending my lessons came from Christian kids. One even said that it made his "blood boil" to think that they wanted me to apologize. Oh well, can't please everybody.

Anyway, with all of that said, here are some things that I've noticed. Obviously, I'm only one teacher, and even if I did the same thing in a different part of the country, I might have a completely different experience with this. For the record, I live and teach in the San Francisco Bay Area, in an area that's probably more conservative than S.F. or Berkeley, but is still pretty liberal. So, here goes:

1. You have to start by clearing up some misconceptions. - I blame people on the right and the left equally for this, but too many people think that you're not even allowed to discuss religion and The Bible in a public school. I always point out that I can teach about it all I want; I just cannot preach for or against it.

2. Religious affiliation doesn't necessarily affect the attitudes of the students. - I have had Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. students who have reacted really positively to my lessons. One Muslim student this last year even told me that my lessons affected him in a profound way. I've had atheist/agnostic students tell me that they appreciated getting to learn about all of this stuff without having it preached to them. Believe it or not, I've had Christian students tell me that I made them want to get more serious about their faith and go back to church. (Dammit! Just kidding. Kinda.)

Likewise, I have all kinds of students who react extremely negatively toward it. Oftentimes these attitudes come from the nonbelievers, as they don't even want to hear about religion. I can talk about Odin and Zeus all I want, but if I get into things that people actually believe to this day, I'm placing too great of a burden on them. I guess they figure that they might accidentally convert if they hear the word "Jesus" enough times. However, I get this attitude from believers as well. I've had Christians ask me when we're finally going to be done with it. Sometimes it's clear because I introduce a lot of ideas that they don't normally hear in church, and there's probably a lot of cognitive dissonance going on when I discuss Jesus in the same terms as I would Hercules.

This makes me think that maybe it's not so much a question of theists versus atheists in this country, but we seem to have a lot of apatheists. Some people just want to believe or disbelieve what they want, and they don't want to talk about it or even think about it any more.

3. The best compliments aren't compliments. - I had a student complain about my Bible test because it was hard. She informed me that she used to go to a private Christian school, and there they simply told her what to believe. "But with you, you're always saying that some people think this, and some people think that." Excellent.

Of course I hate Jesus! He's not the real son of Zeus like me!

4. I can be subtly subversive - I really try and bend over backwards to not offend anybody, and whenever I say something like how there are a growing number of scholars who doubt that Jesus was even a historical figure, I make sure to tag on something like, "But you shouldn't just believe that because I've said it." Still, I can do subtle things like how on the test I have a multiple choice question asking them to circle which story is NOT in The Bible. I then list off some of the more absurd ones - like Samson losing his super strength with a haircut and Jonah getting swallowed by a "whale". The one that's NOT in The Bible is an nearly-invincible man who's killed when he gets hit in his only weak spot - his heel. (That's Achilles I'm talking about.) Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the question, but it is fun to put the Achilles story in the same context as a bunch of other obvious myths just to highlight how they're all pretty absurd if you believe they literally happened.

5. They still don't learn a damn thing. - I'm probably not giving myself credit, but it's amazing how even after beating them over the head with my particular pet peeves, they still get it wrong. One example is how I'll still hear students talk about Catholicism and Christianity as though they're two completely different religions. I practically yell at them that Catholicism is one form of Christianity, just as beagles are one breed of dog. All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. Yet, I'll still hear them say, "Yeah, he's Catholic, unlike me, as I'm Christian." Ugh.

Another example was just from this year when I had a student visit a synagogue as part of a "cultural excursion" project. In his presentation, he talked about how Jesus is important to the Jewish faith. I nearly plotzed.

I even had a former student share on her Facebook wall a meme about how The Bible isn't allowed to be read in public schools. I practically lost my mind. I commented, wondering how she could post that when she did an entire Bible lesson in my class. She then sheepishly suggested that I was trying to make her "feel small". Ugh. No. I just wonder why the hell I bother doing anything sometimes.

So, that's what I've got. Any other teachers out there have similar experiences?

My first (Thinking) Atheist event

Last night I attended a presentation by Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist podcast. It was hosted by The Atheist Community of San Jose.  He was promoting his book, Sacred Cows: A Lighthearted Look at Belief and Tradition around the World. During the presentation, he went over various bizarre beliefs like snake handling, "Sabbath mode" appliances, and some odd Bulgarian thing involving spinning some poor dog around. It was a pretty funny and informative speech, and at the end he got a bit more personal and talked about his personal difficulties involving his family's unwillingness to accept that he no longer shares their beliefs.

