Why I Deny Religion

Title: Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright by James Randi

Source: http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html

This week's page will be devoted entirely to religion. I've reached the point where I just have to unload on this subject that until now I've felt was just outside of the matters that the JREF handles. Since religion shows up as a part of so many arguments in support of other fantastic claims, I want to show you that its embrace is of the same nature as acceptance of astrology, ESP, prophecy, dowsing, and the other myriad of strange beliefs we handle here every day. Previously, I've excused myself from involved discussions of this pervasive notion, on grounds that it offers no examinable evidence, as the other supernatural beliefs actually do � though those examinations have always shown negative results. Religious people can't be argued with logically, because they claim that their beliefs are of such a nature that they cannot be examined, but just "are."

Rather than argue or try to reason by their standards, I'll settle for pointing out, briefly, how unlikely, unreasonable, bizarre, and fantastic their basic claims are, dealing for the most part with those I'm more familiar with, from personal experience.

I frequently receive criticisms from offended believers in psychic matters and religious dogma, accusing me of being one of those dreaded "materialists," or of being unable to accept the wonders they choose to embrace because I'm "locked into" a world-view that accepts only the "unyielding" and "orthodox" scientific version of how the world works. These words in quotation marks are taken directly from recent scoldings I've been offered.

First of all, the word "unyielding" cannot possibly be applied to the genuine scientific view. My favourite concise definition of science, one which I admit I invented, is:

Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence.

Science is a discipline that yields frequently while attempting to closely approach that elusive goal called "truth," but knowing that any conclusion it can arrive at is merely the best one of the moment. Any statement � s = ut + ½at2, for example � is "true" when applied to cannonballs dropped from leaning towers; however it does not accurately describe the interaction of very small or very large objects such as electrons or galaxies. That doesn't make it "wrong," it merely makes it limited. More comprehensive statements such as relativity or quantum concepts, better describe a larger spectrum of physical interactions, but buried in those more advanced statements we can find the former simpler one � which I trust my reader recognizes as one of those given us by the chap named Newton.

The structure of Science itself is also in a constant state of development; ideally, it does not have an "orthodox" state into which it settles down comfortably and complacently. It only takes something like a new statistical standard or an observational innovation to change its approach to any event or decision with which it was formerly � tentatively � satisfied, but the true scientist does not regret nor refuse such improvements in approach or technique, rather embracing them and adjusting to the new-and-better understanding of the world that is now available. Religion, in contrast, is repelled by honest doubt, preferring naïve, unquestioning acceptance.

It is the willingness to adjust that provides a genuine glory to Science, in my amateur opinion. It is in distinct contrast to the axioms of religions, which proudly flaunt their inflexible "truths" to demonstrate that they "know" certain things with certainty. Yet, the Earth is round, not flat, nor is it the center of the Universe; those revelations were promptly accepted, absorbed, and applied by science � as primitive as it was at that moment in history � and no pain was felt by those who incorporated it into their world-view, though in many cases there must have been some discomfort and surprise, followed by delight.

"Eppur, si muove." Even if he didn't say it, I'm sure he wanted to....

Yes, I'm a materialist. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that has not happened � yet. And I admit that the reason I'm unable to accept the claims of psychic, occult, and/or supernatural wonders is because I'm Iocked into a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith, a view that insists upon the replication of all experiments � particularly those that appear to show violations of a rational world � and a view which requires open examination of the methods used to carry out those experiments. The decision to be a materialist is my own, I made it after many years of consideration of what I observed, and after reading Bertrand Russell and others. Since it was not a mere reaction to incoming information, but the result of examining that information, I'm proud of my decision.

(Aside: I'm proud of being an American, a skeptic, and a bright. I only take pride in those things that I accomplished, not those that I was born with or was given. I chose to be an American, and I earned that distinction, I became and remain a skeptic though it was difficult and still gives me problems, and being a bright is flying in the face of those millions who label me inferior because I'm not superstitious like they are. I don't care; I know and accept the real world.)

