Here is part 2 of my interview with myself on global warming.
So, then how do climatologists conclude that the increased warming is due to increased levels of carbon dioxide?
Simply stated, climatologists run computer models that simulate the physics of our atmosphere and oceans, initializing the models at some time in the past where the data history is known. Computer simulations are run both with and without increasing the CO2 concentrations from the starting point. Results show that when increasing carbon dioxide amounts over time the temperature output in the models is warmer and also in line with observed readings in the past century. Results also show that the warming did not occur as the result of any known natural source.
So tell me more about these climate models.
Climate models are very similar to the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models that are run every day to make short term (0-7 day) forecasts. They each start with an initial state where conditions are known and use a complicated series of physical equations to determine how the initial conditions will change over time. The main differences are that climate models use a more course resolution (that's so forecasts can be made decades in advance instead of just a few days), and climate models contain additional physical processes that are germain for long-term prediction, especially those for handling ocean circulations, land/sea ice, vegetation, aerosol chemistry, and so forth.
Since the computer models say the warming is due to human activity then the science is settled, right?
It increases the probability, but the model simulations don't prove anything conclusively. Unfortunately the devil is in the details, and there are many problems that need to be addressed. First and foremost, when dealing with direct output from short-term NWP models, every experienced forecast meteorologist knows that those forecasts contain significant biases and errors even on forecasts just a couple of days out. This is especially true of surface weather parameters like temperature and precipitation. NWP models also suffer from "model drift" (or climate drift), which means they get artificially hotter or colder or more wet or more dry over time. As a result of these deficiencies, scientists at the NOAA's meteorological development lab apply statistical corrections to short-term (0-7 day) NWP model forecasts (called MOS for Model Output Statistics). These statistical models correlate the NWP model predictions to actual observed surface weather. The improvements of the statistical post-processing are substantial, and in terms of temperature forecasts the error rates are cut in half. For example, see the 2nd chart in the link below comparing temperature forecast errors directly from NWP models (DMO) vs. statistically post-processed forecasts (MOS):
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/syllabi/AOSC630/Antolick2013.pdf
Unfortunately, no such statistical post-processing is applied to climate models, and that is a huge problem. If short-range NWP models have significant biases and errors on just a 1-2 day forecast, then I can't imagine that long-term climate models running out 50-100 years in advance wouldn't have even deeper issues. Not only does this mean we're dealing with potentially sub-standard and biased predictions from climate models, but without the statistical post-processing there is no way to estimate the certainty level in the climate predictions. As a result, there is a good chance that some climate scientists may be attaching way too much confidence in the simulation results and predictions that are generated by climate models.
But at the top didn't you say that climate models successfully simulated observed temperatures the last 100 years? Doesn't that mean they are good enough to conclude that humans were responsible for making the planet warmer?
Not so fast. First of all, even though the climate models successfully simulated the global mean observed temperatures over the last 100 years, when the historical temperature & precipitation records at individual stations are compared with the climate model backtest simulations for those stations, the errors are grossly large. Since the global average historical temperatures were successfully simulated that means all the large errors at the individual stations cancel out. That there are such large errors at individual stations obviously means something significant missing in the model physics. Certainly if I was a forecaster and predicted a high temperature of 80* in New York and 60* in Denver but the observed ended up 70* in both places I'm not so sure I'd be bragging about my success even though the average of the two forecasts matched the average observation.
Secondly, there is a huge difference between simulations on historical data (called hindcasts) and forecasts on new independent data. In climate prediction models (and in short-term NWP models as well) there are literally thousands of tunable parameters that can be tweaked to calibrate that parametrization to match the past observed data. These tunable parameters exist because we may not know the exact physics involved or we may need to approximate the physics due to resolution scale of the model (i.e., certain radiative transfer processes). However, with so many tunable parameters it's pretty easy to find at least one configuration that will simulate history quite accurately. In statistics, this is a condition called "over-fitting". The real test for the quality of a model is how well it performs on new independent data that was never previously considered when calibrating on the historical (training) data set.
So how accurate are real-time climate predictions on new data?
Well, so far not that good. Climate models continue to significantly over-forecast the amount of warming compared to observed future temperatures, and that is a big problem which has been going on the last 15-20 years. See link:
https://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/73-climate-models_reality.gif
Moreover, the places that were to receive the most amount of warming according to the climate models (mid levels of the atmosphere in the tropics) haven't received any warming. So the climate models are getting that wrong too.
Researchers have been scrambling trying to find a cause for the errors and, while a number of explanations have been proposed, nothing has been shown conclusive. Even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has conceded in their latest report that they will likely have to adjust the models to make them less sensitive to CO2. The implications of this are enormous. If real-time climate forecasts over-predict the warming on independent data, then that *could* mean that humans have contributed less to the amount of warming observed over the past 100 years than what was previously thought by climate scientists, and that would also imply natural variations have played a more important role in our recent past climate than figured by climate models. It also reduces the certainty of future climate predictions which has all sorts of implications regarding political policy and what future actions are required.
To be continued ...
Monday, August 11, 2014
Thursday, August 7, 2014
On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 1
Well, since the previous post got me started on the climate change kick I thought for this post I'd continue on the same theme and interview myself in Q&A style and provide some additional insight on the topic of global warming. Rather than make one really long entry, the "interview" will be broken up into several posts.
Bob, are you one of the 97%'ers?
Ha, nice question to start. No, I am not one of the 97% ... but I'm not one of the 3% either. Rather I was never asked to respond to a survey on climate change, along with thousands of other meteorologists. None of my colleagues that I know were surveyed either, a couple of whom are esteemed atmospheric scientists with an incredibly long list of publications and are nationally recognized & respected in the field (i.e., when they talk people listen). I'm not exactly sure who was polled as there are several of these surveys floating around, but you could probably classify all of them in the same category as "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum". For one, I don't doubt that 97% or more of atmospheric scientists would agree with a simple survey question like "human activity probably caused some of the warming the last half-century". However the problem with that result is it doesn't mean those same scientists are going to share the same level of agreement on the myriad of more important hot button issues within the global warming debate (like whether the observed warming is ONLY the result of human activity, or whether additional warming will cause stronger, more destructive storms, or more wild fires, or more droughts, or cause mass extinctions, or flood cities, etc.). In other words, the survey question does NOT address the primary issues of contention that divide climate change skeptics from the supporters. Unfortunately certain media outlets, politicians (and even some scientists) will run with that 97% survey result, take it out of context, and apply it to those other contested issues regarding climate change. In some instances it's an intentional deception on their part and done solely for the pursuit of a political agenda, scoring some ratings points, or garnering more popularity which is unfortunate. Other times the mistake is completely unintentional, but either way the net result is that the public gets misled. Therein lies the main problem and is why the 97% survey result is utterly meaningless. Second, it doesn't matter whether 97% or 100% agree. What matters is if the science is right. I've already seen instances in this field which once had 100% backing but were later shown to be bunk by better science.