For those who aren't familiar with his podcast or videos, I recommend them. Seth's story is an interesting one, as he used to be a DJ for a Christian radio station in Oklahoma. Eventually he found himself seriously questioning his faith, and then he started creating videos on Youtube under his "The Thinking Atheist" banner. (Seth always insists that he's not The Thinking Atheist, and that the logo and name are supposed to symbolize how we should always be thinking, exploring, and questioning what we believe.) For some time, he remained anonymous, but he eventually came out and revealed his true identity at a Freethought convention.

Seth on the left, me on the right.

I've never been to any kind of organize atheist event before. I've never really seen the need to, and I'll admit that for some time after admitting my atheism to myself, I would kind of scoff at the idea. After all, I didn't like going to church when I was a believer. Why would I want to submit myself to something similar when I no longer had the fear that I was making some deity angry? Eventually, I came around and realized that this attitude was a bit of a privilege on my part, as I didn't lose a ton of friends when I came out as an atheist, and I wasn't disowned by my family members. Not everybody is as lucky as me, and for those folks, atheist gatherings offer a chance for them to be with people who embrace them for who they are. So, while I'm still not personally big on atheist gatherings, I'm glad that they exist.

Got a copy of the book, and got it signed.

I will also say that I'm glad that I attended this one. I've been a big fan of Seth's for some time now, ever since I saw his "The Story of Suzie" video.

Lately, I've been steering away from atheist books and podcasts for the most part, as I've had my fill for the most part. Still, I continue listening to his podcast. For one, it's really professional. He keeps each episode to about an hour and there's no blathering on about pointless things. Sure, sometimes he digresses and talks about his dog or things like that, but he keeps things moving along at a brisk pace. Also, he has a really positive vibe about his show. I realize that the video up above might make you think differently, but his show is never about calling people stupid or implying that believers are "mentally ill" or other such nonsensical things that some atheists are wont to say.

I'm on the left, toward the back.

Another thing that was really cool about last night's presentation is that I got an old friend to come along with me, and he brought his two kids. The two of them have had their fill of church experiences, as their mother (my friend is divorced from her) takes them on Sundays - and one of the ones she's gone to was pretty rabidly fundamentalist from my understanding. It was great to have them along so they could see a positive face for nonbelievers outside of just their father. Seth also took the time to talk to everybody before and after the show, and he had a great message for them: 1) take care of each other, and 2) keep looking for answers and the truth no matter what it might be. (Those weren't his exact words, but that was the gist.)

No, I didn't take my son. He's only four, and I doubt he would have appreciated it. (My wife would have, but she was unable to attend.) Considering he's not going to be exposed to a whole lot of religion, it's not a high priority for me to take him to things like this. I suppose that if he was older and expressed interest, I'd be happy to, but I have no interest in pushing him one way or the other. I'll be honest about my beliefs, and I'll encourage critical thinking, but I'm not looking to do some sort of equivalent to what the faithful do.

Part of me wishes that some of my faithful friends could have come along, as they probably would have enjoyed it far more than they would expect. Plus, it's always good to show a good side of atheism considering that so many people are given the message that we're horrible. I mean, yeah, we did sacrifice and eat a baby when everything was wrapped up, but lots of groups do that.

In all seriousness though, I'm glad that Seth took some questions at the end, and even better, he was asked, "What do you think the best reasons are for why there is no God?" He took the time to explain that he would never word it that way. Most atheists, like myself, don't take some sort of dogmatic position like theists do when they claim with certainty that a God exists. Most of us don't take the other extreme, as we have no way of knowing that. The best that we can say is that we find the argument for the existence of one to be totally unconvincing. If given evidence, we'll change our minds. But that evidence hasn't appeared, and when it does, it comes in the form of anecdotes, specious reasoning, and appeals to emotion - in other words, not actual evidence.

So, would I attend another event like this? Sure. I had a good time, and if I did, I'd want to bring along some people with me - especially my wife, but maybe even an open-minded theist friend as well. If you're an atheist, especially one who has lost out on friends and family members as a result, then you definitely gotta check out Seth's website and podcast. He always refers to his fans as a community and family, and I don't think that's too far off. Here's hoping Seth will find his way out to California again.

Comics teach morality

I remember watching a documentary on comic books years ago, and one of the creators that they interviewed (I want to say it was Harlan Ellison, but nobody get mad at me if he never said anything of the sort.) made a statement about how kids get their morality from comic books. I thought that this was a strange thing to say, but the more I thought about it, the more it resonated. In fact, I think that I'm definitely an example of that idea, and I'm not sure that I would have the same moral center that I do if it weren't for all those superheroes.