As a child, I was told to believe that savages were doomed to boil in molten sulfur if they did not accept the "merciful" deity that was described to me, even if they had no opportunity of knowing about him/it! That deity, from what I was told, suffered from many serious defects that I was told to avoid. He/it was capricious, insecure, jealous, vindictive, sadistic, and cruel, and demanded constant praise, sacrifice, adulation, and ego-support, or the penalties could be very severe. I found, early on in my observations, that religious people were very fearful, trembling and wondering if they'd committed any infractions of the multitude of rules they had to follow. They were � and are � ruled by fear. That's not my style.

But it was the incredible stories I was told, that really made me rear back in disbelief. For examples, they told me, some 2,000 years ago a mid-East virgin was impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes. All that was in addition to tossing out demons. He expected and accepted a brutal, sadistic, death � and then he rose from the dead.

There was much, much, more. Adam and Eve, they said, were the original humans, plunked down in a garden to start our species going. But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons � and one of them killed the other � yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no! Then some prophet or other made the Earth stop turning, an army blew horns until a wall fell down, a guy named Moses made the Red Sea divide in two, and made frogs fall out of the sky�.

I needn't go on. And that's only a small start on one religion! The Wizard of Oz is more believable. And more fun.

I keep hearing, from the parapsychologists, the religious, and the occultists, about this unwillingness they point to, a reluctance by certain skeptics to consider the evidence. There may well be skeptics out there who match that description, but I don't know of any. I've heard that the skeptics' postulated refusal to believe, parallels and even exceeds the dedication of the most ardent reincarnation enthusiast, spoon-bending buff, or UFO devotee. I've also seen attempts to delineate the more or less nonrational bases that underlie such extreme positions.

It's said, quite correctly, that the human mind needs to form an understandable picture of the universe in which it lives; pattern-seeking is a basic survival technique hard-wired into us. We also seek to have an understanding of our own existence, and we often find that adopting what can be described as a religious or a "religious-metaphysical" world-view seems to make it easier to make sense of the perceived riddle of existence. I find that skeptics, generally speaking, eschew belief in metaphysical, untestable, unscientific hypotheses, but credophiles prefer to believe that � when pressed � we skeptics will confess to having adopted at least some degree of metaphysical outlook. This can only be the credophiles' desperate attempt at wishful thinking, a declaration that they cannot believe that not everyone is credulous. It's just something they can't relate to, nor accept.

Here is how the credophiles see us skeptics, and how they try to make themselves appear rational, in contrast to our giddy ways: They will admit that many of them have adopted unorthodox religious positions � and they may include in that list such obvious and ridiculous straw-men as Theosophy and Scientology, just to show that they're not totally bereft of common sense. They say that while many skeptics disclaim any religious proclivities, yet, they add, upon careful examination, they too may often be seen to have a profound belief in what the credophiles see as the "metaphysical doctrine" that they call, "materialism." This doctrine, they say, denies the existence of such entities as minds, souls, and spirits, and asserts that the physical universe constitutes the entirety of reality. They point out that as materialism cannot be said to be scientifically or philosophically proven, this embrace on our part may be due to a reaction to certain events and trends in the history of science.

This is a cart-and-horse inversion, in my opinion. To digress momentarily, let me provide here a view and an approach that I have given before. Readers will be aware of the million-dollar prize that is offered by the JREF. Many � a majority � of the applicants for that prize challenge us to disprove their claim(s). We point out that we make no claims, and we only require them to prove theirs; we do not, and will not, attempt to disprove that which they claim is true. Similarly, skeptics do not attempt to prove materialism. It is simply the best, most logical, reasonable, explanation of the universe. That's using parsimony. And materialism can be tested � a feature the credophiles often say is not acceptable nor necessary within their supernatural world-view.

