Against Universal Consciousness

The only way human beings can understand the world around them is through their own experiences. This is limiting and predisposes each of us to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the inability to view the world from any perspective other than one's own and the tendency to frame all issues in terms of how they relate to the needs of the self. So, in discussions of politics, I respond to all comments from my individual, egocentric worldview. Likewise, my deliberations on topics ranging from sports to business to child rearing must all be interpreted through the filter of my ego. Egocentrism manifests in every aspect of human life.

A natural outgrowth of egocentrism is the inclination to anthropomorphize. Because we are restricted to understanding external items through the lens of human experience, we often

attribute human characteristics to non-human subjects. While my dog, Zeus, certainly understands his world as only a dog can understand it, I constantly (and inaccurately) bestow upon him a full range of human traits. It is intuitive to me that folks who assume the universe is endowed with cosmic consciousness are, likewise, anthropomorphizing.

While human consciousness was once a subject considered too enigmatic for scientific study, recent technologies have helped to demystify consciousness.
Historically, consciousness has been described as being like a stream. Indeed, people may subjectively perceive thoughts as flowing like a stream, however, “stream of consciousness” is a misleading and ultimately inaccurate metaphor. “Hive of consciousness” is a better fit for our current understanding of the phenomenon. “Stream” implies a linear progression of thoughts moving forward from a central source. Neuroscience informs us that human thought patterns more closely resemble a popcorn popper than a stream.

Consciousness is composed of neuronal firings from different parts of the brain. In simple terms, consciousness is a byproduct of the brain interacting with itself. Remove part of the brain and consciousness is altered. Remove all of the brain and consciousness is eliminated. 

Consciousness changes but does not stop during sleep. The brain remains active and different areas of the brain are still able to communicate with one another during sleep. When one awakens from sleep, one typically still

has some awareness of the passage of time and may remember dream experiences. However, when a person is put under general anesthesia, communications within the brain are blocked. When one awakens from general anesthesia, there is no sense of the passage of time and no dreaming. Consciousness is eradicated when internal communications between various parts of the brain are obstructed. Consciousness is produced by the brain and can not exist independently of the brain. No brain, no consciousness.

Since consciousness is a function of the brain, and there is no evidence that the universe itself has a brain, it would stand to reason that the universe is not conscious. 

Wise and powerful caregivers comfort the egos of human children. The egos of human adults desire similar comfort. In the absence of an actual wise and powerful caregiver, human adults invent gods or anthropomorphize the universe to meet this egocentric need.

Four Resons Why Religion Should Be Avoided at All Cost

REASON 1

Religion is an obstacle to moral development. According to psychological theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, the first stage of moral development centers on the individual modifying his/her behavior in order to avoid punishment and earn rewards. Small children, dogs, and adult sociopaths tend to operate at this level of moral development. 

In the second stage of moral development, the individual desires to be considered a good person and so conforms to an external system of rules (example: laws, cultural norms, family values, and religion). An internal moral sense cultivated by indoctrination to external belief systems becomes deeply ingrained in people. At this level of development, moral "feelings" are mistaken for undeniable truths. For many reasons, questioning the validity of religious morals can ignite extreme hostility and defensiveness.

The pitfall of uncritically accepting a moral code learned from one’s culture, such as that offered by religion, is that it may include elements that are truly harmful to others. An individual raised in the environment of Nazi Germany would have the same deep commitment to that moral code as anyone indoctrinated into any external moral code.  In the pre-Civil War South, ministers used the Bible to justify the enslavement of other human beings. The Bible and the Koran are currently being used to justify racism and homophobia. The results? Torture, murder, and suicide.

The highest level of moral development requires a critical examination of values using universal litmuses like harm done, fairness, and empathy. Without a rational, compassionate evaluation of every aspect of one’s moral code, the potential for harm is great. Religion is a barrier to advanced moral development.

REASON 2

Religion inhibits intellectual development. The touchstone for intellectual growth is changing positions when disputing evidence for a pre-existing belief outweighs supporting evidence for said belief. Most of the dominant religions require accepting the legitimacy of their doctrines not on evidence, but on faith. Faith is often considered an admirable quality. However, faith and gullibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. Webster's defines faith as, "(a)firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Gullible means, "easily persuaded to believe something." So, aren't faith and gullibility inseparable? In other words, wouldn't it require gullibility to firmly believe something without proof?