Before I continue, let's make one thing clear. The biggest influence on my morality was my parents. No doubt the society in which I was raised played a big part as well. Oh, and I think that Star Wars might have had something to do with it as well. Still, I was raised with Bible stories, and I can definitely say that my morals never came from that particular book of myths nearly as much as the modern myths published by Marvel and DC Comics.

I could probably come up with several examples of this, but the one that resonates with me more than any is what I learned from reading comics with The Punisher. For those who are unfamiliar with the character, he's not exactly a "superhero" as he not only doesn't have powers, but he uses guns and kills every villain who gets in his way. He doesn't bother tying them up and leaving them for the law. His solution is a bit more permanent.

I was first introduced to the character back when I was in seventh grade, in issue 285 of The Amazing Spider-Man. It was the middle of the "Gang War" storyline, where various mobsters and their supervillain henchmen were battling it out. To make matters worse, here comes this dude with a bazooka and all kinds of guns, ready to put a quick end to it by blowing every last one of them to smithereens. Instead of thanking the guy for his speedy resolution, Spider-Man tries to stop him, likening his methods to putting out a forest fire with a flamethrower.

I was intrigued with The Punisher, and I followed his adventures into his own solo series. I understood that his kind of justice would never work in real life, but there was a visceral thrill in watching a guy take matters into his own hands and cutting through the corrupt justice system. In other words, his methods do work, but they only work in a fantasy world.

Still, the stories that always resonated the most with me were the ones where he was put into direct conflict with one of the more traditional superheroes, usually Daredevil. There was one crossover where the two of them punched each other over the fate of a guy who was poisoning over-the-counter drugs. It was a fun issue with a lot of great "tough guy" lines from The Punisher. I remember it by heart when the killer protested that he had "rights" to only get the response, "You've got rights. You've got the right to go splat when you hit the pavement. You have the right to bleed into the gutter."

Before The Punisher could toss the guy off the roof though, Daredevil stepped in and the two had it out. There was also a brief exchange of ideas. Of course, it's hardly a deep analysis of the moral issue of what methods we should take in dealing with society's criminals. However, it illustrated what made guys like Daredevil and Spider-Man less miserable people than The Punisher. They understood that you don't get to be the good guy when you don't hold yourself to a higher standard than the bad guy.

How does this continue to affect me? Well, I'm the kind of guy who cares about what's true and what isn't. There are many things that I speak out against, and usually my biggest complaint is with the lies that people tell. I often say things along the line of, "If you have to lie to make your point, maybe you don't have a point that's worth making."

And I find myself getting even more upset when people whom I see as being on "my side" of various issues engaging in the act of lying to further a cause that I believe in. One of the most egregious examples of this, as I've noted before, is the movie Zeitgeist. I still see my fellow nonbelievers cite this movie as an example of how to debunk Christianity. (I think that Bill Maher's Religulous repeated a lot of the inaccuracies that the film noted as well.) I also really need to stop seeing the whole "The Jesus story is a ripoff of the Horus myth!" meme going around Facebook.

The point is, I think that my side has a strong enough case on its own. No need to repeat nonsense. But when you point that out to some folks, they don't seem to care if they're repeating something that's untrue. Just like The Punisher, the ends justifies the means, and it doesn't matter so long as it's a "win" for their side. I have such a hard time with that because one of my major issues with religion is that I think that it's dishonest. You can't fight dishonesty by engaging in more of it.

I could list other examples of this happening with other issues. Thankfully, I can find lots of other folks who feel the same as I do. (Notice that the link I provided that debunks Zeitgeist is from an atheist website?) Still, I feel too often that for too many it's more important how you line up with the tribe and if you can score points against the other side whether honestly or not.

This is also why I scratched my head in disbelief when I heard people defend things like the Patriot Act and government overreach after 9/11. I actually heard somebody say that we need to make some sacrifices in order to "preserve our way of life". So, we need to sacrifice our way of life to preserve our way of life? How the hell does that make sense?

Is it possible that I would have this same regard (maybe even obsession) for intellectual honesty and fairness if I had never read comic books? Perhaps. But I gotta admit, I often think about Daredevil and The Punisher fighting on a rooftop when these sorts of issues come up.

Thanks, Big Pharma!

When I went to see a doctor last summer, I was asked whether I was taking any medications. Specifically, the doctor wanted to know if I was taking anything for my blood pressure, as it was running a bit high. I told the doctor that I used to, but I had stopped.

