A Difference in Darts: Faith vs. Science

[koorbmeh]

Perhaps there is only one dart board, one is missing to the left and the other is missing to the right.

Have, you considered that perhaps evolution and creation are both correct.

Evolution is like; ok here is a genetic code, sometimes it mutates a little and this has caused the various forms of life we see on the planet. We can even alter the genetic coding to produce various effects.

Do not quickly forget! There is a genetic CODE! OMFG! Where did this come from!?

[swisscheesepotatochi]

so either you copied qualiasoup, or qualiasoup copied you...

[TrenchantAtheist]

@swisscheesepotatochi lol guess it depends on which of his videos you're referring to, but I'll take it as a good thing that our work can even be compared ;)

[swisscheesepotatochi]

@swisscheesepotatochi i take it that either one of you plagiarized...

[lequaie1234]

i like the analogy

[freezeandburn77]

That was right on point.

[Adavidson100]

Nice, ehm, yeah, well done;) awesome

[kobi8231]

lmao! we had a convo about this & then we did this to test it. the theists still didnt get the point.

[AntiCitizenX]

This was a surprisingly well-done video. I liked the drawings, and the metaphor was spot-on.

[SounzNice]

Continual improvement. lllloooollll There isn't even a target on the right side! But there is a flashlight - that flashlight is the sun and everything seen is proof of Intelligent Design. The soil, the birds in the sky, everything between over and under. There is no dart board needed on the left side either. Otherwise, the point of this video is good. Hope you improved the message too - by exactly 180 degrees.

[TrenchantAtheist]

You succeeded in making absolutely no sense in that entire paragraph... But I'm not sure why you're acting as though you're disagreeing with me. The fact that you're a believer of Intelligent Design means that you're as much an atheist as I am (I.D. is a dis-proof god, not a proof of one)

[SounzNice]

Of course i didn't make sense because you had your evolutionist glasses on. It's difficult for people to see the light with them on.

The rest of your statement made zero sense. Why? Evo-glasses. Tail wags dog. What you believe is wrong; therefore you think wrongly; therefore you speak illogical. No surprise.

[RPFS2008]

Yea, he needs a pair of crazy glasses.

[lequaie1234]

@SounzNice u fail troll

[aerialpunk]

I think this misses the mark a bit (pun intended :P). The debate isn't about science or faith, it's about a way of interpreting the world. I'm a Christian, I have tons of faith, but I also love science and think it's mostly fantastic. Science is a tool that can be used by anyone. The only part of science that's truly come under fire by religion is evolution, and that's -interpretation- of scientific facts by both parties-here both people would be in the dark, & it's faith either way.

[TrenchantAtheist]

What you said here is actually what I was attempting to convey with my video. Science and faith are indeed "ways of interpreting the world" -- either you base your interpretations on evidence or you don't. Yes, science is a tool that can be used by believers and non-believers alike, but to alternately hold beliefs which do and do not rest on evidence is to alternately choose when (and when not) to use the flashlight.

And it isn't just evolution that's been attacked, unless you forget Galileo?

[aerialpunk]

Galileo wasn't attacked by religious people only. It was followers of Aristotle who gave it to him, and they were clergymen and other scientists. Aristotle was "the man" at the time, so they didn't like him being challenged.

Scientific evidence isn't the only kind of evidence there is. I don't know about other religions, but most Christians use experiential and historical evidence, and some scientific evidence too. So it's not about "having" evidence, imo. It's about how you "interpret" it.

[TrenchantAtheist]

"Galileo wasn't attacked by religious people only"

I didn't say that he was. My point was merely that there were religious reasons for the attacks he did receive from religious people.

"Scientific evidence isn't the only kind of evidence... most Christians use experimental evidence"

Experimental evidence isn't scientific?

If by "historical evidence" you mean historical documents describing personal experiences, then you should know why they are not acceptable foundations for an argument.

[aerialpunk]

The church was just following the rest of society in defending Aristotle. There were as many people in and out of the church who hated him for going against Aristotle, and they tried to reinterpret the Bible based on his teachings to prove they were right. It wasn't a religious reason as much as it was an academic one, the church just gets the brunt of it cuz they had the most power to persecute him.