Skeptics do not allow the invention of convenient but untestable situations or entities to establish a claim, nor do they accept that mental or spiritual properties can be ascribed to physical matter, which is the origin of the idea of holy relics and locations. Buddha's tooth, the Shroud of Turin, Lourdes, the Black Stone of Mecca, are examples. Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based, taught that there were "crystalline spheres" that carried the planets and stars on their celestial voyages, and that they were associated with incorporeal, undefined "movers" that provided the forces that kept them in motion. He thought that these "movers" were spiritual in nature, and that the relationship of a mover to its sphere was like that of a soul to its body. This view was amplified by later interpreters of Aristotle such as Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century who taught that baser matter was likewise conceived to have psychological properties.

Aristotle wrote that a terrestrial object fell to the ground due to its "aspiration" to reach its "natural place." This animistic view of the universe is also found in the work of William Gilbert, the English physician. He endorsed the ideas of the Greek philosopher Thales, who attributed magnetic attraction to the action of a "magnetic soul" in the naturally magnetic mineral known as lodestone, the attraction brought about by the emission of a "magnetic effluvium" by the mineral. Gilbert also believed that the Earth itself had a magnetic soul. In its position so near the Sun, he said, the Earth's soul perceived the Sun's magnetic field, and reasoned that its one side would burn up while the other would freeze, if it did not act, thus it chose to revolve upon its axis, and then decided to incline its axis at a slight angle in order to bring about the variation of seasons.

Do not err by condemning Aristotle and Harvey as poor thinkers; they were not. Other matters they wrote about were well handled. It's likely that if they'd had access to the improved knowledge that was developed after their period of existence, they would have accepted and celebrated that input; they were scientists, though the strict discipline of that profession had not been arrived at when they declared their conclusions. The fact that these fantastic animistic views of the matter constituting the Universe have now vanished as a result of scientific advances, must not lead us to disdain the ideas of the ancients; they did the best they could, and because of the freely-created inventions of their religions � virgin birth and loaves-and-fishes stories always spring to mind � they found no difficulty with their arguably less fanciful assumptions. However, it seems high time for the paranormalists, occultists, and religious enthusiasts of today to accept that their own assumptions are also no more, and no longer, acceptable. We need to grow up.

Religion is behind so many of the major tragedies of humanity. A new book by Jon Krakauer is titled, "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith." The current perception of Islam as a particularly militant religion � officially fanned and embellished to justify our presence in Iraq, in my opinion � invokes horrid memories of the Branch Davidian cult fiasco and the Aum Shinricko nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway of a few years ago, and of the 1978 "doomsday" suicide of the faithful in the Jim Jones' People's Temple sect. These are just a few dramatic instances of the effects of religious zeal that made the more conservative believers recoil and perhaps even doubt � momentarily � the wisdom of their faith.

It need not have taken such sudden, bloody, high-profile events to call our attention to this problem. Other more pervasive, ongoing situations to which we seem to have become accustomed because of their constant presence in our lives, should command equal alarm. The Israeli-Palestinian tragedy, the Catholic-Protestant war in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka's Tamil-Sinhalese feud, and the Hindu-Muslim atrocities that daily take lives and bring terror and agony to so many, are only continuations of the ages-old confrontations between varieties of religious delusions. Desperate efforts to sustain � by any means � the rule and power of in-place religious systems that insist they have The Way to salvation and eternal life, as so well demonstrated in the bloody Catholic Inquisition that released us not too long ago, illustrate equally well that so much of our conflict is a direct result of the presence of religion. And, in cases of such minor events as local elections, the religion card can and often is played, with great success. We cherish our mistakes, and we defend them. Often to the death.

And the attitude that superstitious beliefs such as religion are harmless, is quite wrong. Richard Dawkins recently observed, in www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html:

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous?

I have always differentiated between "blind faith" and "evidence derived faith." From now on, I'll use the word "faith" and not insert "blind." Rather than "evidence derived faith" I'll use "confidence." I have confidence in the rising of the Sun tomorrow � or, more correctly, the turning of the Earth to face the Sun! � and I have faith that George W. Bush will eventually cease appealing to a deity or invoking prayer in every one of his public appearances....