She looked at me a bit puzzled and asked me why.

I didn't have a good answer.

I figured it was time to get back on track with my blood pressure after my last dentist appointment. The poor hygienist had to check it three times until it was finally low enough for it be okay to start my teeth cleaning. (I don't know why I need to have low blood pressure when they clean my teeth, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason.) She also asked me about any medications, and once again I had to confess that I had stopped taking medication several years ago for no good reason.

When I made my first appointment with my new doctor (as my wife and I are on a new insurance provider) I was asked yet again why I had stopped taking my medication. I actually had an answer, and I went with an honest one - I was simply being stupid.

The thing is, my blood pressure has always run a bit high. I'm fairly certain that it runs high on both sides of my family as well. Yeah, I could lose some weight, but that's been the case for some time. I'd still like to do that, but who knows if losing weight would fix the problem? It might not. And until then, it's probably better to take care of it if there's something that can be done.

So, why was I being so stupid? I don't know. For some reason, I didn't feel good about having to take medication. I felt like I was some kind of a failure for not getting my weight under control. Also, when I would tell certain friends and family members that I was on blood pressure medication, they would look at me like I just admitted to developing a crack habit.

It's kinda crazy when I think about it now. I'm not going to single people out, but more than one indicated that it was probably a bad idea - that it would be better to try and get it down "naturally". (Not sure why "naturally" is automatically a better option. In fact, that very notion is an outright fallacy.) I was also told that the pharmaceutical industry (or "Big Pharma", ya know) was only interested in making money, so they have people convinced that they need these pills in order to turn a profit.

I don't doubt for a moment that they want to make money. But making money and providing a valuable product aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Having high blood pressure is understood as being a potential problem. What's wrong with them making money off of something that's minimizing my risks in life?

The thing is, I'm ultra critical of ridiculous ideas, but I try to be sympathetic toward people who have them. After all, I'm not immune from having them myself. I feel pretty dumb that I stopped taking my medication because of some pretty groundless objections.

The doctor got me back on it (Lisinopril) and after a slight adjustment, my blood pressure is back in the healthy zone. I seemed to have a bit of a reaction to it at first. At least, it might have been. Let's just say that I was having some digestion issues. However, that's all over now, and I seem to have adjusted to the medication (assuming that it was the problem in the first place).

I'm definitely not going to stop taking it unless my doctor tells me to. I feel good about it, and I'm not going to let anybody make me second guess something that benefits my health. (And I'm also getting to the point where I find it hard to take anybody seriously who sincerely uses the term "Big Pharma".)

Spreading atheism is pointless

The last President of the United States, George W. Bush, stated that God told him to invade Iraq (among some other requests). It's stuff like this that atheists point to when they want to see religion and religious thinking to go away. God told him? You mean that being for which there is no evidence of its existence? This is what you're basing policy on? Policy that costs the lives of thousands of people?

Many of my fellow nonbelievers find a little bit of hope in the fact that religion is on the decline in this country and around the world. It certainly would remove a lot of reasons for behaviors that are difficult to justify when you don't have a supreme being commanding you to do it. It certainly seems like we're entering a new age of enlightenment, but I'm not so sure that there's any reason to get too optimistic.

Let's take the example about Bush invading Iraq because Jesus told him to do so. Would it be any better if he said that he did it because that's what his astrologer told him to do? How about the ghost of George Washington said it would be a good idea? Maybe some aliens landed and told him that he should do so, and since they come from an advanced civilization, he figured that he'd follow their advice. Would any of these scenarios be any better? Of course not because they're all irrational and not based on any kind of evidence.

I sometimes will post all kinds of skeptic-related memes and thoughts on Facebook, and it's amazing to me how I'll get some people who'll "like" pretty much everything I post, but then they draw the line when I make fun of something that's equally irrational. For instance, I know people who will laugh at religious absurdities, but then they'll defend homeopathy. Also, I have one online friend who posts all kinds of amusing anti-religious memes, but then she posted something about her astrological sign. I didn't want to give her a hard time about it, but I expressed my confusion as to how she could be such a firm atheist and yet give any credence to astrology. I ended by explaining that the reason why I don't believe that me being a Sagittarius has any significance is the exact same reason why I don't believe in a god.

Obviously, a person can be an atheist and not be a skeptic. I think that's a little hard for people like myself, who started out as skeptics and found themselves becoming atheists as a result, to understand sometimes. I'm not quite sure what motivates people to become atheists otherwise. Perhaps it's that they simply don't like what religion has to offer, and they don't feel enough pressure from their friends and family to get involved with one. Maybe they had bad experiences. I don't know, but it seems like an interesting bit of compartmentalization to reject the idea of a God yet still believe in ghosts, for instance.