Can you give me an example?
Sure, my pet peeve ... positive vorticity advection (PVA). PVA is hailed in all the text books and shoved down the throat of every student taking atmospheric dynamics and synoptics classes [and that is still the case today by the way]. PVA is also mentioned in every weather map discussion in university meteorology seminars and forecast classes (often times so that the speaker would give the appearance of knowing what they were talking about, LOL). We were also taught that PVA is the #1 factor for predicting severe thunderstorms and is the leading cause of arthritis flare-ups in senior citizens (OK, just kidding about the arthritis, but you get the idea). Yet when creating models that actually forecast the weather for a given location, PVA never shows up as a meaningful contributor ... because it doesn't work! That said, I don't want to create a straw man here. To be clear, just because there have been past truths in the atmospheric sciences that were later debunked by better science doesn't mean the science behind global warming is at risk to be debunked. But I do want to point out the atmospheric sciences are young, we're learning new things all the time, and there's much we don't know. For sure, the physics are not as exact as the physics which tell us there will be an eclipse on May 20, 2055 at 9:01am. So the bottom line really it's the quality of the science, not the surveys which are important.
So who cares what you think about climate change? Are you a climate specialist? What could you possibly offer to the discussion.
I'm not a climate specialist. Climatology is one of many sub-disciplines under the atmospheric science umbrella. My area of expertise is in short-term (0-7 day) weather forecast modelling and probabilistic prediction. I'm intimately familiar with numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, like the kind climatologists use to predict future climate. So I'm fully aware of how they work, their strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and their limitations. I've also performed extensive work in the area of forecast verification which is full of land mines, and that makes it easier to sniff out weaknesses in a given study or experimental design that generates predictions.
OK, let's deal with specific questions regarding climate change. Is it even possible that humans can change the earth's climate? After all, isn't the earth just too big to be affected by mere humans?
There is absolutely no sliver of doubt that humans *can* alter the climate on our planet. Anyone can verify this for themselves. Just watch the evening news and notice how the night-time temperatures are always colder in the outlying suburbs compared to a populated city. In many cases there can be 10-15 degrees difference especially in winter. Of course this is on a small spacial scale and none of that is related to increases in carbon dioxide, but nonetheless it shows in a simple way that humans can affect the weather.
Has the earth gotten warmer in the last century?
Yes, global temperatures have risen about 1* C the last 100 years.
Has the amount of carbon dioxide increased in the period as well?
Yes, total C02 concentrations have increased over 30% in the last 100 years.
So what's the controversy? Doesn't this prove global warming is real and caused by humans?
Well, it may seem intuitive to think that at first, but I recommend some caution. First, correlation does not equal causation. Ice cream sales have also increased the last 100 years, but nobody is going to blame warmer temperatures on ice cream. Second, while there is indeed a strong physical link relating carbon dioxide and global warming (CO2 is transparent to incoming solar radiation but absorbs outgoing long-wave radiation), the ultimate relationship is not so simple. There are countless feedback mechanisms and interactions with clouds, plants, and oceans which complicate matters greatly. Here's a simple analogy of how a feedback mechanism works. Eating a sugary food causes your blood-sugar level to rise temporarily but a healthy pancreas then responds to secrete enough insulin to maintain stable blood-sugar levels. So in the end despite consuming sugar the blood-sugar level remains the same. There are a "gazillion" of these type of interactions & feedbacks that go on in the atmosphere. So the contribution of increased CO2 toward global warming can't be accurately measured unless all the interactive effects are taken into account. Third, there are instances in our past history when temperatures have risen greater than this without any human intervention, and that makes it a very difficult problem to separate natural (or random) fluctuations versus what humans have contributed.
To be continued ...
Bob, are you one of the 97%'ers?
Ha, nice question to start. No, I am not one of the 97% ... but I'm not one of the 3% either. Rather I was never asked to respond to a survey on climate change, along with thousands of other meteorologists. None of my colleagues that I know were surveyed either, a couple of whom are esteemed atmospheric scientists with an incredibly long list of publications and are nationally recognized & respected in the field (i.e., when they talk people listen). I'm not exactly sure who was polled as there are several of these surveys floating around, but you could probably classify all of them in the same category as "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum". For one, I don't doubt that 97% or more of atmospheric scientists would agree with a simple survey question like "human activity probably caused some of the warming the last half-century". However the problem with that result is it doesn't mean those same scientists are going to share the same level of agreement on the myriad of more important hot button issues within the global warming debate (like whether the observed warming is ONLY the result of human activity, or whether additional warming will cause stronger, more destructive storms, or more wild fires, or more droughts, or cause mass extinctions, or flood cities, etc.). In other words, the survey question does NOT address the primary issues of contention that divide climate change skeptics from the supporters. Unfortunately certain media outlets, politicians (and even some scientists) will run with that 97% survey result, take it out of context, and apply it to those other contested issues regarding climate change. In some instances it's an intentional deception on their part and done solely for the pursuit of a political agenda, scoring some ratings points, or garnering more popularity which is unfortunate. Other times the mistake is completely unintentional, but either way the net result is that the public gets misled. Therein lies the main problem and is why the 97% survey result is utterly meaningless. Second, it doesn't matter whether 97% or 100% agree. What matters is if the science is right. I've already seen instances in this field which once had 100% backing but were later shown to be bunk by better science.
Can you give me an example?
Sure, my pet peeve ... positive vorticity advection (PVA). PVA is hailed in all the text books and shoved down the throat of every student taking atmospheric dynamics and synoptics classes [and that is still the case today by the way]. PVA is also mentioned in every weather map discussion in university meteorology seminars and forecast classes (often times so that the speaker would give the appearance of knowing what they were talking about, LOL). We were also taught that PVA is the #1 factor for predicting severe thunderstorms and is the leading cause of arthritis flare-ups in senior citizens (OK, just kidding about the arthritis, but you get the idea). Yet when creating models that actually forecast the weather for a given location, PVA never shows up as a meaningful contributor ... because it doesn't work! That said, I don't want to create a straw man here. To be clear, just because there have been past truths in the atmospheric sciences that were later debunked by better science doesn't mean the science behind global warming is at risk to be debunked. But I do want to point out the atmospheric sciences are young, we're learning new things all the time, and there's much we don't know. For sure, the physics are not as exact as the physics which tell us there will be an eclipse on May 20, 2055 at 9:01am. So the bottom line really it's the quality of the science, not the surveys which are important.
So who cares what you think about climate change? Are you a climate specialist? What could you possibly offer to the discussion.
I'm not a climate specialist. Climatology is one of many sub-disciplines under the atmospheric science umbrella. My area of expertise is in short-term (0-7 day) weather forecast modelling and probabilistic prediction. I'm intimately familiar with numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, like the kind climatologists use to predict future climate. So I'm fully aware of how they work, their strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and their limitations. I've also performed extensive work in the area of forecast verification which is full of land mines, and that makes it easier to sniff out weaknesses in a given study or experimental design that generates predictions.