The credophiles try to establish a parallel between science and religion. This is a useless pursuit; these ideas are exact opposites of one another. No, as Dawkins also writes, "Although it has many of religion's virtues, [science] has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence."

We find religion in so much of our history, our philosophy, our everyday lives, and our legal system. Miscegenation was banned based on Biblical rules, slavery was justified by the same book. It's convenient to have an ancient set of rules to back up odious actions and behavior, especially when it can be argued that a certain amount of "interpretation" � though never outright denial! � is necessary for them to properly be applied to any given situation. In that regard, I reject the tired arguments that try to excuse perfectly obvious errors and blunders of religion by insisting that "it doesn't really mean that." It means what it says, and no amount of alibi-ing and explaining will convince me that they didn't intend the faithful to actually believe that the Universe was created in seven days. Make up your mind: either it's right, or it's wrong.

Spare me the argument that we owe so much of our art and culture to religion; that's a misattribution. The great architecture, paintings, music, and sculpture that poured forth in adulation of saints, deities and their offspring, and the blessed deceased, were commissioned, sponsored and paid for by those who offered them as sacrifices, penance, homage, and public relations. Those offerings were items of insurance, appeasements, and bribes, to neutralize transgressions or to obtain a better position on line. They were prompted by fear. I agree that we're better off for the wealth of creative work that we're able to share as a result of this apprehension, but I often think of how much better it could have been if the work had been directed to, and designed for, our species � rather than for mythical beings in the sky or under the ground.

Well, I thank the mythology for giving me Handel's "Messiah," but that doesn't make up for the suffering, grief, fear, and the millions of dead that need not have been....

Consider: a man believes � beyond any doubt � that his god is the only god, is all-powerful and all-knowing, has created him and the entire universe around him, and is capricious, jealous, vindictive, and violent. That same god offers the man a choice between burning in eternal agony in a fully-defined hell, or living forever in a variety of paradises � some of which involve streets of gold and others an ample supply of virgin delights. Is there any choice here? Will the man fail to carry out any command or whim of this deity? How can we doubt that religion is a compulsory system that absolutely rules its adherents? It's a tyranny, a trap, a disaster of infinite size and scope. I'll have none of it.

Examine the notion of a "loving god." This god only loves you if you follow the rules. No questions, no doubts, no objections, are allowed. "Because I said so, that's why." He/she/it loves you as a farmer loves a draft-animal; you're useful, you obey, and you're docile. If you stray, your firstborn will be murdered, if you don't follow a capricious order, you're a pillar of salt. This is "love"? If so, I'll take indifference.

Unlike the religious, who have it all cut-and-dried, predigested and served up to them, I'm willing to be shown. But I will not entertain the argument of threats and fear, I will not fall for the "we don't know everything" throw-down, and I haven't the time to argue the endless anecdotal tales of which the faithful are so fond.

What do I believe in? I believe in the basic goodness of my species, because that appears to be a positive tactic and quality that leads to better chances of survival � and in spite of our foolishness, we seem to have survived. I believe that this system of aging and eventually dying � a system that is the result of the evolutionary process, not of conscious effort � is an excellent process that makes room for hopefully improved members of the species, in an increasingly limited environment. I believe that if we don't smarten up and get a sense of reality and pragmatism, our species will do what they all eventually do: it will cease to exist, prematurely. I also believe that we will get smart, because that's a survival technique, and we're really pretty good at that....

I also believe in puppy-dogs and a child's sparkling eyes, in laughter and smiles, in sunflowers and butterflies. Mountains and icebergs, snowflakes and clouds, are delights to me. Yes, I know that this perception is the result of hard-wiring in my brain, along with the added input of experience and association, but that does not subtract a bit from my appreciation of phenomena. I know that others, both of my species and not, may not share my awe and acceptance of these elements that so please me, because they have different needs and reactions. A cloud is a mass of condensed water-vapor in the atmosphere, I know. But it can be a sailing-ship, a demon, an eagle, if I allow myself to be a human being, and though many will doubt it, I frequently do.