Let's also not forget the fact that there are a lot of atheists out there who might be skeptics when it comes to the supernatural, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're on the right side of science. Take, for instance, Bill Maher. I have such conflicted feelings about this guy. When he discusses religion and politics, I find myself in agreement with him, and I think that he has a great way of cutting right to the heart of the matter in a humorous way. Sometimes he goes a bit over the line, but I'm fine with that. When I have a real problem with Maher though is when he goes anti-science, in particular his statements about vaccines and GMOs. I ask you now, my fellow atheist, would you feel comfortable living in a world with a bunch of Methodists who vaccinate and don't work toward preventing potentially life-saving GMOs from going to poor people? Or would you rather be around a bunch of atheists with whooping cough?

So, yeah, it might be great to imagine a world with no religion, as John Lennon explained, but getting rid of religion doesn't mean that we'll suddenly be in a more rational world. If it's not coupled with skepticism, then we might be exchanging one kind of absurdity for another. This is why trying to spread atheism is ultimately pointless if you're also a skeptic. So, consider me unimpressed that there are more nonbelievers out there. I'll be more hopeful when I see other irrational beliefs go on the decline.

This is why we should concern ourselves with encouraging people to think skeptically. It's the sort of thing that ultimately works against religion, and all sorts of other tribalistic ills like nationalism, Atheism will come with a more skeptical outlook, and if there is good reason to believe in a god, then skepticism will bear that out as well.

It doesn't convince you either!

A few days ago, I was having a conversation with a Christian apologist who was working on a series of videos that would provide evidence for the existence of God. During the conversation, I asked him if he would no longer believe if he would change his mind if I could conclusively show that each of his bits of "evidence" were, in fact, not evidence. (I've done this rodeo before. They don't have "evidence" so much as "arguments", and there isn't one that I know of that doesn't rely on some sort of a logical fallacy.) He told me that even if I was able to convince him that his arguments were bad, he wouldn't become an apostate.

I found this to be pretty curious. If those are supposedly the reasons why one should believe in God, then why would you keep believing if all of those reasons were shown to be false? Obviously, the bits of "evidence" that he was going to give weren't the reasons why he believes at all then. That's fine, but why even bring it up if it's not what convinces you?

I try and make the case for all sorts of things that some people don't believe: evolution, climate change, the safety of GMOs, etc. However, all of the reasons that I give are the reasons why I accept these things to be true. If somebody showed me that all of my reasons for believing in climate change, for instance, were actually false, then I would have no choice but to change my mind.

Likewise, if I found that all of my objections for not believing in a God were shown to be faulty, then I would have to become a pure agnostic at the very least if not a full-on believer. I don't just say things like that there is no evidence for God's existence just because it sounds convincing. I genuinely believe that to be true! And when I say that the arguments for God's existence rely on logical fallacies, I'm not just giving a sweeping dismissal of the other side's arguments. I genuinely think that this is the case, and I think that I can effectively point out where the fallacy is in each instance. If somebody can show me just one instance where I'm wrong on that score, then I'll have to take at least a step closer toward belief.

I don't think that this phenomenon is so unique to religion either. People like to pick a side and stick to their side in various debates and disputes. If they think that they have a talking point that will "win" the argument, then they'll use it, even if the truth of that point is in serious question. For instance, I don't think that anybody who says that "The United States is the greatest country on the face of the Earth" is genuinely interested in finding out what might disprove that. Even if they give reasons why (like all of that freedom, ya know) they're not going to change their minds if you show those reasons to be fallacious.

If you genuinely care whether your beliefs are true or not, it's important to understand and question why you believe what you believe. Are the reasons you're giving the actual reasons? Or do you just think that they will sound convincing to others?

The Theory of Everything and Atheist Tropes

My wife and I saw The Theory of Everything last week, and I didn't get a chance until just now to sit down and write about it. Since it's been gestating in my mind, this is going to be more than just a straight-up review, as one of my concerns going into this film was how they were going to handle the atheism of Stephen Hawking (the subject matter of this biographical picture, for those who don't know what this is about).

Why would I be concerned about this? After all, it's just one aspect of the man's life, and some would argue that it's not even the most interesting part. It probably wouldn't be too wild of an assumption to say that even Hawking himself wouldn't find that aspect of his life to be all that important. He's not an atheist activist. If anything, he's an activist for science and reason, and this has led him to conclude that there simply is no need for a God's existence. So, what's the big deal?