Believing without evidence is a slippery slope. If I choose to accept one supernatural manifestation on faith, am I not then susceptible to believing any absurdity? Talking snakes, invisible deities, angels, pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns are all supported by faith and disputed by reason. How does one justify belief in a god, but not in a pixie, or in some other god? Disregarding evidence in favor of faith-based beliefs perpetuates ignorance. Religion is a barrier to advanced intellectual development.

REASON 3

Religion obstructs social development. In a modern global community, appreciation for the benefits of cultural diversity is paramount. Of the six Americans who won Nobel Prizes for Science in 2016, all were immigrants. By nature, religions are exclusionary. They create an "us and them" mentality wherein the "us" are good and the "them," not as good. This kind of social identity has been at the root of every war since the dawn of time. 

Prepackaged, religious beliefs rob people of the opportunity to create personal meaning and to truly define a unique understanding of self separate from cultural definitions. The number one regret of terminally ill patients is that they conformed to the values of others rather than living lives true to themselves. Religion is an impediment to social development.

REASON 4

Religion is a barrier to emotional development. Emotional maturity results from coming to terms with difficult, often frightening, realities. Failure to take responsibility for one's actions is one aspect of emotional immaturity. Children tend to blame others or make excuses for mistakes. Mature adults take responsibility, attempt to make reparations, and try to learn from mistakes. While Christianity holds the individual accountable to a degree, it also provides an easy loophole. Per Christian doctrine, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was absolved of responsibility for his actions before his death because he sincerely asked for God's forgiveness. 

Another element of Christianity inconsistent with taking responsibility is the concept of Satan. Satan is ultimately responsible for all evil in the world and God is ultimately responsible for all good. 

By encouraging belief in a fantasy afterlife, religion inhibits adults from maturely coming to terms with mortality. Developing the emotional maturity to deal with the realities of death, unanswered questions, and all of the other uncertainties of human life without resorting to magical and superstitious fantasies requires courage and unyielding integrity. One must be committed to all truths regardless of how scary or difficult. Religion impedes emotional development.

Given that religion is an obstacle to nearly every domain of human development, I consider it a social ill. It is clear to me that outcomes such as charity, love, kindness, and peace have been mistakenly associated with religion. Historically, the opposite outcomes of greed, hate, cruelty, and conflict have just as often been the fruits of religion. Benevolent outcomes result from empathy, a quality independent of religion. If I value the Greek ideal of the fully developed person, I can not also value a system that prohibits human development. 

How to Develop the Intellect: Why Emotions Matter… A LOT!

 This article is not about smart and stupid. Smart and stupid are terminal states over which one has no control. Conversely, intellectual development, like physical development, can be acquired by nearly anyone willing to put in the necessary work. Intellect is the capacity for reason and for acquiring an objective mental grasp. The key words in this definition are “reason” and “objective.” Reason is the ability to arrive at an understanding through logic. Objective means not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. So, a developed intellect requires both logic and objectivity.

First, one must be able and willing to apply logic. This means adhering to strict principles of validity. There is a necessary logic to the arrangement of parts in a gasoline engine, an electrical circuit, and even a simple door latch. The validity of the arrangement of the respective parts is shown by the effective functioning of each device. If the parts are arranged illogically, the device won’t function properly. The scientific method is applied logic. The validity of the scientific method is shown by the myriad advancements we enjoy in modern life. Nearly every object in your field of vision as you read this post resulted from the application of the scientific method. The profound impact of science on human life cannot be overstated. Adhering to a belief that is clearly disputed by logic signals an intellectual blind spot.

Second, and equally as important as logic, is objectivity. Why would one stubbornly hold on to a belief that is obviously illogical or disputed by huge amounts of scientific evidence? The answer is simple… emotions. Our emotions evolved for one reason and one reason only, to keep us in the gene pool. Emotions guided primitive humans to behave in ways that kept them alive long enough to bear offspring. In the short run, emotion has far more power over our choices than does intellect. Emotional responses to danger quickly override intellect and prompt us to run or fight. These knee-jerk behaviors served us well for thousands of years. Emotions are about survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, our incredible intellectual capacity was an awesome upgrade, but not much of a survival feature.