OK, let's deal with specific questions regarding climate change. Is it even possible that humans can change the earth's climate? After all, isn't the earth just too big to be affected by mere humans?
There is absolutely no sliver of doubt that humans *can* alter the climate on our planet. Anyone can verify this for themselves. Just watch the evening news and notice how the night-time temperatures are always colder in the outlying suburbs compared to a populated city. In many cases there can be 10-15 degrees difference especially in winter. Of course this is on a small spacial scale and none of that is related to increases in carbon dioxide, but nonetheless it shows in a simple way that humans can affect the weather.
Has the earth gotten warmer in the last century?
Yes, global temperatures have risen about 1* C the last 100 years.
Has the amount of carbon dioxide increased in the period as well?
Yes, total C02 concentrations have increased over 30% in the last 100 years.
So what's the controversy? Doesn't this prove global warming is real and caused by humans?
Well, it may seem intuitive to think that at first, but I recommend some caution. First, correlation does not equal causation. Ice cream sales have also increased the last 100 years, but nobody is going to blame warmer temperatures on ice cream. Second, while there is indeed a strong physical link relating carbon dioxide and global warming (CO2 is transparent to incoming solar radiation but absorbs outgoing long-wave radiation), the ultimate relationship is not so simple. There are countless feedback mechanisms and interactions with clouds, plants, and oceans which complicate matters greatly. Here's a simple analogy of how a feedback mechanism works. Eating a sugary food causes your blood-sugar level to rise temporarily but a healthy pancreas then responds to secrete enough insulin to maintain stable blood-sugar levels. So in the end despite consuming sugar the blood-sugar level remains the same. There are a "gazillion" of these type of interactions & feedbacks that go on in the atmosphere. So the contribution of increased CO2 toward global warming can't be accurately measured unless all the interactive effects are taken into account. Third, there are instances in our past history when temperatures have risen greater than this without any human intervention, and that makes it a very difficult problem to separate natural (or random) fluctuations versus what humans have contributed.
To be continued ...
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Creationists vs. Climate Change Deniers
A recent article published at EarthMagazine.Org makes a claim that there is a link between creationists and climate change deniers. The gist of the article is that (i) both creationists and climate deniers reject mainstream science, and that (ii) both creationists and climate change deniers distort facts in a way that misrepresents science. The link to the full article is provided here:
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-defending-science-link-between-creationism-and-climate-change
While the article attempts to point out similarities between the two camps, I'd like to point out several differences, especially in terms of the science. [BTW, I'm not a fan of the phrase 'climate change deniers', but since the article uses the term I'll follow along with that phraseology].
First, there is a big difference between how the two groups feel their respective subjects should be taught in school. For example, consider the case of two of the bigger climate change deniers (meteorologists Joe Bastardi and Roy Spencer). I don't think either one would be against the teaching of climate physics in the classroom or would be against increasing our understanding of climate through the scientific method. In contrast, two of the most strident creationists (Ken Ham and Kent Hovind) are clearly against teaching evolution in school and would love to take it out of the text books if given the opportunity and instead have them filled with heaps of creationist propaganda!
Second, while the definition of a creationist is pretty clear cut, the article doesn't really define "climate change denier". Climate change can cover a whole array of hot button topics, much of which is clearly not "settled science". For example, how many times has it been said or written that global warming will result in stronger storms? In fact, every time there's severe weather it seems to get blamed on global warming. So if someone rejects the thesis that global warming will result in stronger storms should that person be labelled a "climate change denier" [even though there is zero observational evidence that warming has resulted in more frequent or stronger storms]? How about people who challenge whether 1700 US cities will be under water by the year 2100? What about those who don't believe that 1 million species on earth will be extinct by 2050? What about those who disagree with irresponsible statements such as "we have only four years left to act on climate change"? What about those who questioned Al Gore's prediction of 20-foot sea level rises by 2100? What about those who laughed at James Hansen's 1989 prediction that NYC would be partly under water by 2020? Should those who challenge such outrageous claims be labelled a "climate change denier"? I don't think so.
So unlike the science that refutes Biblical creation (which shows that the universe is very old, that the earth didn't form before the stars, that all animals were not 'created' at the same time, and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago), there are several aspects of global warming that are by no means conclusive (especially when addressing the potential consequences of global warming). So to lump those who question the more controversial areas of global warming in the same boat as creationists who 'deny science' is inappropriate to say the least and done merely to grab headlines, raise new research money or to pass an agenda.
Third, if I was to ask "what is the chance that the earth is really greater than 10,000 years old", nearly all credible geologists & astronomers would say 100% probability that it is older than 10,000 years. If I was to ask what is the probability that the first stars formed long before earth, nearly all credible cosmologists would say 100% probability that the earth formed long after the first stars. If I was to ask "what is the likelihood that all animal species were NOT created at the same time", nearly all credible scientists in the field would say 100% likelihood. However, if I was to ask "what is the probability that the earth will be warmer in the year 2050 compared to the last decade", I suspect you would find that most atmospheric scientists would shy significantly away from a 100% probability (and vote somewhere between 60-80% probability), especially if they had to wager a large percentage of their personal assets. Therein lies the difference between climate science and that used to prove an old universe or disprove biblical creation. In 50 years I'm sure the universe will still measure a lot more than 10,000 years old. However in weather there is a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the future 50+ years out. Long-range climate prediction is unlike other scientific disciplines and is nowhere near an exact science, unlike the physics which can predict the exact time of a solar eclipse 50 years in advance. Our climate can change with or without human activity in either direction whether we like it or not for natural reasons, just like it has done many times in the past. There may also be technological innovations down the road that curb any problem of CO2 emissions. Furthermore, climate physics are not completely known. There are feedback mechanisms and interactions that clearly are not handled properly in climate models as evidenced by the fact that these models have largely overpredicted the amount of actual warming in real-time forecasts on independent data. So unlike the science that is used to determine the age of the earth/universe or to show that different life forms evolved over millions of years, there are significant uncertainties in the field of climate prediction. Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models also suffer problems of "climate drift" and local biases, which have been known by operational meteorologists for 40+ years. That is why NOAA applies statistical post-processing to short-term predictions (1-7 days) to get these physical models back to reality. Ironically, no such post-processing occurs with climate change models. To label someone as a "denier of science" for pointing out such deficiencies in the models or by casting similar doubt as to our climate future is not appropriate because those uncertainties are genuine. Moreover, the science of climate prediction is still quite young, especially when compared to evolutionary theory or radiometric dating that is used to disprove creationism. There is still a lot to learn about our atmosphere and oceans, and the climate prediction models are far less complex than the real atmosphere. So the next time there is a new report in the news like "new study by climate scientists suggest that global warming will result in crippling snowstorms for the northeast US and prolonged droughts in the plains", well that can be treated similar to new medical studies that make headlines (i.e., eating oatmeal each morning will reduce the risk of heart attacks by 75%). In other words don't toss it out like garbage cause it may be right, but don't treat it as "settled science" either and label those who are skeptical of such claims as deniers of science either.