I think it's important for the same reason that Johnny Cash's Christianity was important in his biopic, Walk the Line. It's not all there is to the man, but he came from a spiritual household, and music and spirituality were intertwined for him. Also, one of the best parts in that movie is when his record company tells him that he shouldn't perform in a prison because his audience wouldn't like it, since they're mostly Christians. Cash's response to any Christians who think that he should stay away from sinner? "Then they're not Christians!" It's there, and it would have been a disservice to completely neglect Cash's religious feelings. I can't speak for everybody, but I certainly didn't feel that the movie was preachy.

I didn't want some sort of anti-religious screed for this movie, but I didn't want the movie to skip over what his conclusions were when it came to the God question. (I skip the phrase "how he feels" because Hawking himself has said, and the line is in the movie, that it "doesn't matter" how he "feels".) I feel that it's important for a few reasons:

1. The man is easily the most, if not one of the most, prominent scientists, and his area of expertise is
how the universe came to be. You'll hear a lot of talk from certain religious quarters that somehow the idea of God is bolstered by science, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Hawking understands, and is able to explain, how the universe came to be, and if he doesn't see the need for a creator, then you need to do more than dismiss him with a wave of the hand if you're to challenge him on that - especially from a scientific perspective.

2. As most people know, he has ALS, which had doctors predicting that he'd be dead within a few years of the diagnosis. (That diagnosis was in the early 1960s.) A common thing that atheists hear is that people find their belief in God when they are suffering hardships and need Him the most. (Which never strikes me as a good argument - it's essentially an admission that the idea becomes more appealing when you're in a state that makes you less rational.) Call me crazy, but being confined to a wheelchair and having a computer do your talking for you strikes me as a pretty severe hardship. Yet the man doesn't complain, and I even remember an interview where he described himself as being "lucky" because so many people with ALS have it even worse than he does. The fact that he has this disease and remains so positive is a pretty clear demonstration that there isn't a "need" for a God even psychologically speaking.

3. Atheists make up a small percentage of the population, and we don't get to see many of us portrayed in a positive light in the media. Oftentimes, in fiction, atheists are seen as being "broken" somehow, and the resolution of the story is that they eventually find their way back to belief in God. You get that, or you get an atheist who's cynical and generally pretty surly. The worst though is the one who claims to be a "skeptic" even though he/she lives in a world where the supernatural is consistently meeting the burden of proof. Of course, with Hawking, we're not dealing with fiction, but considering the way Hollywood usually handles atheists, I was worried that even though they'd present his views correctly, there would be some sort of undercutting of his ideas in the last few minutes.

So...how did it do? Turns out that my concerns were unfounded. Not only is it a terrific film in general, but it dealt with Hawking's atheism exactly how I would have hoped. It's a part of his overall story. Even better, the religious people in his life, like his wife, were treated with respect. The movie made both of their feelings known without taking sides. Maybe some would argue that point, as the movie ends with Hawking giving his answer to what his life philosophy is since he doesn't believe in a God. However, the movie is primarily about him, and his philosophy might be atheistic, but it certainly isn't anti-theistic. I get the feeling that Hawking doesn't give the God question all that much thought, but he'd be willing to if given some compelling evidence.

Even more important than presenting atheism accurately, the movie showed what the scientific view of the world really is. There are a lot of strawmen versions of that in the media, as people with a scientific mindset are usually shown as being closed-minded and practically worship science as a religion, rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit into their paradigm. What this type of representation misunderstands is that an evidence based worldview allows for the possibility for pretty much anything, provided that there's evidence for it. If anything, it's the most open-minded point of view. One of my favorite parts was when Hawking explained how once he tried to prove his black hole theory, his next mission was to set about DISproving it! This is the key thing that's different from a religious-based versus a reason-based worldview. You don't go looking for things that prove you right, as that's nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias. The point is to accept the idea that you can be wrong about anything, and, as Hawking said, how you "feel" about what's true is irrelevant.

I realize that I'm really narrowing in on one slight aspect of the film, but there are plenty of professional reviews out there if you want that sort of a thing. As I stated already, the movie is fantastic. I found myself tearing up pretty regularly throughout. If I wasn't getting misty-eyed because of his hardships, I was getting emotional because of his triumphs. He's definitely an inspiration for a number of reasons, and I'm glad to add Stephen Hawking to my list of personal heroes.