Author Krakauer, in his book "Under the Banner of Heaven," dealing with the premise that violence and fanaticism can be found readily available in religion, writes:

Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits. Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God . . .

"Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion." That says it all.

Next week, my throat cleared, I'll be back to the usual items�.

Judul: Mengapa Saya Menyangkal Agama, Betapa Konyol dan Fantastik Hal Itu, dan mengapa Saya Bright*) yang Berdedikasi oleh James Randi

Diterjemahkan dari: http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html

. Why I Deny Religion , How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright.

Mengapa Saya Menyangkal Agama, Betapa Konyol dan Fantastik Hal Itu, dan mengapa Saya Bright*) yang Berdedikasi

Halaman minggu ini akan disediakan seluruhnya untuk agama. Saya telah mencapai satu titik dimana saya harus membongkar subyek ini, yang sampai saat ini saya rasakan diluar masalah yang ditangani JREF (James Randi EF). Karena agama tampak sebagai bagian dari demikian banyak argument yang mendukung pernyataan-pernyataan fantastik, saya ingin menunjukkan kepada anda bahwa ia mencakup sifat yang sama sebagaimana penerimaan terhadap astrologi, ESP, ramalan, dowsing, dan banyak kepercayaan aneh lainnya yang kita tangani disini setiap hari. Sebelumnya, saya telah memaafkan diri saya sendiri dari melibatkan diskusi dalam ide yang demikian meresap ini, dengan dasar bahwa hal itu tidak menawarkan bukti yang dapat diperiksa, seperti kepercayaan supernatural lainnya – meskipun pemeriksaan tersebut selalu menunjukkan hasil yang negatif. Orang-orang religius tidak dapat diajak berargumen secara logis, karena mereka mengklaim bahwa kepercayaan meraka adalah sesuatu yang tidak dapat diperiksa, tapi telah demikian adanya.

Daripada berargumen atau mencoba untuk menggunakan rasio dengan standar mereka, saya telah setuju untuk menunjukkan, secara singkat, betapa tak mungkin, tak masuk akal, aneh, dan fantastiknya klaim dasar mereka, sebagian besar berkaitan dengan yang saya kenal, dari pengalaman pribadi.

Saya seringkali menerima kritik dari penganut agama yang merasa terserang dalam hal psikis dan dogma religius, menuduh saya sebagai seorang "materialis", atau tidak dapat menerima keajaiban yang mereka pilih untuk dipeluk karena saya "terkunci pada" pandangan-duniawi yang hanya menerima versi ilmiah yang "keras hati" dan "ortodoks" tentang bagaimana alam bekerja. Kata-kata dalam tanda kutip diambil langsung dari celaan terakhir yang saya terima.

Pertama-tama, kata "keras hati" tidak mungkin dapat digunakan dalam pandangan ilmiah yang murni. Definisi singkat favorit saya mengenai sains, yang saya nyatakan saya temukan, yaitu:

Sains adalah pencarian kebenaran dasar tentang Alam Semesta, pencarian yang mengembangkan pernyataan-pernyataan untuk menjelaskan bagaimana Alam Semesta bekerja, tetapi merupakan subyek koreksi, revisi, penyesuaian, atau bahkan penolakan seketika, berdasarkan pemunculani dari bukti yang lebih baik atau bertentangan.