Also, I meant experiential evidence, not experimental :P

[TrenchantAtheist]

It is still an issue of "having" evidence, because by definition, evidence must be "evident" to everyone concerned. If you believe something based on information that you cannot share, then you cannot expect anyone else to believe you, regardless of the topic.

If you personally shook hands with Jesus, then that'd be an experience that would more-than-sufficiently justify your belief... Nevertheless that still wouldn't be "evidence" to me (or anyone else) unless you had something to show for it.

[aerialpunk]

Must it be evident to -everyone-? I haven't personally seen atoms, or observed the theory of relativity, heck I don't even know anyone who has. Maybe I should just take those as hearsay? Or perhaps imaginary?

If I can ignore someone's experiences as I see fit, I can say you're a computer with really good AI, a ballerina, a serial killer, or the Queen of England, and you'd just have to suck it up cuz you wouldn't have any evidence to the contrary. Just your own experiences and knowledge.

[TrenchantAtheist]

"Must [evidence] be evident to everyone?"

Everyone involved, yes. "Personal experience" is only evident to you, and thus it can only be considered "evidence" so long as you're trying to convince yourself of your own position.

"...I can say you're a serial killer or the Queen of England and you'd just have to suck it up cuz you wouldn't have any evidence to the contrary"

Precisely, which is why I'm not bothering to try to prove my identity to you (Well that and because it is irrelevant anyway)

[aerialpunk]

So then, it's just like I said. We do "have" evidence for our beliefs, it's just not enough evidence for you- it's not about having evidence, it's about interpreting it. You have evidence for God from people like me who've met him. It's just not the kind of evidence you want. Based on your preconceptions about the world and how this stuff should work, it's not good enough. It comes down to interpretation.

[TrenchantAtheist]

"So then, it's just like I said"

No, it isn't. You aren't listening: "evidence" is a **conditional** thing. Personal experience is only valid to the person who experiences it. As soon as you involve a second person, the condition is changed -- and thus the amount of evidence does, too. When concerning people **other** than yourself, the requisite condition ('being evident") fails to be met and you are left with *zero* evidence. But you are correct in that zero is not "enough".

[TrenchantAtheist]

The difference between religious personal testimony and the testimony provided by scientists is that 1) their evidence is available to anyone who wishes to contest it and 2) they invent things that no one else can. You are free to be skeptical about an electrical engineer's claims about the existence and behavior of electrons... but electrical engineers can produce tangible results with their "understanding" (however much you protest their actual knowledge). What have you done beyond testimony?

[TrenchantAtheist]

"...it's just not enough evidence for you"

Okay, let's pretend that logic is not valid so that personal testimony can extend its reach of validity to people who don't experience it: You claim to have communed with God so that you can attest to his existence -- now I claim to have communed with the entire universe and all things in existence, and that I can attest that God isn't here. Meanwhile, my neighbor proclaims the existence of the FSM.

Three-way stalemate. What are we to do now?

[TrenchantAtheist]

"I haven't personally seen atoms. Maybe I should just take it as hearsay?"

You can take it in whatever way you want. Didn't you know that? The whole point of science is that the evidence is accessible by everyone -- cold fusion was only debunked **because** scientific academia requires all relevant data be published so that findings can be independently verified.

Cross examine atomic theory to your heart's content, kiddo. Just remember that iPods were invented by engineers, not witch doctors.

[aerialpunk]

So atoms and such are evident to everyone in the scientific community, great. God is evident to everyone who's met him, the spiritual community if you will. You only believe one or the other's account of things, without seeing it yourself, because of the authority to proclaim truth that you attach to each institution- not because of the evidence had by either.

[TrenchantAtheist]

aerialpunk said, "You only believe [science]'s account of things because of the authority to proclaim truth"

You have *got* to be fucking kidding me.

If it is ONE thing that each of my videos has in common, it is that I do NOT claim to have the authority on "truth", and that I only abhor people who do claim such things. I arduously and painstakingly explained my position (specifically about creationist criticisms on scientific authority), and yet this is all you have to offer?

Goodbye, troll.

[blairesteven]

awesome!!!