Emotional responses are closely linked to another human survival trait, egocentrism. Every animal on earth, including the human animal, strives to preserve the “self.” It is our nature to evaluate situations in terms of the self in opposition to everything that is not the self. So, when illogical information is presented to a human animal in a way that makes the self feel emotionally validated, it is a very natural human reaction to accept that piece of information as true. In psychology, we call this cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is the primary obstacle to intellectual development. The scientific method is a series of procedures that help supersede our cognitive biases. Compare the relative pace of human advances prior to and then after the scientific revolution. This comparison makes it crystal clear that the survival traits that worked so well for so long also kept us from moving forward in our accurate understanding of our world.

A developed intellect requires a willingness to bypass your ego's emotional needs

and accept information that often"feels" uncomfortable. This is a tall order and it requires a lifetime of practice.

The Difference between Feeling True and Being True

In her book, Being Wrong, Kathryn Schultz explains that being wrong feels exactly like being right! It is our nature to assume that the knowledge we possess is correct. Our level of certainty tends to remain constant regardless of whether we are actually right, or if we just mistakenly think that we are right. We enjoy an ongoing sense of rightness until the very moment we are proven wrong. 

In teaching General Psychology, I found that each chapter we cover carries the underlying message that, as humans, we are nearly always wrong about nearly everything. Our memories are erroneous. Our sensory perceptions are flawed. We are unable to conceptualize large numbers and great spans of time. We are easily fooled by appeals to emotion. Our innate tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on tiny bits of information creates an environment of near-chronic wrongness.

Despite chronic wrongness, it is natural for us to trust our feelings, our thoughts, and our perceptions. Navigating human life would otherwise be impossible. Our sense of rightness enables us to make decisions and take necessary actions. It is an unfortunate side-effect of living in this bubble of pleasant certainty that we experience shame when proven wrong. We stubbornly resist opportunities to improve on the accuracy of our respective funds of knowledge, because being proven wrong is so unpleasant. We are mortified as the false perception, “if I am proven wrong, then I am made a fool,” emerges. Evidence abounds to suggest that the accurate interpretation should be, “if I am proven wrong, then I am learning, developing and improving.”

• Make friends with being proven wrong. The moment you understand that being proven wrong is necessary to becoming a better you, a world of opportunity materializes. As Dudley Field Malone said, “I never in my life learned anything from a man who agreed with me.”
• Be a skeptic. Skeptics are not the same as pessimists. Pessimists are characterized by feelings of negativity and hopelessness. Skeptics are simply people who require evidence before believing a piece of information. Being skeptical is the opposite of being gullible. 
• Don’t be fooled by emotionally persuasive manipulations. Arguments that are supported by appeals to tradition, popular opinion, common sense, weak analogies, attacks on character, and false generalizations all exploit the human tendency to trust gut feelings and emotional responses.
• Learn to identify actual evidence. Very often, actual evidence will conflict with gut feelings and emotional responses. True evidence is measurable and empirical. I may feel that this was the hottest summer ever. However, if measurable data indicates otherwise, I must trust the empirical evidence over my feelings.

So, if I am interested in finding the truth, then I must understand that, while gut feelings are useful, they are an extremely fallible resource. I must continuously test my gut feelings against objective litmuses like logic, mathematics, research results, and physical properties. I must learn to trust real evidence, especially when it conflicts with my emotional leanings. 

The ability to override gut feelings enables humans to operate beyond the confines of biological and environmental programming. Every animal on the planet is a slave to intuition. Throughout the majority of human history, we have operated exactly like every other species in this respect. However, logic, mathematics and the scientific method provide a means for humans to break the bonds of primitive thought processes. Determining the difference between feeling true and being true is the mechanism for transformation.

Why bad critical thinkers believe they are good critical thinkers

"When you are dead you don’t know it, but it is difficult for the people around you. Same as when you haven’t developed critical thinking skills."

I ripped off and modified this quote from an internet meme. Unfortunately, it relates a fundamental truth. Good critical thinkers know that they are good critical thinkers, because critical thinking requires training. It is an internal battle between the instinctual pull of human egocentrism and a disciplined commitment to evidence and logic. Non-critical thinkers don’t realize it, because they don’t really understand what the term “critical thinking” means. This lack of insight is itself a demonstration of egocentrism. 

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[1] This means that when evidence and logic conflict with what you believe, you change your position. Believing doesn’t make a piece of information true. Neither belief, faith, intuition, gut feelings, nor common sense can be used to validate the accuracy of a piece of information.

For instance, if I believe that the United States is the best country in the world, but I have never lived anywhere else and I have not researched the data on what constitutes the “best” country, then my belief is unfounded. It is based on feelings rather than evidence. “I love my country,” is a statement of feeling and requires no evidence. 