Fourth, interestingly enough most climate change "deniers" actually agree that the earth has gotten warmer the last 100 years and that humans are probably at least partly to blame. These are the two issues that formulate the "97% consensus" of climate scientists". However, these are not the issues that divide skeptics and "deniers". Rather the contentious issues are in regard to the effects of a warmer planet and whether they will be catastrophic (more storms, droughts, mass extinctions, etc..), and these are far from settled science. Unfortunately some politicians take that "97% consensus", misapply it to topics where there is no consensus, and then label those who disagree on those topics as "deniers". I can guarantee that 97% of climate scientists don't agree that Al Gore's 20 foot rise in sea level by 2100 will happen.
Finally, on the charge that climate change deniers distort science like creationists, well I've also seen it go the other way as well where climate change activists (and some scientists) distort the science in their favor for their agenda. A really good example is the bogus Whitehouse National Climate Assessment report from 2014, which is fraught with errors. Other good examples are most anything said by James Hansen and Al Gore. So this is not a compelling argument used by the authors of the magazine article.
So in summary, while I think the article attempted to make a comparison between climate change deniers and creationists, I think it misses the boat because the author equivocates the science used to refute creationism and the science used to support climate change. Unfortunately, not all science is created equal, and therein lies the problem with attempting to compare the two groups. I have personally witnessed in the meteorological field long-standing "certainties" in textbooks that got shoved down our throats as students which were later shown to be nonsense. So in terms of any discussion on climate change, we just need to do the research, argue over it, validate it, have it pass the smell test, take appropriate action and not waste time trying to label people or make connections between them.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-defending-science-link-between-creationism-and-climate-change
While the article attempts to point out similarities between the two camps, I'd like to point out several differences, especially in terms of the science. [BTW, I'm not a fan of the phrase 'climate change deniers', but since the article uses the term I'll follow along with that phraseology].
First, there is a big difference between how the two groups feel their respective subjects should be taught in school. For example, consider the case of two of the bigger climate change deniers (meteorologists Joe Bastardi and Roy Spencer). I don't think either one would be against the teaching of climate physics in the classroom or would be against increasing our understanding of climate through the scientific method. In contrast, two of the most strident creationists (Ken Ham and Kent Hovind) are clearly against teaching evolution in school and would love to take it out of the text books if given the opportunity and instead have them filled with heaps of creationist propaganda!
Second, while the definition of a creationist is pretty clear cut, the article doesn't really define "climate change denier". Climate change can cover a whole array of hot button topics, much of which is clearly not "settled science". For example, how many times has it been said or written that global warming will result in stronger storms? In fact, every time there's severe weather it seems to get blamed on global warming. So if someone rejects the thesis that global warming will result in stronger storms should that person be labelled a "climate change denier" [even though there is zero observational evidence that warming has resulted in more frequent or stronger storms]? How about people who challenge whether 1700 US cities will be under water by the year 2100? What about those who don't believe that 1 million species on earth will be extinct by 2050? What about those who disagree with irresponsible statements such as "we have only four years left to act on climate change"? What about those who questioned Al Gore's prediction of 20-foot sea level rises by 2100? What about those who laughed at James Hansen's 1989 prediction that NYC would be partly under water by 2020? Should those who challenge such outrageous claims be labelled a "climate change denier"? I don't think so.
So unlike the science that refutes Biblical creation (which shows that the universe is very old, that the earth didn't form before the stars, that all animals were not 'created' at the same time, and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago), there are several aspects of global warming that are by no means conclusive (especially when addressing the potential consequences of global warming). So to lump those who question the more controversial areas of global warming in the same boat as creationists who 'deny science' is inappropriate to say the least and done merely to grab headlines, raise new research money or to pass an agenda.
Third, if I was to ask "what is the chance that the earth is really greater than 10,000 years old", nearly all credible geologists & astronomers would say 100% probability that it is older than 10,000 years. If I was to ask what is the probability that the first stars formed long before earth, nearly all credible cosmologists would say 100% probability that the earth formed long after the first stars. If I was to ask "what is the likelihood that all animal species were NOT created at the same time", nearly all credible scientists in the field would say 100% likelihood. However, if I was to ask "what is the probability that the earth will be warmer in the year 2050 compared to the last decade", I suspect you would find that most atmospheric scientists would shy significantly away from a 100% probability (and vote somewhere between 60-80% probability), especially if they had to wager a large percentage of their personal assets. Therein lies the difference between climate science and that used to prove an old universe or disprove biblical creation. In 50 years I'm sure the universe will still measure a lot more than 10,000 years old. However in weather there is a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the future 50+ years out. Long-range climate prediction is unlike other scientific disciplines and is nowhere near an exact science, unlike the physics which can predict the exact time of a solar eclipse 50 years in advance. Our climate can change with or without human activity in either direction whether we like it or not for natural reasons, just like it has done many times in the past. There may also be technological innovations down the road that curb any problem of CO2 emissions. Furthermore, climate physics are not completely known. There are feedback mechanisms and interactions that clearly are not handled properly in climate models as evidenced by the fact that these models have largely overpredicted the amount of actual warming in real-time forecasts on independent data. So unlike the science that is used to determine the age of the earth/universe or to show that different life forms evolved over millions of years, there are significant uncertainties in the field of climate prediction. Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models also suffer problems of "climate drift" and local biases, which have been known by operational meteorologists for 40+ years. That is why NOAA applies statistical post-processing to short-term predictions (1-7 days) to get these physical models back to reality. Ironically, no such post-processing occurs with climate change models. To label someone as a "denier of science" for pointing out such deficiencies in the models or by casting similar doubt as to our climate future is not appropriate because those uncertainties are genuine. Moreover, the science of climate prediction is still quite young, especially when compared to evolutionary theory or radiometric dating that is used to disprove creationism. There is still a lot to learn about our atmosphere and oceans, and the climate prediction models are far less complex than the real atmosphere. So the next time there is a new report in the news like "new study by climate scientists suggest that global warming will result in crippling snowstorms for the northeast US and prolonged droughts in the plains", well that can be treated similar to new medical studies that make headlines (i.e., eating oatmeal each morning will reduce the risk of heart attacks by 75%). In other words don't toss it out like garbage cause it may be right, but don't treat it as "settled science" either and label those who are skeptical of such claims as deniers of science either.