[TrenchantAtheist]

Thanks! You might also enjoy my video on certainty, if you find the time :)

[styrofoamheart]

more videos please. :)

[TrenchantAtheist]

I know, I'm really slow at putting these things out but I'm trying to get better :)

Thanks for watching!

[TallCatsMakeGoodHats]

But if skeptics question all ideas what do they argue against with?

[TrenchantAtheist]

Skepticism is just "disbelief with a caveat": being a skeptic doesn't mean we disbelieve all things, just things that can't be substantiated. When someone posits something for which there is no evidence, the argument we pose is that there is nothing that would rationally support the claim by exposing the logical fallacy being employed. This doesn't mean that the claim is inherently wrong, just that it is not convincing enough to warrant the sense of certainty felt by its proponent.

[superaragon]

I think that this is the most unbiased and true conception of the entire debate. Bravo!

[TrenchantAtheist]

Thanks, I'm somewhat surprised that you watched this video rather than the re-make I did recently, but I always appreciate the support :)

[showmelight]

Why must you assume that faith inherently opposes science?

[TrenchantAtheist]

While there are many different definitions of "faith", there is only one which applies to religion alone -- "belief without evidence". Scientific skepticism is the binary opposite because it demands positive belief only with evidence. When people seek to use other definitions of faith to assert a commonality, they employ equivocation fallacies in order to make their position seem more rational (and science less), but they miss the fundamental characteristic that explains how science works.

[TrenchantAtheist]

That is not to say that religion and science are not compatible with interpretation. The only characteristic that makes science seem oppositional to religion is its propensity to make sense, but there is plenty of room for people of different faiths to be successful scientists, provided that they use skepticism in the lab.

[shadowdeviant192]

I see it this way, many people have misconceptions about faith. The real honest definition is a firm belief in something. It does not have to be God. I love this video but most the problems caused in this debate come from mutual misunderstandings. To say religion really does supress the intellect is pretty much what richard dawkins says. Is it religion in general? But most the time it mentions judeo christian religions. I am a man of science. Arguments over this really has no clear victor.

[TrenchantAtheist]

In terms of philosophical/religious discussion, I take faith to mean, "belief without evidence". I find that the use of any other definition tends to lead to equivocation fallacies aimed at equating science with mysticism, as if scientists relied on chicken bones and sacrifices to establish their systems of discourse.

As to the use of Christian symbols to denote religion in general, I only do so in recognition of the fact that Americans default to Christianity when thinking of such subjects.

[shadowdeviant192]

then thats what your opinion on what faith means. it is possible to have religious discussions even with the fundies but its the way they carry it out. It can become civil if both sides just harbour back their feelings and just express their point of view. I see that Judeo-Christian religions have no relevance in the future because of scientific advancements. It is not understanding God's work but understanding the world we live in. It is true that christians and science don't mix.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Arguments over this really shouldn't *have a clear victor, either -- and that is really my point. As I said in the video, the problem isn't that different people have different ways of doing things, it is that they cannot get along because it is impossible for them to communicate effectively, and because too many of us humans rely on feelings of certainty in order to carry out out daily lives -- to the extent that they feel the need to denigrate the beliefs of others.

[TrenchantAtheist]

correction: "to carry out our daily lives -- "

Of course, the discussion gets especially heated when each side feels morally obligated to interfere with the lives of others with whom they disagree, such as when the religious want to stop scientists from destroying embryos, and when scientists want to stop religious parents from denying their lymphoma-riddled children access to life-saving chemotherapy.

These are difficult issues, but we do ourselves no good service to seek winners and losers.

[BobTKaye]

I thought that the white light at the end of the tunnel was part of the 'life flashing before your eyes', where the victim is remembering being born, hence the sensation of being willing to move towards the light etc. Are you sure about this neuronal oxygen starvation thing?