No matter how badly I may “want” a piece of information to be true, no matter how powerfully a piece of information “feels” true, no matter how many other people I respect “believe” a piece of information is true, critical thinking requires the maturity to rise above my own ego needs and reject information that is not supported by evidence and logic. 

The scientific method is critical thought in action. It is a mechanism for factoring out emotion driven human bias. The results of the scientific method are nothing less than every benefit of modern life from space ships, to medicine, to the electronic device you are currently using, to nearly every object in your current field of vision! Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[2][3] Human nature evolved to help us survive in the natural environment. Traits that are adaptive in a primitive culture can be quite maladaptive in a modern culture. As a result, many aspects of human nature hinder progress.

Reliance on gut feelings is natural. Every primitive animal on the planet operates on gut feelings.

Overriding gut feelings in favor of critical evaluation does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing diligent work and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

                                                                                          

---

[1] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[2] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[3] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

Can an Atheist be Spiritual?

Army Photography Contest - 2007 - FMWRC - Arts and Crafts - Follow the Light

Oxford Dictionary defines the term “spiritual” as follows:

1. Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things
2. Of or relating to religion or religious belief[1]

As a skeptic and an atheist, I do not believe in spirits, souls, gods, or ghosts. Spiritual people believe in the supernatural, skeptics do not. There is a complete absence of credible evidence substantiating the paranormal. Belief in spiritual forces, whether these forces are defined by organized religion, popular culture, or personal intuition, requires faith. While the concept of faith has been exalted as a human virtue, I tend to agree with the Kurt Vonnegut Jr quote, “Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.”[2]

For me, the religious application of the term “faithful” can be used interchangeably with the terms “gullible” and “superstitious.” Believing something without evidence is a slippery slope. If I choose to accept one supernatural manifestation on faith, am I not then susceptible to believing any absurdity? Talking snakes, invisible deities, angels, pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns are all supported by faith and disputed by reason. How does one justify belief in a god, but not in a pixie, or in some other god?

Are ghosts real because it feels as if ghosts are real? If so, this same intuitive sense could be used as justification for every god ever worshiped and every superstitious belief ever held. Is god real because the Bible says he’s real? If so, the Koran is proof for Allah’s existence and the Vita Merlini is proof that magical wizards are real. Are souls real because people you respect in your culture say that souls are real? If so, respected people from other cultures and other time periods who held superstitious beliefs are proof of said beliefs.

It is human nature to be egocentric. Egocentricity is how humans all over the world and throughout history reflect the predominant beliefs of their own culture and “feel” fortunate that they happened to have been born into the “true” faith, while considering those born in other cultures unfortunate to have been taught false beliefs.

Believers and non-believers enjoy and suffer the same range of emotional experiences. Both groups experience wonder, ecstasy, fear, anger, love, excitement. However, believers and non-believers may differ in their interpretations of these experiences. It is a natural limitation for humans to lack insight with regards to emotion. The experience of emotion often seems to arrive from external sources. Believers may interpret some of these sources as supernatural ones (god, spirits, the devil, ghosts, angels, and demons). Sometimes these emotional experiences may be mistaken for evidence of the paranormal. But, feelings are not evidence. Science provides rational explanations for human mental states. Changes in neurochemistry resulting from reflexive and perceptual reactions to internal thoughts and external events create emotional experiences.[3]

The entire process that creates an emotional experience is housed within the human brain. The brain can react to thoughts in the same way it reacts to actual events. For instance, if I believe with all my heart on a Thursday that it is actually Friday, I will experience whatever emotions accompany the idea, “It’s Friday!” In other words, a false belief creates the identical emotions as an accurate belief.

Can an atheist be spiritual? My answer is, “no.” Can an atheist experience the same sense of wonder and joy as a person who is spiritual? Yes, of course.

---

[1] "Definition of Spiritual in English:." Spiritual: Definition of Spiritual in Oxford Dictionary (American English) (US). N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.

[2] "A Quote from Mother Night." Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.

[3] "Biology of Emotion - Boundless Open Textbook." Boundless. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2015.

Why would anyone want to be an atheist? 5 reasons

This is a great question and one that I think I am uniquely qualified to answer. Religion was at the center of my life growing up. I was a Born Again Christian and experienced all forms of religious ecstasy. Jesus Christ was my personal savior and my walk with the Lord was never far from my thoughts.