Fourth, interestingly enough most climate change "deniers" actually agree that the earth has gotten warmer the last 100 years and that humans are probably at least partly to blame. These are the two issues that formulate the "97% consensus" of climate scientists". However, these are not the issues that divide skeptics and "deniers". Rather the contentious issues are in regard to the effects of a warmer planet and whether they will be catastrophic (more storms, droughts, mass extinctions, etc..), and these are far from settled science. Unfortunately some politicians take that "97% consensus", misapply it to topics where there is no consensus, and then label those who disagree on those topics as "deniers". I can guarantee that 97% of climate scientists don't agree that Al Gore's 20 foot rise in sea level by 2100 will happen.
Finally, on the charge that climate change deniers distort science like creationists, well I've also seen it go the other way as well where climate change activists (and some scientists) distort the science in their favor for their agenda. A really good example is the bogus Whitehouse National Climate Assessment report from 2014, which is fraught with errors. Other good examples are most anything said by James Hansen and Al Gore. So this is not a compelling argument used by the authors of the magazine article.
So in summary, while I think the article attempted to make a comparison between climate change deniers and creationists, I think it misses the boat because the author equivocates the science used to refute creationism and the science used to support climate change. Unfortunately, not all science is created equal, and therein lies the problem with attempting to compare the two groups. I have personally witnessed in the meteorological field long-standing "certainties" in textbooks that got shoved down our throats as students which were later shown to be nonsense. So in terms of any discussion on climate change, we just need to do the research, argue over it, validate it, have it pass the smell test, take appropriate action and not waste time trying to label people or make connections between them.
Monday, July 28, 2014
The Godless Delusion
I just finished reading a book called "The Godless Delusion" by Madrid and Hensley. The book is an obvious counter to the Richard Dawkins best-seller titled The God Delusion, and it attempts to represent a Catholic challenge to modern atheism. However the book fails in two respects. One, the arguments are logically flawed, and two many of the authors' comments are so far off base that my blood boils and steam flows out of my ears!
First I'll address the logical errors. The authors actually summed up their case for the existence of God quite succinctly on page 219 ...
"... it is simply not the case that we have argued in a circle or begged the question in the book. Theists don't say, 'God exists: therefore God exists.' Therefore, neither is our argument circular. If anything it's been structured thus:
A law of morality exists and is known to all --- and therefore, God exists. Consciousness exists, and the mind; reason, and the laws of logic; human worth, dignity, and equal rights; free will, human personality, love purpose, and meaning --- and therefore, God exists."
Now it doesn't take a philosophy major to see the major flaws in their logic ... like where's the proof for starters?! But in fairness to the authors their argument is a little deeper, but not much. Basically it is argued that atheists only believe in the natural world containing material items. However, non-material things exist like consciousness, laws of logic, morality, love, and so on. Since these non-material things exist then atheism is false and therefore the Christian God exists. Putting this into a structured logical argument leads to the following premises & conclusion:
OK, let's pick apart this argument. First, atheism is only the lack of a belief in a god. It makes no claim about the natural, supernatural, material or non-material world views. They are wholly separate philosophies. So being an atheist does not also mean being a materialist, and vice-versa. Therefore premise #1 is flawed and the whole argument is shot right from the beginning. However, there is another logical flaw. Even if atheism is the wrong world view, that doesn't mean the Christian God exists! The author would need to provide further evidence to show that their God exists and not one of the other thousands of gods worshiped by humans.
The logical flaws notwithstanding, what really irked me were the baseless, irresponsible, and absurd comments made by the authors which were nothing more than a feeble attempt to appeal to emotions but ended up showing their stupidity and immaturity instead. Here are some examples:
" This means out of a total population of some 300 million Americans, 30 million citizens doubt, or outright deny, the existence of God. That's a significant number of people who ... would be in a position to do terrible damage to society."
" ... if the atheist worldview were to be implemented across the board as the basis of societal policy (as it has been, in limited fashion, at times in the 20th century --- with disastrous results), you would definitely not want to live in such a society, so brutal, so tyrannical, and devoid of genuine goodness and beauty would it be."
"We contend that the denial of God's existence leads to the complete disintegration of not only morality, meaning, and human value and dignity, but the possibility of knowledge itself. The atheist worldview leads to foolishness."
"Atheism enables sociopathic behavior by claiming that human life has no intrinsic, transcendent value. That's why as atheism gains ascendancy in the West, there is a concomitant rise in barbaric, inhumane practices such as abortion, fetal stem cell research, cloning, infanticide, and euthanasia. Society's death spiral into darkness, despair, and nihilism is being propelled by naturalism."
"In the atheist worldview it's good for the strong to devour the weak, because that is how the evolution of the species progresses."
In regard to that last idiotic comment, atheism is actually silent with respect to evolution. Remember, atheism only posits that a god does not exist. Atheism is silent to whether evolution is true. Moreover, even though the evidence shows that evolution is true and that "survival of the fittest" played an important role in the past, that doesn't mean someone who believes in evolution also thinks that survival of the fittest is the best policy going forward.
Bottom line ... the authors are complete morons.
First I'll address the logical errors. The authors actually summed up their case for the existence of God quite succinctly on page 219 ...
"... it is simply not the case that we have argued in a circle or begged the question in the book. Theists don't say, 'God exists: therefore God exists.' Therefore, neither is our argument circular. If anything it's been structured thus:
A law of morality exists and is known to all --- and therefore, God exists. Consciousness exists, and the mind; reason, and the laws of logic; human worth, dignity, and equal rights; free will, human personality, love purpose, and meaning --- and therefore, God exists."
Now it doesn't take a philosophy major to see the major flaws in their logic ... like where's the proof for starters?! But in fairness to the authors their argument is a little deeper, but not much. Basically it is argued that atheists only believe in the natural world containing material items. However, non-material things exist like consciousness, laws of logic, morality, love, and so on. Since these non-material things exist then atheism is false and therefore the Christian God exists. Putting this into a structured logical argument leads to the following premises & conclusion:
- Atheists believe only in the natural material world;
- Non-material things exist;
- Therefore atheism is an incorrect world view;
- Therefore the Christian God exists.
OK, let's pick apart this argument. First, atheism is only the lack of a belief in a god. It makes no claim about the natural, supernatural, material or non-material world views. They are wholly separate philosophies. So being an atheist does not also mean being a materialist, and vice-versa. Therefore premise #1 is flawed and the whole argument is shot right from the beginning. However, there is another logical flaw. Even if atheism is the wrong world view, that doesn't mean the Christian God exists! The author would need to provide further evidence to show that their God exists and not one of the other thousands of gods worshiped by humans.
The logical flaws notwithstanding, what really irked me were the baseless, irresponsible, and absurd comments made by the authors which were nothing more than a feeble attempt to appeal to emotions but ended up showing their stupidity and immaturity instead. Here are some examples:
" This means out of a total population of some 300 million Americans, 30 million citizens doubt, or outright deny, the existence of God. That's a significant number of people who ... would be in a position to do terrible damage to society."