[TrenchantAtheist]

Many different people have described different near-death experiences, but on the whole, a few simple phenomena can account for the vast array of NDE's. Though each region of the brain is largely responsible for its own unique types of processes, its overall ability to function lies in the ability of these regions to communicate with one another -- thus, anything that can cause widespread miscommunication can lead to a whole host of unpredictable, yet common, descriptions and interpretations.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Unfortunately, the NDE is a difficult subject to study in science for many reasons (lack of repeatability, shoddy definitions of "near death" and the lack of scientific veracity in those who wish to make headlines for personal gain). Nevertheless, you might find these useful. The last one is actually quite entertaining as well.

psychology()jrank()org/pages/4­44/Near-Death-Experience()html

csicop()org/si/2004-05/near-de­ath-experience()html

sciencebasedmedicine()org/?p=1­14

[Isamright33]

a flawed analogy as well because you pruposed the scientific method isa flashlight, but in quantum physics it is actually the opposite, turning of the light, because hwen you measure something it changes the measurement from what it woudl be if you were not measuring it, therefore hte act of looking is the act of shutting hte light...therefore this analogy is flawed beyond belief.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Isamright, you also have a flawed understanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As quantum physics understands it, one cannot know all things about a sub-atomic particle at once due to the act of observation -- but that does not mean that we stop looking. If you want to know the speed of a thing, you measure its speed. If you want to know the position of a thing, you measure its position. If you want to know about properties you are not measuring right now, you merely measure them later

[TrenchantAtheist]

There are myriad ways of determining the properties of a thing within the realm of science, Isamright, but none of them have anything to do with ignoring or dismissing available information. One does not, as you put it, shut off the light in order to see.

I do find quantum physics very fascinating and bizarre, but that does not mean that people ought to treat it like magic and ascribe their own supernatural qualities to it -- because it is none of those things. Please read up on the subject.

[Isamright33]

Religion does not do away with science, religion and science are the same thing, you are just chosing to define a specific subset of religion which involves a method, scientific method...however the problem with this method is that it relies on the past to predict the future, and assumes that the future has no already happened, however this is not true, only an illusion to us who are observing within time and lack the mental faculty to transcend time, which is possible according to science.

[TrenchantAtheist]

So many things to address...

1. You still don't understand the purpose of the analogy. I never stated that science could, should, or would replace religion.

2. Science is not a religion

3. Regardless of the geometry of time (linear or otherwise), we have evidence which shows that past observations are highly predictive of future events. Evidence = not faith

[Isamright33]

Therefore, not only are you placing a large amount of faith in other people's interpretations, and models, but youa re also assuming that the continuum of time is constant and that it moves in a sequential manner, which is an observation that can never be proved, therefore science is simply a practical religion.

[TrenchantAtheist]

4. You are repeating yourself, and I am repeating mine as well. Science requires trust, not faith. They are not the same thing, and science does NOT ignore available evidence as you suggest

5. Tentatively accepting someone else's interpretation for the purpose of analysis is NOT faith. A logical statement of "if X, then Y" is merely a deductive method for testing the validity of an idea. If the idea fails the test, it is discarded. That is not faith.

[TrenchantAtheist]

6. Science does not claim that the continuum of time is constant, nor that it particularly moves in a sequential manner. Please learn something about quantum physics and special relativity.

7. Observations do not require proofs, observations are merely observations. It is they that science seeks to describe in the first place.

8. Science is not a religion. Still.

[Isamright33]

accounted for, you are chosing to place faith in the fact that your refrence, within a flow of time, is an objective reality in which conditions occur in similarly to the entire reality, the universe, and every particles quantum...but this isn't true, your own religion states so, look up field theory.

[Isamright33]

Finaly, the uncertainty principle is a little more complex than that. See, when you measure the speed of something, you are changing it's momentum, and direction, and therefore because you do not know where it is going, you can never measure it again. In fact, it appears that sometimes electrons vanish, duplicate, and then re-appear which completely violates every law of physics.

[Isamright33]

non-locality

[TrenchantAtheist]

Isamright, please do not presume to know what I believe when you have not yet inquired into the matter. You are making false assumptions as to what goes on inside my head, and then claiming that science contradicts it. You cannot know what contradictions lay in my worldview until you have an inkling as to what my views are, which you don't.

You clearly do not understand what the scientific method is, and you are intent on knocking down straw men. I am only interested in honest discussions.

[Isamright33]

WAit a minute, hav eyou verified every scientific theory put forth by the scientific method? Then if you hav enot, read all 200,000 pages - atleast, of pruposed modern scientific axioms, then youa re putting your faith in other people, and therefore practicing a religion.....FACT based on definiton of science, and religion, and fait.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Isamright, you misunderstand the purpose of the analogy, and you have a bizarre definition of "religion". Science does not require omniscience in order to be based on evidence, nor does ignorance make something religious in nature.