My early answer to the question, “Why would you want to be an atheist?” was, “I don’t want to be.” Why would I want to give up beliefs that provided so much comfort? I wanted a loving, omniscient parent figure watching over me. I wanted bad people to be punished and good people to be rewarded. I wanted miracles to be real. I wanted to meet my loved ones in Heaven after I died. I wanted the power of prayer to influence outcomes in this world. I wanted to believe what everyone I grew up with believed. I wanted to believe in magic.

As I began to develop my critical thinking skills, I found that my religious beliefs did not hold up to my personal standards for logic and evidence. I desperately wanted my Christian beliefs to be objectively true. Everyone I loved and respected growing up was a Christian. “Christian person” and “good person” actually meant the same thing to me (I have since found this to be a grossly inaccurate perception). I was so determined to prove my beliefs valid that I spent over 20 years attempting to reconcile rational thinking with Christianity. I failed. Historically, better minds than mine also failed at this endeavor. Ultimately, I had to accept that there were no loopholes through which I could contort a logical argument to such a degree as to deny reality. As the religion of the ancient Greeks, my religion was simple mythology.

Reality demonstrates its true nature to us every minute of every day. You don’t need to be an atheist to know that snakes don’t talk, that gravity is constant, that death is permanent, and that even the potential for evil (or free will) could not logically exist if God were simultaneously all good, all knowing, AND the creator of all things.

1. In the absence of credible evidence, atheism is the default position

I didn’t decide to become an atheist. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, atheism is the default position. Every baby on the planet is born an atheist until she is indoctrinated into the mythology of her culture. The burden of proof is on he who makes the assertion. As Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If I claim to have a pocket full of magic beans, it is not your job to prove me wrong. I made the claim, therefore, I must show you the beans and show you that they are magic. Likewise, if I claim that there is a god, I must show you the god.

I am an atheist because any other position would be intellectually dishonest. The fundamental human thinking error is to mistake “feeling true” for “being true.” The modern age was born the minute the scientific method factored out this natural human tendency. “Wanting” a piece of information to be true does not make it so. “Believing” a piece of information to be true does not make it so. Objective truth is provable through evidence and logic. Objective truth often conflicts with what I would prefer to be true. However, I value truth above my own emotional preferences.

The evidence for every single religion is no evidence at all. Each is justified by the same fallacious support:

• Personal, spiritual experiences that have led the believer to an intuitive sense or “gut feeling” that the god in question is real.

• Feelings are NOT evidence.

• Many other people within the believer’s culture, especially respected people in positions of authority (parents, clergy, educators, political officials), share a belief in said God. 

• Popular opinion is NOT evidence.

• Spoken or written stories state the existence of the god in question. 

• Stories are NOT evidence.

Sometimes Christians say, “If you knew Jesus as I do, you would believe.” 

Speaking in tongues? Check. 

Healing? Check. 

Emotional redemption experience? Check. 

Feeling the Lord’s presence? Check. 

Prayers answered? Check. 

I have been through the experience that people call “knowing Jesus.” However, I imagine that it is a rare Christian who has experienced the dignity, peace, and wisdom that accompanies living completely without superstition and under the warm light of reason. It takes great courage to manage life without imagined supernatural helpers, but the benefits are tremendous.

2. Self-deception is degrading

As a boy, when my mother told me that Santa wasn’t real, I remember longing to believe again. But, it was impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Discarding my belief in Santa was a loss of innocence, and though painful, loss of innocence brings the gift of maturity. If I were an adult who refused to acknowledge Santa as a myth, I would be considered mentally unsound. Discarding my comfortable religious mythology was also a loss of innocence, but it allowed me to develop an aspect of maturity that is otherwise impossible to access.

As an adult, I wouldn’t want to still believe in Santa and I wouldn’t want to still believe in a god. Through the 19th century, women were generally regarded as incapable of managing adult life without the guidance of a man. It is repugnant to modern sensibilities that female adults were treated like children. It is equally offensive to me that religion keeps the adult believer in a child’s role throughout life.

3. The permanence of death is scary but makes life richer and fuller

The irreversible nature of death is an obvious truth when considering mosquitoes, tomato plants, or bacteria. However, when we have to deal with the death of a loved one, the permanence of death becomes overwhelming. And when we have to reflect on our own ultimate mortality, this truth can feel unbearable. So, like children, we retreat into fantasy. No one we care about really dies. We all get to live in a magical paradise forever.