Sains adalah disiplin yang seringkali memberi hasil ketika berupaya untuk mendekati tujuan elusif yang disebut "kebenaran", tetapi mengetahui bahwa setiap kesimpulan yang dapat dicapainya hanyalah yang terbaik pada saat itu. Setiap pernyataan – s=ut + 1/2at2, misalnya – adalah "benar" ketika diterapkan pada bola kanon yang dijatuhkan dari menara miring, namun itu tidak menjelaskan secara akurat bagi interaksi yang sangat kecil atau obyek yang sangat besar seperti elektron atau galaksi. Hal itu tidak membuatnya "salah", itu hanya membuatnya terbatas. Pernyataan yang lebih komprehensif seperti relativitas atau konsep kuantum, lebih baik dalam menjelaskan spectrum lebih besar atau interaksi fisik, namun terpendam dalam pernyataan tingkat lanjut tersebut pernyataan awal yang lebih sederhana – yang saya percayakan bagi pembaca untuk mengenalinya sebagai sesuatu yang diberikan kepada kita oleh seseorang bernama Newton.

Struktur Sains itu sendiri juga dalam keadaan perkembangan tetap; idealnya, sains tidak memiliki keadaan "ortodoks" dimana ia tinggal mapan secara menyenangkan dan puas diri. Hanya perlu sesuatu seperti standar statistik yang baru atau inovasi dalam pengamatan untuk mengubah pendekatannya pada suatu kejadian atau keputusan yang sebelumnya – secara sementara – memuaskan, tetapi ilmuwan sejati tidak menyesali atau menolak perbaikan semacam itu dalam pendekatan atau teknis, namun menghadapi dan menyesuaikan dengan pemahaman yang baru-dan–lebih baik mengenai dunia yang kini tersedia. Agama, sebaliknya, terancam oleh keraguan yang jujur, lebih suka pada penerimaan yang naïf dan tanpa pertanyaan.

Adalah kemauan untuk menyesuaikan yang memberikan kemuliaan sesungguhnya pada Sains, menurut pendapat amatir saya. Hal ini berlawanan jelas dengan aksioma agama, yang dengan bangga memamerkan "kebenaran" kaku mereka untuk menunjukkan bahwa mereka "tahu" hal-hal tertentu dengan kepastian. Meski demikian, Bumi adalah bulat, tidak datar, juga bukan pusat Alam Semesta; terbukanya rahasia tersebut diterima, diserap, dan diterapkan pada sains – seprimitif apapun itu dalam ukuran waktu sejarah – dan tak ada luka yang dirasakan oleh mereka yang menerimanya dalam pandangan dunia mereka, meskipun dalam banyak kasus tentu terdapat sejumlah ketidaknyamanan dan rasa terkejut, diikuti dengan kegembiraan.

Eppur, si muove." Bahkan jika ia tidak mengatakannya, saya yakin ia ingin…

Ya, saya materialis. Saya ingin ditunjukkan bahwa salah, tapi hal itu tak terjadi – belum. Dan saya menyatakan bahwa alasan saya tak dapat menerima pernyataan dari psikis, okult, dan/atau keajaiban supernatural adalah karena saya terkunci pada pandangan-dunia yang meminta bukti daripada iman buta, pandangan yang menuntut peniruan semua eksperimen – khususnya yang tampak dapat menunjukkan penyimpangan dari dunia rasional – dan pandangan yang mewajibkan pemeriksaan terbuka atas metode yang digunakan untuk melakukan eksperiman tersebut. Keputusan untuk menjadi materialis adalah saya sendiri, Saya membuatnya setelah pertimbangan bertahun-tahun atas apa yang saya amati, dan setelah membaca Bertrand Russel dan lainnya. Karena hal itu bukan hanya sekedar reaksi dari informasi yang datang, tetapi hasil dari memeriksa informasi tersebut, saya bangga akan keputusan saya.

(Catatan: saya bangga menjad orang Amerika, skeptik, dan bright. Saya hanya bangga pada hal-hal yang saya capai, bukan yang berasal dari kelahiran atau pemberian. Saya memilih untuk menjadi orang Amerika, dan saya patut mendapatkannya, saya menjadi dan akan tetap skeptik meskipun hal itu sulit dan masih memberikan saya masalah, dan menjadi bright adalah terbang di depan jutaan yang menyebut saya inferior karena saya tidak bertakhyul seperti mereka. Saya tidak peduli; saya tahu dan menerima dunia nyata.)