Yes, one must have the trust that their darts might hit the board in the first place, but faith is not just "trust" -- the difference between faith and science is in what we do after we have thrown the dart, not what happens before.

[Isamright33]

we state, that the quantum and macro levels of field theory cannot be united, but what this means is that the macro physics, aka newtonian physics, simply do not exist in a quantum level. Further understanding of energy dictates that the quantum level is actually the macro level, since quantum forces are a billion times more powerful than newtonian, and therefore all science is a backwards faith relying on a persons relative frame of refrence, but since you do not have all frames of refrecnce

[TrenchantAtheist]

Isamright, I think you seriously need to revise your understanding of the relationship between quantum physics and newtonian mechanics. There are incompatibilities between the two, but scientists readily acknowledge that the discrepancy is probably due to an error in understanding in either one or both. Nevertheless, both are extremely useful and corrections can be made to solve for a given problem.

[PhoenX19]

Instant favorite!

[320iguy]

kudos kid that's the best analogy of truth I have seen in 15 years

[MysticalFoxx]

wow. Very deep. I really really enjoyed it. I watched it several times for the full effect.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Thank you very much, glad you liked it :)

[orius1450]

vary good video******

[Stachowski92]

Great video, you would have to be a dick to rate this video below 5.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Thanks, Stachowski :)

[palmed1]

I have watched this video over and over to fully appreciate all the layers of thought that went into it. I, too, wanted to see the slides with text remain visible longer. But perhaps you simply wanted to create impressions that are more visceral? Keep up the good work.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Thanks for the input. Yes, I have to say that I didn't put the text-based slides up long enough for most people to catch it all. I have since inserted automatic pauses in a few convenient locations, though I decided against it during the descriptions of what science is (I figure people can pause the video and read that on their own).

Hope that helps.

[6583987]

Excellent video. I really enjoyed the dart/flashlight analogy. I would suggest letting soem of the screens with text stay up a bit longer so that it can be read. Or perhaps limiting the text. I found that I was trying to read and listen at the same time, but the screen flashed away to fast. Overall, a great vid!

[VicSidious]

This is a wonderful video.

[TawntheAtheist]

Yeah its an analogy that works at many levels..

[Otokogoroshi]

A nice video. I was a bit skeptical about the metaphor at first but it was a rather good one. I disagree somewhat but that's purely based on my opinion about religion which is that its usually down right wrong. Christianity being the one I find rather invalid, though that goes with all the other similar sects of the big three (Islam, Christianity and Judaism)

[distructica]

this was by all means brilliant! *subscribed and favorite*

[Nydiwiel]

You brought a tear to my eyes.

You have found a way to dress in words what I have been trying to say to my friends all a long. Being the only atheist is hard x)

Thank goodness for the internet and it's wonderful abilities of sharing more freely than ever.

[TrenchantAtheist]

MissingC,

I look forward to your email since you want to discuss this further without character limits.

I do ask, though, that you re-watch the video and review the responses I have given. We are both covering old material and addressing misrepresentations of the argument I posed.

[Beauwrath]

Execllent metaphor. It hits the point that believers can go on believing, but when they start to state their points as facts, they have some backing up to do. Their methods would never pass the rigorousness of the scientific method; and I wish they would accept that. Their "fact" comes nowhere close to a scientific fact, or even theory for that matter. Some of us just want evidence and will not accept what they pander as truth without it.

[miniges]

beautifully done. A fantastic metaphor that consitantly makes perfect sense.

[Jesusdiedforyou44]

Hey sweetey!!!! I love that viedo..it makes alot of sense even 2 me....and who can argue that????? .and you nver once said faith was wrong it's a chioce and you are also right about people who live by faith try 2 convert I guess thats the word..people 2 believing or becoming saved when they don't need to do that!! God gave us a choice..How can somebody argue faith and evidence??????? Faith is the unknown...and evidence is proven..so let people make there own choices.......Great viedo!!!!!