Dealing with one’s own mortality can be a frightening business. But, as Emily Dickinson said, “That life will never come again is what makes life sweet.” Truly accepting our own impermanence makes every sunset more beautiful, every meal more delicious, and every kiss more passionate. It shines a bright light on the things that are truly important in life. Knowing that our time is limited makes opportunities to interact with the people we love deeply special.

4. Making the world a better place is intrinsically rewarding

Oftentimes, bad people enjoy great success, and good people are punished. Likewise, aggressive, violent apes are often rewarded with the first choice for food, grooming, and sex partners, while their passive counterparts live as victims of an unfair social order. This doesn’t occur because the ape god is punishing or testing the passive apes. It occurs because this is the nature of life in an ape troop.

Praying will not change unfairness. One hundred years of prayer research has clearly proven that prayer has absolutely no impact on external reality.[1] None. The problems of this world are myriad and complex, but solutions will only come about when people take action to provide actual help for one another.

The fantasy that everything will be made right after one dies has been used to control slaves, peasants, oppressed minorities, and the downtrodden throughout history. This horrible myth has enabled the rich and powerful to live in opulence through the suffering of gullible believers, believers who accept their miserable lots in life because they think a god will fix everything when they die. How many lives have been thrown away? How many people wasted this one and only opportunity they would ever have to enjoy the absolute wonder of living a human life?

The promised rewards of heaven and threats of hell are completely superfluous to any human being with an ounce of empathy. The joy one feels for doing good is its own reward.

5. Being responsible is empowering

You are 100% responsible for your life, regardless of your beliefs. This truth becomes obvious at the end of life, but it is often denied by believers until that point. The number one regret of the terminally ill? “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.”[2]

If you are unhappy with your life circumstances, it is not because you are being punished by God. You are randomly thrown into this world under a wide range of life circumstances beyond your control. You may be fortunate, unfortunate, rich, poor, ugly, beautiful, healthy, sickly, tall, or short. Regardless of your circumstances, you have the freedom and the responsibility to make something meaningful of your single opportunity at life.

Religion demands a prescribed life. It provides a paint-by-numbers formula for meaning. Conversely, my life is a blank canvas on which I paint from an endless palette of experiences that vibrate with depth and significance specifically for me. Unrestricted by the egocentric delusion that my every thought and act is being monitored and judged by an invisible deity, I live as a truly free man and revel in the joy it brings me. I still experience fear, but I fear things that are real. Demons, devils, and other magical forces have never once harmed anyone. People who believed in such foolishness, however, have inflicted harm beyond comprehension.

I guess my final answer to “Why would I want to be an atheist?” is “Because it is the most satisfying life I can imagine!”

---

[1] Masters, Kevin S., Glen I. Spielmans, and Jason T. Goodson. "Are There Demonstrable Effects of Distant Intercessory Prayer? A Meta-analytic Review." Annals of Behavioral Medicine Ann. Behav. Med. 32.1 (2006): 21-26. Web.

[2] Rosen, Katerina. "The Top 5 Regrets Of The Dying." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.

6 Questions Christians are Always Asking Atheists

6 Questions Christians Ask Atheists

Let’s imagine a story. There’s an invisible being that follows you wherever you go. It watches you constantly—inside and out. It knows your thoughts before you think them. It claims to love you unconditionally, but that love comes with a chilling twist: if you don’t love it back in the precise way it demands, it will punish you for eternity. No questions asked. No appeals granted.

This being, omniscient and omnipotent, rewards obedience with occasional wishes and emotional highs, but punishes dissent—even silent thoughts—with infinite torment. If you follow it with unwavering loyalty, you’ll spend forever worshipping at its feet. But if you dare to question it? You’re damned.

And yet, this story isn’t found in ancient mythology or dystopian fiction—it’s often the centerpiece of modern religion. This is the context many atheists are asked to accept without evidence, and when we don’t, we’re called arrogant, rebellious, or lost.

Here are six common questions Christians ask atheists—and how we might thoughtfully respond.

---

1. “Can you prove there is no God?”

No, and that’s not how logic works. If I told you I had a unicorn in my garage, would the burden fall on you to disprove it? Or would it fall on me to show the unicorn?

The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. That’s true in science, law, and common sense. As the great Carl Sagan put it: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you’re claiming that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving supernatural being governs the universe—one who listens to prayers, reads minds, and tracks your every thought—you need to bring compelling evidence to the table.