I do think that the film should have ended with his rap battle against Einstein though:

Doubt is a virtue

Oftentimes when a person dies, you'll hear that he or she was a person "of faith" listed along with their accomplishments and virtues. When they say this, they're specifically talking about somebody who held on to some sort of religious faith and/or faith in something that's supernatural. I think that considering faith to be a virtue is a mistake, but rather than criticizing faith - which would automatically turn off a lot of potential readers - I'm going to start by praising doubt.

I think that some folks might get a bit confused by the word "doubt" though. Obviously, you don't want to get so crippled with doubt that you're unable to do what you need to do. In other words, if you have a particular job to do, you don't want your doubt to stop you from doing it. However, there's nothing wrong with the doubt itself. For instance, I'm a teacher, and I doubt myself all the time. I sometimes wonder if I have even the slightest clue what I'm doing. I don't let that stop me from getting out there and teaching the class though. I listen to my doubts, but that's not the only thing going through my mind. To give an example, I had a former student - a particularly smart one at that - thank me recently for what I taught her, as she said it really helped her in college. That's but one example of what gets me through. I also know that I have a pretty good track record of being able to do what I set my mind to doing, and I know that when it comes to teaching, it does depend on some of my personal strengths. Still, the doubt is good, as sometimes I have some bad ideas, and if I never had any doubt, I'd never take the time to get rid of them.

There have been times in my life when I could have used a little more doubt. Years ago, my wife and I refinanced our house. My dad went along with us to listen to the spiel of the lender, and he told us that we shouldn't trust that company. We went ahead and did it anyway, and we wound up getting a pretty crappy deal. It could have been worse though - my dad's initial skepticism wound up getting us an even better deal than they were initially offering. Still, my dad told me to walk away, and I should have listened to him.

The reason why it's important to listen to your doubts is that we human beings have a tendency to believe what we want to be true. I really wanted to believe that some random company wanted to seek me out to give me a great deal. They managed to make it all sound very legit. I also really want to believe that a Nigerian Prince wants to hook me up with several hundred thousands of dollars, but lucky for me, that has all the hallmarks of a scam, so it doesn't require a lot of sifting through the facts to determine that it's bullcrap.

When you feel that doubt coming on, that means that your brain is working, and at the very least, you need to give it some consideration. Also, if somebody expresses to you that they have doubt about something, even if it's something you believe in very strongly, your reaction should be to listen to what they have to say. Why? Because their ideas might lead you to the truth of the matter.

Even within religious traditions, there is the precedent for doubt and questioning being a virtue. What if Martin Luther never doubted the teachings of the Catholic Church? Where would Christianity be today? If you're Catholic, and that doesn't impress you, then take a look at the life of Jesus as written in the Gospels. He questions a lot of conventional thinking at the time. You can find the same sort of thing with Mohammed and even The Buddha. 

Unfortunately, and this is the part where I badmouth faith, the problem with today's religious traditions is that while they praise the questioning that spawned their traditions, they don't think that it should be questioned any further. When a believer tells another believer that he or she is doubting the faith, they aren't met with a "Oh yeah? Why is that? Maybe you have a good reason for it." Instead, they're told to pray or they're told to read something that will reconfirm the bias that they already hold.

The problem with being told to pray about one's doubt is that it assumes that there's something wrong with the doubt in the first place. But if you've followed my train of thought so far, you can see how even in religious tradition doubt is not necessarily a bad thing. This kind of thinking, that one must ask God to "help" deal with the doubt makes it sound like there's something wrong with the person who's feeling the doubt. They've got something that needs to be expunged. What if that doubt is leading to some truth though? The believer isn't encouraged to even consider that as a possibility.

Have a look at the story that I included (on the image with the pumpkin). It lists "doubt" along with "hate" and "greed" - things that are "yucky" and need to be thrown away. (I'm with it on the second two things.) What kind of a horrible message is this to send to children? I told my son that it was a monster that was making gurgling sounds at the swimming pool (it was the filter). He just laughed at me and said, "No it's not, daddy." I couldn't have been more proud of him. Also, the day that he figures out that Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. aren't real will be a cause for (mild) celebration, as it will show that he's got a brain and he's using it.

And if he ever doubts something that I firmly believe, I'll ask him to tell me his reasons. From there, we'll try to get to the truth of the matter, and either I'll be able to show him the error of his reasoning - or he will show me the error in mine.

Sheer cloudy vagueness

One of my favorite authors and personal heroes is George Orwell. Like pretty much all of my personal heroes, I admire him because he was willing to speak the truth even when people really didn't want to hear it.

I have the good fortune to teach his two most famous works, Animal Farm, and 1984, and they're not just among my favorites because I love the books, but I enjoy all of the lessons on propaganda and language that I get to tie into the literature.