[waugzoo]

Great video

[MissingChurchill]

Please atheists,

Quit strawmaning the debate as a debate between "faith" and "science."

You miss the point entirely. The degree to which any particular Christian is anti-science is the degree to which that Christian doesn't grasp the implications of the Biblical worldview. The Biblical worldview is VERY pro-science.

It is not a debate between "religion" (which is a worldview) and "science" (which is a discipline).

It's a debate between theism and naturalism...both of which are worldviews.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Missing said, "The Biblical worldview is VERY pro-science."

Regardless of whether or not that is true, most Christians don't read the Bible anymore. According to Stephen Prothero, Chair of Religion at Boston University, less than half of all Americans know what the first book in the Bible is, nor can they associate Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Noah to their respective stories. Many think Matthew and Paul were characters in the Bible. Of course the list goes on, but I highly recommend his book.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Missing said, "It is not a debate between "religion" and "science". It's a debate between theism and naturalism"

I am not addressing religion in this video, nor am I addressing theism -- I am addressing the methodology with which people choose to accept a belief, and how they should treat the beliefs of others.

[TrenchantAtheist]

Perhaps the confusion is in the symbols I used to identify the parties, and for that I apologize; my use of the microscope and crucifix/pastor's robes was not intended to identify the religion as the source of the contention.

The symbols were merely a means of conveniently identifying those who employ the methodologies discussed.

[MissingChurchill]

Trenchant,

The issue I have is with the premise that there are 2 kinds of people: people who get their knowledge via "faith" (however you choose to define it) and people who get their knowledge via "evidence".

My response is that every human being on the planet falls into both categories. It's a false dichotemy and a strawman.

Non-theists are just as willing to assert truths they haven't/can't verify as are religious people. And religious people too base much of their knowledge on evidence.

[TrenchantAtheist]

MissingC said, "The issue I have is with the premise ...[but I believe] every human being on the planet falls into both categories"

Thanks for the feeback. In the video, however, I already accounted for the existence of people who fall into both categories. Also, the "people" in the example don't have to be actual people, for they are merely representatives of ideas. More to the point, the fact that humans are naturally inclined to make baseless assertions doesn't justify the behavior.

[MissingChurchill]

Trenchant,

My assertion isn't that "some" people fall into both categories, but that EVERYONE falls into both categories, yourself included, a premise I'd be happy to discuss with you in greater detail if you wish.

It isn't, as the video suggests, that one uses a faith epistemology, then switches clothes and uses an evidentialist epistemology, etc. It's that we all use both all the time.

By the way, I see from you channel that you served in the armed forces. Thank you.

[TrenchantAtheist]

MissingC,

In my opening sentence, I said "To me, the argument about faith vs. science has always seemed like two people throwing darts..."

As a simile, the two "people" in the picture merely represent the idea that these methodologies can be separated... (cont'd)

[TrenchantAtheist]

(cont'd) ...I agree with you that this is not a true representation of the situation, and that people actually fit somewhere in between insofar as they practice each at different times in their lives and to different degrees. But for those who prefer to identify themselves as being one or the other, I think the metaphor still works to an effective end.

[in reference to my military service] Thanks, and you're very welcome

[MissingChurchill]

So if it's true that an assertion not founded in verifiable/falsifiable evidence must be abandoned (which you may or may not be implying), then the premise is true for the naturalist as well. And naturalism is built on a plethora of unverifiable assertions.

Herein lies the problem with naturalists getting smug about how they base their knowledge of evidence...as opposed to...well, as opposed to whoever this video is supposed to be criticizing.

[TrenchantAtheist]

MissingC said, "And naturalism is built on a plethora of unverifiable assertions"

Any great follower of logical discourse must eventually admit the possibility that logic might not be a true representation of the limits and characteristics of reality, and to that degree all followers of logic admit the limits of their abilities to provide any semblance of "truth". This may, at first, seem like a damning double-standard ... and we accept that criticism. (cont'd)

[TrenchantAtheist]

(cont'd) But lacking an alternative, we can only proceed as though our assumptions are correct. Naturalism may be wrong, but we have no choice but to behave as though it isn't until a better option becomes available.

You will not induce a mid-life crisis in a calculus professor by interrupting his class by telling him he's "wrong", and then promptly exiting the classroom without substantiation. And I think that's to the credit of the professor.