Atheism is not a claim to know with certainty that no gods exist. It’s a position that says: “I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe that any do.” It’s not about arrogance; it’s about intellectual honesty.

---

2. “Are you angry at God? Are you rebelling?”

This one always makes me smile. Asking if I’m angry at God is like asking if I’m angry at Bigfoot or the Tooth Fairy. How could I be angry at something I don’t believe exists?

I’m no more rebelling against the Christian God than I am against Zeus, Odin, or Santa Claus. Just as Christians don’t believe in Vishnu or Thor, atheists don’t believe in any deity—including the one that happens to be culturally dominant in their part of the world.

When we reject belief, it’s not a rebellion. It’s a conclusion based on reason, evidence, and the courage to ask hard questions.

---

3. “How can you see a sunset and not believe in God?”

Sunsets are beautiful. They inspire awe, reflection, and peace. But a sunset is not evidence of the divine—it's evidence of science: of Earth’s rotation, atmospheric particles, and the bending of light.

Claiming that a sunset proves God’s existence is like claiming that thunder proves the anger of Thor, or that the ocean’s tide proves Poseidon’s presence. Nature’s beauty and mystery don’t automatically imply magic.

Understanding the mechanics behind a sunset doesn’t diminish its beauty. If anything, it deepens our wonder. The universe is vast and stunning and profoundly intricate—and understanding it through science only makes it more miraculous, not less.

---

4. “If you experienced what I have, would you believe?”

I probably have. Many atheists were once deeply religious. I was raised Christian. I prayed. I felt spiritual euphoria. I spoke in tongues. I cried during worship. I believed I had a relationship with Jesus. I felt the “presence of God.”

But emotions are not evidence of truth. People across every religion and cult experience the same overwhelming feelings—Muslims, Hindus, Sufis, Mormons, even followers of destructive cults like Jonestown. Spiritual highs are part of our neurological wiring. They don’t confirm which belief is “true.”

So yes, I’ve experienced what you have. The real question is—have you experienced what I have? Have you allowed yourself to question deeply held beliefs? Have you ever stood on the edge of uncertainty and chosen to build a worldview based on logic, empathy, and inquiry?

---

5. “What if you’re wrong? Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?”

This is Pascal’s Wager in disguise: the idea that it’s better to believe “just in case.” But here’s the problem: there are thousands of gods humans have worshipped. Which one do we hedge our bets on?

Your belief system likely reflects where you were born and who raised you. If you were born in India, you might be Hindu. In Iran, Muslim. In Utah, Mormon. So who’s to say which deity is “the right one”?

If I fake belief to be “safe,” that’s not faith—it’s fear. And if your god is omniscient, wouldn’t he know I was faking it?

And what if you’re wrong? What if there is no afterlife—and this life, this fleeting, miraculous life, is all we get? What a tragedy it would be to spend it living for someone else’s expectations instead of your own.

---

6. “How can you have morality without God?”

Morality doesn’t come from religion. It comes from empathy, social cooperation, and cultural evolution. Babies aren’t born with morality—they learn it. Feral children, raised without human contact, don’t develop a sense of right or wrong. Morality is taught, refined, and, at its best, questioned.

Some people follow moral rules only when they believe they’re being watched by a divine enforcer. That’s not morality—that’s obedience.

True morality asks, “What causes harm? What’s fair? How would I feel in someone else’s shoes?” It grows beyond cultural norms. Otherwise, slavery, misogyny, and genocide—all of which were once justified by religious doctrine—would still be “moral.”

The most moral people I’ve met weren’t driven by fear of hell or hope of heaven. They were driven by love, reason, and responsibility.

---

Final Thoughts

Being an atheist doesn’t mean living without awe, purpose, or values. In fact, for many of us, it deepens those things. When you realize there’s no cosmic parent cleaning up your mess, you take more care with your life. When you believe this life is all there is, you savor it more. You love more fiercely. You fight harder for justice.

The world is already full of magic—real, tangible, breathtaking magic. The sound of laughter. The rhythm of the tides. The endless dance of galaxies. We don’t need invisible creatures to explain it.

All we need is curiosity, compassion, and the courage to keep asking honest questions—even when the answers are hard.

4 Steps to Clean Thinking

Hartwig HKD Cosmic Consciousness

1. Accept Being Wrong

In order to effectively navigate life the human mind is designed to constantly take shortcuts. The brain uses tiny bits of data, a few pieces of a given puzzle, and then compensates for the missing pieces with its “best guess.” The result is a tendency for humans to be wrong… a lot!