" ... if the atheist worldview were to be implemented across the board as the basis of societal policy (as it has been, in limited fashion, at times in the 20th century --- with disastrous results), you would definitely not want to live in such a society, so brutal, so tyrannical, and devoid of genuine goodness and beauty would it be."
"We contend that the denial of God's existence leads to the complete disintegration of not only morality, meaning, and human value and dignity, but the possibility of knowledge itself. The atheist worldview leads to foolishness."
"Atheism enables sociopathic behavior by claiming that human life has no intrinsic, transcendent value. That's why as atheism gains ascendancy in the West, there is a concomitant rise in barbaric, inhumane practices such as abortion, fetal stem cell research, cloning, infanticide, and euthanasia. Society's death spiral into darkness, despair, and nihilism is being propelled by naturalism."
"In the atheist worldview it's good for the strong to devour the weak, because that is how the evolution of the species progresses."
In regard to that last idiotic comment, atheism is actually silent with respect to evolution. Remember, atheism only posits that a god does not exist. Atheism is silent to whether evolution is true. Moreover, even though the evidence shows that evolution is true and that "survival of the fittest" played an important role in the past, that doesn't mean someone who believes in evolution also thinks that survival of the fittest is the best policy going forward.
Bottom line ... the authors are complete morons.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Stupidity of Infant Baptism
I've been thinking about the religious custom of Baptism lately, but yet the more I research the topic the more apparent it becomes that the practice is stupid, especially for infants.
According to Christian Doctrine, the purpose of Baptism is to (a) cleanse the body from sin and (b) to be unified with Christ. For infants, item (a) refers to the cleansing of original sin.
OK, so let's dissect baptism a little deeper. In particular I have three objections to the practice.
(1) When parents choose to baptize an infant, they are basically forcing a religion down the throat of their child. How do you know the kid wants to be a Christian? Shouldn't religion be an individual choice a person makes when they are old enough to understand the issues and decide for themselves? After all, you wouldn't raise your kid to be a lawyer just because you are a lawyer. You wouldn't hold a celebration party that indoctrinates your newborn to be a member of a political party either. You also wouldn't arrange a marriage for your child. Those are all personal choices you let a child make when they become an adult, and religion should be that way as well. Although parents may try to be well-meaning by raising their child into a religion thinking it's in their best interest, such is not a necessity in order for the child to turn out intelligent, well-mannered and successful. That can easily be accomplished outside of religion without wasting time and money attending church, confession, Sunday school, etc.
(2) The thought that an infant is born with original sin is probably the most patently absurd and idiotic concepts of all time! If a pregnant mother commits a crime and is sentenced to 20 years in prison, under that logic the baby should also have to spend 20 years in prison if it is to be believed that sin is passed on automatically from one person to the next. Of course we don't punish the child in such a real life situation because our legal system has an ounce of common sense. However, let's look more closely at the so-called "original sin", which occurred when Adam & Eve ate fruit from the forbidden tree after being coaxed into it by a talking snake of all things. Just think of the logic of that for one moment. Is eating a piece of fruit really a sin worthy of causing the fall of all human-kind? Frankly it's nonsense. However, let's dig a little deeper.
Where did concept of "original sin" come from? Well, it certainly didn't come from God. According to Deuteronomy [24:16] God states that "Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents" and that "those deserving to die must be put to death of their own crimes". Moreover, God never stated in Genesis that the offspring of Adam & Eve would be punished for eating the apple. In fact, Noah (who was a descendant of Adam) was described by God as "a righteous man and the only blameless person living on earth." So clearly God didn't believe in original sin. How about Jesus? Well, he never mentioned a word about it in the New Testament. So where did the concept of original sin come from? It was invented by the Apostle Paul [Romans 5:12] who, I should point out, was not an original disciple of Jesus and had never even met Jesus! So the whole thing was basically made up after the fact when inventing the Christian religion. Therefore, the concept that a beautiful newborn baby is littered with "original sin" and needs to be cleansed is total nonsense.
(3) The thought that any parent would want to submit their child's life to Jesus just goes to show that not many people actually read the Bible. Do you know what Jesus teaches? Yeah, I know Jesus tells us to love one another, blah blah. But in particular I'd like every Christian to actually read the New Testament especially the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7] to see ALL of what Jesus teaches. In reality, Jesus was an idiot and I submit nobody with half a brain would follow his teachings. Here's a sample of his stupidity:
According to Christian Doctrine, the purpose of Baptism is to (a) cleanse the body from sin and (b) to be unified with Christ. For infants, item (a) refers to the cleansing of original sin.
OK, so let's dissect baptism a little deeper. In particular I have three objections to the practice.
(1) When parents choose to baptize an infant, they are basically forcing a religion down the throat of their child. How do you know the kid wants to be a Christian? Shouldn't religion be an individual choice a person makes when they are old enough to understand the issues and decide for themselves? After all, you wouldn't raise your kid to be a lawyer just because you are a lawyer. You wouldn't hold a celebration party that indoctrinates your newborn to be a member of a political party either. You also wouldn't arrange a marriage for your child. Those are all personal choices you let a child make when they become an adult, and religion should be that way as well. Although parents may try to be well-meaning by raising their child into a religion thinking it's in their best interest, such is not a necessity in order for the child to turn out intelligent, well-mannered and successful. That can easily be accomplished outside of religion without wasting time and money attending church, confession, Sunday school, etc.
(2) The thought that an infant is born with original sin is probably the most patently absurd and idiotic concepts of all time! If a pregnant mother commits a crime and is sentenced to 20 years in prison, under that logic the baby should also have to spend 20 years in prison if it is to be believed that sin is passed on automatically from one person to the next. Of course we don't punish the child in such a real life situation because our legal system has an ounce of common sense. However, let's look more closely at the so-called "original sin", which occurred when Adam & Eve ate fruit from the forbidden tree after being coaxed into it by a talking snake of all things. Just think of the logic of that for one moment. Is eating a piece of fruit really a sin worthy of causing the fall of all human-kind? Frankly it's nonsense. However, let's dig a little deeper.
Where did concept of "original sin" come from? Well, it certainly didn't come from God. According to Deuteronomy [24:16] God states that "Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents" and that "those deserving to die must be put to death of their own crimes". Moreover, God never stated in Genesis that the offspring of Adam & Eve would be punished for eating the apple. In fact, Noah (who was a descendant of Adam) was described by God as "a righteous man and the only blameless person living on earth." So clearly God didn't believe in original sin. How about Jesus? Well, he never mentioned a word about it in the New Testament. So where did the concept of original sin come from? It was invented by the Apostle Paul [Romans 5:12] who, I should point out, was not an original disciple of Jesus and had never even met Jesus! So the whole thing was basically made up after the fact when inventing the Christian religion. Therefore, the concept that a beautiful newborn baby is littered with "original sin" and needs to be cleansed is total nonsense.