[MissingChurchill]

Trenchant,

When I get more time, I will respond privately to you, since 500 characters will not do.

The issue is this: Both Christians and naturalists use "faith" AND "science" for drawing conclusions about the world. So setting up the debate as a debate between "faith" and "science" is erroneous.

It would be like setting up a debate between people who drink and people who eat. If we all do both, where's the debate? The two things can be distinguished, but that doesn't imply conflict.

[MissingChurchill]

It would only imply conflict if someone's faith position stood in direct opposition to empirically verified phenomena. (E.G. If gravity was anathema to my worldview).

Atheists so readily assume that science has demonstrated God's non-existence. This is unfounded tautology.

First, there are plenty of scientific reasons to be skeptical that science has conclusively demonstrated evolution to be the ultimate explanation for all life and complexity.

Second, evolution doesn't falsify theism.

[TrenchantAtheist]

MissingC said, "Atheists so readily assume that science has demonstrated God's non-existence."

No, they absolutely do not. This is a straw man stereotype that religious people entertain in order to presume that they're being unjustly persecuted or that our arguments do not stand on their own merits.

MC said, there are plenty of scientific reasons to be skeptical that science..."

I think you should re-watch the video. The error isn't in flashlights, but in mankind.

[TawntheAtheist]

"MissingC said, "Atheists so readily assume that science has demonstrated God's non-existence."

No, they absolutely do not"

Yeah that one pisses me off too... Even the "strong atheists" who claim god is impossible, derive that belief from the application of logic. Not evidence based research (science).

"Second, evolution doesn't falsify theism. "

Who said it does? It just makes you question it.

[TrenchantAtheist]

[in reference to the "atheists think science disproves God" argument]

TawntheAtheist said, "Yeah that one pisses me off too"

MissingChurchill and I have been conversing via email and thankfully, he apologized for the accusation and thanked me in return for keeping it in check.

Glad you enjoyed the video :)

[MissingChurchill]

Tawn,

I agree that my wording was a strawman of more thoughtful atheists. But if you don't think there are a plethora of atheists out there readily assuming "science therefore atheism", then you haven't debated them as have I.

However, I engage each individual I debate on the level of what he/she actually believes, not based on what other atheists have said or done. So I concede the poor choice of words and ascribe it to unjustified transference from other conversations.

Appologies

[MissingChurchill]

You also, I hope, can understand how this video can easily be interpreted as perpetuating that false dichotemy of "either science OR religious faith."

It's only through back and forth with Trenchant that I have really gathered what he's after.

[TawntheAtheist]

MissingChurchhill, thank you for the considered response.

It is true that the "average" atheist (if there is such a thing) perhaps makes the simple connection you describe. At the same time, there are Theists in the world who have a simplistic concept of god, not at all similar to more thoughtful theists.

We can both caracature the other side by picking on the weaker representatives... something we should avoid attributing to everyone with an opposing conviction.

[TrenchantAtheist]

MissingC said, "Both Christians and naturalists use "faith" AND "science""

We've already gone over this. Why won't you reply to my response?

MissingC said, "It would be like setting up a debate between people who drink and people who eat."

No, it would be like setting up a debate between eating and drinking. Regardless of people's partaking of both, you can still discuss the differences between them, such as the fact you can survive longer without food than you can without water.

[DrewsAnimation]

i just need to comment again on how much I liked this video.

Although to be fair, I'm agnostic and I had a near dartboard experience

It mostly involved my girlfriend drinking too much and throwing the dart while I was writing down the score.

"PRAISE BE TO INVISABLE DARTBOARDS!"

[TrenchantAtheist]

Thanks, Drew. Glad you liked it enough to comment twice! You should add it to your favorites :)

[paxtonhume]

well done, great video!

[B4TT3RY]

Great Video

[JasmynVanilla]

Personally I believe in religion and side with having faith, but you have raised excellent points here and i enjoyed your video. well done and well said.

[DrewsAnimation]

i really really liked your analogy

[samsroomie]

Great debut, Trenchant!

[TimeLord6646]

brilliant!!