Optical illusions are possible, because the brain automatically fills in the spots where visual information is missing by using patterns and expectations from past experience. [1] In other words, what you think you see may not be what is actually out there!

If you blindfold someone, hold and apple under her nose, and have her bite a piece of raw potato, she will be fooled into thinking she bit a piece of apple. The brain takes a small amount of information, smell and texture, and makes a judgment, "I must have bitten an apple." [2]

This also happens when we meet new people. We know very little about the new acquaintance, but quickly judge his character, "He seems dishonest." When we get to know him, reality fills in the blanks and we find that he is extremely trustworthy.[3]

There is a direct correlation between how easily you overcome your own biases (traps that lead to being wrong) and IQ level. The smarter you are, the easier it is to overcome your biases (accepting that you are wrong).[4] 

Critical thinkers examine issues from many different angles, so the world operates more in shades of gray, than of black and white. Being wrong feels exactly like being right... until someone PROVES you are wrong.[5]

2. Beware of Cognitive Traps

There are many ways we fool ourselves into believing in things that are absolutely not true. Many cognitive traps are just side effects of how humans are wired. Because they tend to crop up in all people, these traps require diligent work on our part to overcome. 

Confirmation Bias is a trap wherein you believe that you have determined a "truth" based on rational thinking, but in actuality, you have simply dismissed all evidence disputing your pre-existing belief and accepted all information confirming said belief.

Example 1: You don't believe in global warming, so you disregard the 97% of climatologists who support global warming and accept the 3% who dispute this phenomenon. You may reason that there is a conspiracy (a catch-all explanation that is very rarely accurate).[6] 

Example 2: You think immunizations cause autism, so you disregard the avalanche of research supporting the efficacy of immunization, but believe the one flawed study linking vaccines to autism. You reason that there is a conspiracy.[7] 

Hindsight Bias is a trap based on the idea that people should be able to predict the future. Have you ever been stumped by a riddle and after hearing the solution you thought, “Wow, that was so obvious. I should have easily figured it out”? In truth, since you do not have the ability to predict the future, the solution to the riddle was certainly NOT obvious.[8] 

Empathy Bias is similar to hindsight bias, but is projected on others rather than self. If a friend is in a bad relationship, it may seem obvious to you that your friend should end the relationship. You may consider her reluctance to do so, as “stupid.” However, when you, yourself have been in bad relationships, this “obvious” solution of breaking it off was not so clear. Why was your friend’s relationship problem so easy for you to solve, and your relationship problem so difficult? When you have real empathy, you make a sincere attempt to understand things from the other person’s perspective.[9 You try to "stand in their shoes." This is especially difficult when you perceive that the other person is different from you (eg different nationality, different race, different religion, different sexual orientation, etc.).

3. Trust Evidence Over Emotion

In some ways, humans are not very different from lower animal species. We almost always operate from “gut feelings,” or emotions. After making an emotional judgment, we create rationalizations (poorly reasoned arguments) to justify why these feelings, and resulting beliefs, are accurate. 

To whatever degree possible, critical thinkers start from a neutral position and do not invest their respective egos in pre-existing beliefs. Good critical thinkers allow the evidence to determine the accuracy of a piece of information. Ego, “because it is my thought it must be true,” is by far the biggest obstacle to rational thinking. 

Overcoming the ego obstacle requires that truth, as determined by objective evidence, always take precedence over our instinctual need to be right. All it takes is a lifetime of practice.

4. Learn to Metacognate

Metacognition means, “thinking about your own thought processes.” Most of us have the tendency to allow our emotion thoughts to lead us around by the nose. Dumb animals operate in this manner. This tendency to attach our egos to the accuracy of our gut feelings is a root cause for ignorance.

If our failsafe is to assume that our thought processes are always accurate, we remain trapped in a bubble of ignorance. 

Fortunately, if we consistently apply humble skepticism, logic, and metacognition, humans can escape the intellectual prison created by blind trust gut feelings.

---

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/EyeHealth/optical-illusions-eye-brain-agree/story?id=8455573

[2] http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/apples-and-potatoes/

[3] http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/homefeat/bias-bonanza-how-accurate-are-our-first-impressions/

[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608007000611

[5] http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

[6] http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus                 

[7] http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

[8] http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/i-knew-it-all-along-didnt-i-understanding-hindsight-bias.html

[9] http://www.cbdr.cmu.edu/event.asp?eventID=268