(3) The thought that any parent would want to submit their child's life to Jesus just goes to show that not many people actually read the Bible. Do you know what Jesus teaches? Yeah, I know Jesus tells us to love one another, blah blah. But in particular I'd like every Christian to actually read the New Testament especially the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7] to see ALL of what Jesus teaches. In reality, Jesus was an idiot and I submit nobody with half a brain would follow his teachings. Here's a sample of his stupidity:
- You shall not get angry with someone or call them an idiot or you will be judged. You shall not curse at anyone or you are in danger of going to hell. Really? So if some drunk driver kills the members of my family and I get angry & curse at the drunk I'm the one that goes to hell?
- If a man looks at a woman with lust he shall gouge out his eyeball and throw it away, otherwise he will be thrown in hell. Really? In that case you would think most of the male population would be walking around blind!
- A man is guilty of adultery if he marries a divorced woman. A woman is guilty of adultery if a man divorces his wife. The punishment? According to the Bible the punishment is death [Leviticus 20:10]. Gee, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and 80% of those divorced remarry. Wow, according to Jesus we should kill off a good chunk of our population.
- Do not resist an evil person. Really? If someone breaks into my house with the intention of doing harm I'm supposed to just let them? If a woman is about to be raped she should let them? If an evil dictator wants to start a war and invade the USA, we should just let them? Sorry but Jesus is an idiot, most rational people would fight back.
- If you are sued in court and lose, give them more than the judgment. Really? Bet the ambulance chasers are Christians, LOL.
- If someone asks for something then give it to them without question. Cool. Mr. Buffett, kindly send me a check for 10 million dollars!
- Love your enemies. Really? Never felt much love for Osama Bin Laden.
- Keep your gifts to charity private. Hmm, guess that also means goodbye to the Bill Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation.
- Do not pray where others can see you. Really? Then exactly why were churches built?
- Do not accumulate wealth on earth. Really? So what shall millions of Americans do with their IRAs?
- Do not worry about every day life - whether you have enough food and drink or enough clothes to wear. God will take care of that. Really? And how many millions of children starve to death each year on the planet hoping for God to take care of them?
- Do not plan for the future. Really? Sorry, but Jesus you're really an idiot.
- Do not judge others. Really? If a gang of obvious thugs is heading your way exactly how am I supposed to survive without judging others?
- Pray for something and you will receive what you ask for. This is very dangerous. Just ask the parents of sick children who ended up dead because their parents thought that praying was better than taking them to a hospital.
- If a town doesn't accept the words of Jesus, the town shall be destroyed in a manner worse than Sodom and Gomorrah [Matthew 10]. Oooh, now we're rolling. Guess we should kill off over half the world's population that doesn't follow Christianity.
- Children who speak disrespectfully of their parents must be put to death [Mark 7:10]. Wow, who would think Jesus would condone killing children.
- To get into heaven you must sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor [Mark 10:21]. Really? Maybe the Vatican can set an example and give all its net worth to the poor.
- Jesus says that slaves must obey orders from the master or face severe punishment [Luke 12:47]. Another example of outdated morality in the Bible.
- You can not be a disciple of Jesus unless you hate your father, mother, wife and children [Luke 14:26]. Wow, what a monster.
- People who don't believe in Jesus shall be thrown away like useless branches to be gathered into a pile and burned [John 15:6]. This passage served as impetus for the killings during the Inquisition.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Ray Comfort's Evolution vs. God
Just finished watching Ray Comfort's Evolution vs. God video and just about blew a gasket. If you'd like to torture yourself for about 35 minutes here's the link: http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/
In the video Comfort interviews a number of scientists and college students and asks them (i) if they believe in evolution and (ii) to provide him a case example that proves evolution (for example where one kind of animal turns into another). When provided with such examples from past fossil records Mr. Comfort responds with "well you didn't actually see it since it happened millions of years ago", and prompts them further to provide evidence he can see today in front of his eyes. When they can't (since that's not how evolution works ... duh!!!) then Comfort suggests a "better" alternative explanation for the diversity of the species ... God.
Now I'm not going to get into a long diatribe on how evolution works and why Ray Comfort is clueless on this topic because it's totally irrelevant. Even if evolution is one day proven to be false, that doesn't mean God exists! Moreover, even without discussing the topic of evolution, there is an overwhelming amount of irrefutable scientific evidence to show that the Bible's explanation of our origins is totally wrong, contrary to Comfort's claim that "all scripture is true."
In the Book of Genesis, it's claimed that God made earth on the first day, before all the stars. Well that's clearly not the case. The oldest stars are 13 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Moreover, the heavy elements that make up a planet can only come from a star that explodes, so there is no way the earth could have preceded the formation of all the stars.
The Bible also claims God created vegetation before the sun was created. This is impossible since plants need sunlight for food and would never form first. The Bible also claims that birds formed before land animals (not true) and that the first land animals were created at the same time as human beings (also not true).
The Bible also claims that the full creation took place in only six days. Unfortunately the evidence shows that our universe & life took billions of years to take shape. This is indisputable. Of course theists will make the lame argument that those weren't literal days in the Bible, but rather one of God's days is much longer. Well that argument flops for the simple reason that it then wouldn't make sense of Adam's age. Being created on day 6 Adam lived beyond day 7, but if one of God's "days" is a much longer time like a billion years, then Adam couldn't have lived that long (he only lived to 960 years according to the Bible).
The Bible also claims there was a global flood high enough to cover the tallest mountains. Unfortunately, there's not enough water to accomplish that. If there was enough water to make it rain that much then the atmospheric pressure would be so great from all the precipitable water in the sky that the temperature on earth would be hundreds of degrees so even Noah would have croaked.
So the point is we know for fact that the Bible is wrong regarding our origins, and regardless of whether evolution is ever falsified. Given that the Bible is wrong, then that certainly lowers the probability of the existence of the Biblical god. To see why, just look at the opposite case. Suppose the Bible said God started the universe started 13.7 billion years ago, and then God created the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and that 1 billion years ago God created the first multi-cellular life form, and from then on life evolved and diversified to the point where 200 thousand years ago humans appeared. Well that would certainly increase the probability of God's existence, wouldn't it? Of course. So given that Genesis in the Bible is totally wrong and obviously written by humans who didn't have a clue, then that certainly increases the probability that the God thing was just something early humans made up because they simply didn't know how anything worked.
Anyway, Comfort makes a couple other statements that give me heartburn. One of which is that people who want to be atheists only do so because they choose to sin. Sorry Ray, but you're way off base. Atheists choose not to believe in God because that's where the evidence leads.
Comfort also says that being an atheist is like living in a closed cell without a window. Again, not true. Being an atheist is actually liberating, knowing that you're not enslaved to outdated, absurd and unnecessary religious beliefs & customs.