[palmed1]

P.S. When I read THE BIBLE, I was horrified at reading about conditions under which people could own slaves, how to prepare animals for sacrifice and all the reasons women could be put to death. Tragically, we get indoctrinated by religion at an early age; and because most of us can't tolerate not knowing what will happen after death, we give ourselves to religions that impede social progress. Thank you for posting this piece. More please!

[palmed1]

This is an intelligently provocative video. I look forward to more postings from this party. In the U.S., more than 65% of the people believe that THE BIBLE is the word of God. I suspect that most people have not read THE BIBLE, if they did, I think they would be more open to using a flashlight and a visible target to improve their understanding of themselves and the universe they inhabit.

[palmed1]

Clarification: Most people don't read THE BIBLE themselves. Rather, they accept what others tell them about it. If you don't want your faith fatally tested, Don't read it! It's filled with violently aggressive messages.

[melloman134]

I dont see why we need to choose "science" OR "religion" (check one please!). If you build your world view based on observations of the physical world, you can see your dart board better, but it still doesn't explain why there is a dart board there in the first place.

[TrenchantAtheist]

melloman said, "I dont see why we need to choose science OR religion"

Well clearly we don't. As I said in the video, many people choose both -- though this still doesn't mean that the two positions have been reconciled. A Christian scientist offers no better justification or rationale for their religion than any other less-informed follower; they simply believe because they want to or they were taught to, and they do whatever they can to prevent the mixing of their theology with their science.

[melloman134]

::continued:: Suppose down the road we hit bullseyes at 100% - so is there a god? was that spark that set it all into motion a nice gesture from some powerful being, or just happenstance? I don't think science can ever answer that question, nor do i think that it attempts to. What is the proof that science = no god??

BTW- i agree that most organized religions are probably at odds with modern science, but in the end everyone either has faith that there is a god, or that there is not.

[TrenchantAtheist]

melloman asked, "Suppose down the road we hit bullseyes at 100% - so is there a god?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here...

melloman asks, "What is the proof that science = no god??"

Science makes no such claim. The only characteristic of science which places it at odds with religion is the propensity to make sense, and to verify beliefs through evidence alone. This doesn't mean there isn't a god, it means substantiation is required to make the belief actionable.

[sy1234]

Awesome..

[kitepilot]

Job well done. I'll be checking back on this one often to see if there are any opposing views that will attempt to "shed some light" on how shooting in the dark is admirable.

I'll now watch it again.

[bluesman178]

Well done sir.

[ch4os1337]

Dude this video is genius.

[notNECESSARILYgod]

I really liked the metaphor, very clever. Its helps me articulate my personal frustration with faith.

I'd be curious to see how faithful believers would feel about this metaphor. I think they would reject the premise that they are throwing into the darkness. Could you elaborate more to prove that they are, in fact, throwing into the darkness?

[TrenchantAtheist]

nNg asked, "Could you elaborate more to prove that they are, in fact, throwing into the darkness?"

Well my metaphor is that we are all "throwing" into the darkness because we are all human and our knowledge is limited -- the best we can ever do is shed a little light on the situation. When we aim to establish an accurate portrayal of what reality "is", we are making a guess ...and whether our guess is a bull's eye or not isn't entirely up to us. Science simply makes our guesses more educated.

[notNECESSARILYgod]

Yes, but what is your reason for claiming that religion isn't shining a light? If I were a theist I might suggest, "perhaps I don't shine with a flashlight, or even light at all. Perhaps I use sonar (a different method of exploring reality)."

[TrenchantAtheist]

The problem with an assertion about "faith" being an informative source (light amidst the dark) is that faith doesn't have any internal mechanism that allows for self-correction; it isn't capable of causing disbelief in a person who becomes misguided.

The point of the flashlight in the example is that, through science, we can see where we went wrong and make corrections based on evidence. Being defined by a lack of evidence, "faith" cannot serve this function and therefore cannot educate.

[HMBLjewATurSRVC]

:) Well put.  excellent video sir

[synch1216]

Good video. The different "dartboards" was a very sharp catch. Favorited this because its very concise.

[cricketlover1117]

great great video

[ProcInc]

This is around 20 times better than I expected, and I didn't have low expectations.

[MementoMori88]

Very cool video :) Subbed.