One thing that Orwell was a proponent of was clear language, and that's true for me as well. I think that I get the most frustrated with people with opposing views from mine when they engage in vague language and meaningless words. I'll get frustrated, and they'll often think it's because I just can't respect their opinion, but the truth is that I'm annoyed by the cloudy mist of meaningless words that people often use.

As far as I'm concerned, I think that the following words and phrases should either be completely avoided or, at the very least, clarified when making a point:

1. Natural - So many people are a proponent of what's "natural", but I don't think that we can really get a good handle on what that means and why it's necessarily good. If "natural" simply means that it's not human-made, then it's pretty impossible to avoid unnatural things unless you go out naked into the middle of the untamed wilderness and subsist on what you can catch with your bare hands. (A spear isn't "natural", now is it?) Anything you put in your body has been altered from its original state in some way or the other. Shoot, my dog's not "natural". If her ancestors were free from human influence, she'd be a wolf.

Advocating for what's "natural", even if you can nail down that it's possible, begs a couple of questions. First of all, why is it better? Nature is on a mission to kill us at every turn with various diseases, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Do you know why you shouldn't just pick any random thing you see growing in nature and eat it? Because it might kill you. And if you wind up doing it, you'll likely have to do something unnatural to save yourself.

Also, why are we making ourselves a special exception to what is natural? Sure, we make an impact on the environment and other animals, but other species do that as well. Beavers build dams. There are several animals that practice a form of agriculture as well. Will they no longer be natural if they become able to do it on a scale as large as us?

When it comes to what's "natural", it's best to specify exactly what you mean. Also, it's silly to assume that what's natural is automatically what's good. Is it sometimes better? Sure. But we need to determine that based on the evidence of its potential benefits versus its potential harm.

2. Energy - Obviously this word has a specific meaning. When you're talking about putting gas in your car to make it run, you're talking about the use of energy. When we harness solar power, we're harnessing energy from the sun. When you're exhausted after a long day of work, you have used up all of your energy. In each of these cases, the word is specific and the results are measurable.

However, people will use this word to describe things that are neither specific nor measurable. People sometimes speak of God as being an "energy" that creates all of life. However, there is no way to measure this energy nor test for its results. Also, practitioners of alternative medicines will talk about various energies, but again, there isn't some way of determining how much of it there is nor whether it's actually there or not. In other words, they're using a natural word to describe a supernatural phenomena.

Unless you can measure it, it's not energy. It might be something legit, but in the words of Enigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

3. Chemicals - I've ranted on this before, so I'll keep it brief. Whenever I think of people using this word as an automatic negative, I think of the character Begbie from Trainspotting, who abuses alcohol but won't use heroin because of "all the chemicals" that's in it.

Everything is chemicals! Everything! Water is a chemical!

Think that people aren't ridiculously paranoid about chemicals? Ever hear of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax? In case you haven't figured it out, dihydrogen monoxide is simply water. When presented with basic facts about it, while using the chemical name instead of the common name, people were ready to ban it. That's right, ban water.

We need to stop using "chemicals" like it's a dirty word. The real issue is exactly what chemical we're talking about and how much of it you're being exposed to. Certainly some are more harmful than others, but even water (yes, that again) is potentially dangerous when you're taking in too much. When it comes to chemicals, some of them are harmful with just a small dose. Some of them are harmless in small doses but really dangerous in larger doses.

Of course, that requires much more thought and nuance than just panicking over "chemicals" but when has unreasoned hysteria ever helped anything?

4. "It makes sense." - The problem with this phrase is that it's just too subjective. Quantum physics don't make any "sense" to me, but there are real world applications of it, so who cares if it makes sense to me or not? Astrology "makes sense" to some people, but it has been debunked so many times that you gotta wonder why we're even talking about it anymore.

5. "Common sense" - Just like the above, common sense doesn't necessarily reveal the truth to us. Common sense would have us believe that the world is flat, but we know that's not true. Sure, we rely on common sense a lot, and in most day-to-day applications, it's pretty reliable. However, it's not a substitute for what can be substantiated with evidence.

6. "Spiritual" - I never describe myself as this, although I will hear other people describe themselves this way and I'll find myself on the same page as them. In that case, spiritual simply means having a sense of awe and wonder at the world. Yeah, I've got that by the truckload. Others mean something completely different by it. It's a word that's used by too many people to mean too many different things, so it requires some clarification.

That's probably enough for now. What are some vague and/or meaningless words and phrases that bother you?