Lastly, Ray Comfort states that atheists must believe that something can come from nothing. Again, not true. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God. It makes no claims regarding how the universe formed. But since we're on the subject, I'd like to ask Ray Comfort a question. Which is more probable, scenario A below or scenario B?
Scenario A
- The universe formed naturally out of nothing
Scenario B
- God formed out of nothing
- God obtained unlimited powers out of nothing
- God then made the universe out of nothing
Seems to me like scenario A has fewer absurd things to believe in than the supernatural solution in scenario B.
In the video Comfort interviews a number of scientists and college students and asks them (i) if they believe in evolution and (ii) to provide him a case example that proves evolution (for example where one kind of animal turns into another). When provided with such examples from past fossil records Mr. Comfort responds with "well you didn't actually see it since it happened millions of years ago", and prompts them further to provide evidence he can see today in front of his eyes. When they can't (since that's not how evolution works ... duh!!!) then Comfort suggests a "better" alternative explanation for the diversity of the species ... God.
Now I'm not going to get into a long diatribe on how evolution works and why Ray Comfort is clueless on this topic because it's totally irrelevant. Even if evolution is one day proven to be false, that doesn't mean God exists! Moreover, even without discussing the topic of evolution, there is an overwhelming amount of irrefutable scientific evidence to show that the Bible's explanation of our origins is totally wrong, contrary to Comfort's claim that "all scripture is true."
In the Book of Genesis, it's claimed that God made earth on the first day, before all the stars. Well that's clearly not the case. The oldest stars are 13 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Moreover, the heavy elements that make up a planet can only come from a star that explodes, so there is no way the earth could have preceded the formation of all the stars.
The Bible also claims God created vegetation before the sun was created. This is impossible since plants need sunlight for food and would never form first. The Bible also claims that birds formed before land animals (not true) and that the first land animals were created at the same time as human beings (also not true).
The Bible also claims that the full creation took place in only six days. Unfortunately the evidence shows that our universe & life took billions of years to take shape. This is indisputable. Of course theists will make the lame argument that those weren't literal days in the Bible, but rather one of God's days is much longer. Well that argument flops for the simple reason that it then wouldn't make sense of Adam's age. Being created on day 6 Adam lived beyond day 7, but if one of God's "days" is a much longer time like a billion years, then Adam couldn't have lived that long (he only lived to 960 years according to the Bible).
The Bible also claims there was a global flood high enough to cover the tallest mountains. Unfortunately, there's not enough water to accomplish that. If there was enough water to make it rain that much then the atmospheric pressure would be so great from all the precipitable water in the sky that the temperature on earth would be hundreds of degrees so even Noah would have croaked.
So the point is we know for fact that the Bible is wrong regarding our origins, and regardless of whether evolution is ever falsified. Given that the Bible is wrong, then that certainly lowers the probability of the existence of the Biblical god. To see why, just look at the opposite case. Suppose the Bible said God started the universe started 13.7 billion years ago, and then God created the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and that 1 billion years ago God created the first multi-cellular life form, and from then on life evolved and diversified to the point where 200 thousand years ago humans appeared. Well that would certainly increase the probability of God's existence, wouldn't it? Of course. So given that Genesis in the Bible is totally wrong and obviously written by humans who didn't have a clue, then that certainly increases the probability that the God thing was just something early humans made up because they simply didn't know how anything worked.
Anyway, Comfort makes a couple other statements that give me heartburn. One of which is that people who want to be atheists only do so because they choose to sin. Sorry Ray, but you're way off base. Atheists choose not to believe in God because that's where the evidence leads.
Comfort also says that being an atheist is like living in a closed cell without a window. Again, not true. Being an atheist is actually liberating, knowing that you're not enslaved to outdated, absurd and unnecessary religious beliefs & customs.
Lastly, Ray Comfort states that atheists must believe that something can come from nothing. Again, not true. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God. It makes no claims regarding how the universe formed. But since we're on the subject, I'd like to ask Ray Comfort a question. Which is more probable, scenario A below or scenario B?
Scenario A
- The universe formed naturally out of nothing
Scenario B
- God formed out of nothing
- God obtained unlimited powers out of nothing
- God then made the universe out of nothing
Seems to me like scenario A has fewer absurd things to believe in than the supernatural solution in scenario B.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
The Folly of Faith
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard "Oh, she is such a great person ... she is a person of faith."
However, I've always wondered why having strong faith is synonymous with being a good person (almost as if you don't have faith then you're a bad person). Such a notion is silly, of course, because being a good person is determined by the harm and good you do to others, not by whether you believe in a supernatural entity. The two are mutually exclusive and it makes about as much sense to say "She is a great person because she has faith that eating whole grain bread will lower her chance of cancer."
In fact, if someone claims to have deep faith then that's just a red flag showing that a person believes in something without having any supporting evidence. In my opinion that is a poor trait for someone to have. Imagine being a defendant in a criminal trial. Would you want the jury to convict you just because they have strong faith in the prosecuting attorney or would you want them to weigh the evidence and form an opinion separate from their faith in the DA?
Interestingly, in a poll conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians make up about 80% of the US population and about 80% of the prison population. In contrast, atheists make up about 4% of the US population but only about 0.2% of the prison population. So, in reality a smaller percentage of atheists are in prison compared to Christians. Admittedly there are flaws in this study (for example, prisoners could become religious after being convicted in hopes of eternal forgiveness). However, I think the numbers are good enough to show that someone's faith has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are a bad or good person.
This post will serve as a lead into to a multi-part series on morality & religion. In particular I'll be dissecting William Craig's argument that the existence of moral values proves the existence of God, and I'll dig deeper into the faith vs. morality issue.
However, I've always wondered why having strong faith is synonymous with being a good person (almost as if you don't have faith then you're a bad person). Such a notion is silly, of course, because being a good person is determined by the harm and good you do to others, not by whether you believe in a supernatural entity. The two are mutually exclusive and it makes about as much sense to say "She is a great person because she has faith that eating whole grain bread will lower her chance of cancer."
In fact, if someone claims to have deep faith then that's just a red flag showing that a person believes in something without having any supporting evidence. In my opinion that is a poor trait for someone to have. Imagine being a defendant in a criminal trial. Would you want the jury to convict you just because they have strong faith in the prosecuting attorney or would you want them to weigh the evidence and form an opinion separate from their faith in the DA?
Interestingly, in a poll conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians make up about 80% of the US population and about 80% of the prison population. In contrast, atheists make up about 4% of the US population but only about 0.2% of the prison population. So, in reality a smaller percentage of atheists are in prison compared to Christians. Admittedly there are flaws in this study (for example, prisoners could become religious after being convicted in hopes of eternal forgiveness). However, I think the numbers are good enough to show that someone's faith has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are a bad or good person.
This post will serve as a lead into to a multi-part series on morality & religion. In particular I'll be dissecting William Craig's argument that the existence of moral values proves the existence of God, and I'll dig deeper into the faith vs. morality issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)