Sebagai anak-anak, saya didongengi untuk percaya bahwa orang primitif dihukum untuk mendidih dalam belerang yang meleleh jika mereka tidak menerima dewa yang "penuh kasih" yang digambarkan pada saya, bahkan jika mereka tidak memiliki kesempatan untuk mengetahui tentang dia! Dewa tersebut, dari yang diceritakan pada saya, menderita banyak kekurangan yang saya diminta untuk mengdihindarinya. Ia tak terduga, tidak aman, iri hati, pembalas dendam, sadis, kejam, dan meminta pujian terus menerus, pengorbanan, pemujaan, dan dukungan ego-, atau hukuman akan sangat keras. Saya menemukan, pada masa awal pengamatan saya, bahwa orang religius sangat penuh rasa takut, gemetar dan bertanya-tanya apakah mereka telah melakukan suatu ipelanggaran dari banyak aturan yang harus mereka ikuti tersebut. Mereka dulu – dan sekarang – diatur oleh rasa takut. Itu buka gaya saya.

Namun yang membuat saya terhentak dalam ketidakpercayaan adalah kisah luar biasa yang diceritakan kepada saya. Misalnya, mereka mengatakan bahwa sekitar 2000 tahun yang lalu seorang perawan Timur Tengah diisi oleh sejenis roh, dan sebagai akibatnya menghasilkan anak lelaki yang dapat berjalan di atas air, menghidupkan orang mati, mengubah air menjadi anggur, roti dan ikan. Ditambah menghalau setan-setan. Ia mengharapkan dan menerima kematian yang brutal dan sadis – dan kemudian bangkit dari kematian.

Masih ada banyak, banyak lagi. Adam dan Hawa, kata mereka, adalah manusia pertama, dicemplungkan di dalam taman untuk memulai spesies kita. Tapi saya tidak mengerti, dan masih tidak, bahwa mereka hanya memiliki dua anak, keduanya lelaki – dan satu diantaranya membunuh yang lainnya – dan bagaimanapun mereka menghasilkan cukup manusia untuk memenuhi Bumi, tanpa incest, yang merupakan larangan besar! Kemudian seorang nabi atau lainnya membuat Bumi berhenti berputar, tentara meniup terompet hingga sebuah dinding rubuh, seseorang bernama Musa membuat Laut Merah terbelah dua, dan membuat katak jatuh dari langit….

Saya tidak perlu meneruskan. Dan itu hanya bagian permulaan kecil dari satu agama! The Wizard of Oz lebih dapat dipercaya. Dan lebih menyenangkan

Saya terus mendengar, dari parapsikologis, orang religius, dan penganut okult, tentang ketidakmauan yang mereke tunjukkan ini, keengganan terhadap sikap skeptis tertentu untuk memperimbangkan bukti-bukti. Mungkin ada skeptik disana yang memenuhi penjelasan tersebut, tapi saya tidak tahu. Saya telah mendengar bahwa skeptic mendalilkan penolakan untuk percaya, sejalan dan bahkan melebihi pengabdian dari peminat reinkarnasi yang sangat rajin sekalipun, pembengkok sendok, atau penggemar UFO . Saya juga telah melihat upaya untuk melukiskan landasan yang tidak rasional yang mendasari posisi ekstrim tersebut.

Cukup benar jika dikatakan, bahwa jiwa manusia perlu membentuk gambaran yang dapat dipahami tentang alam semesta dimana ia hidup; pencarian pola adalah teknik dasar survival yang tertanam pada kita. Kita juga mencari pemahaman akan eksistensi kita sendiri, dan kita sering menemukan bahwa mengadopsi apa yang disebut sebagai religius atau pandangan –dunia "religiius-metafisika" tampak memudahkan untuk memahami keberadaan/ eksistensi yang dirasakan penuh teka-teki. Saya menemukan bahwa kaum skeptik, pada umumnya, mengelakkan diri dari kepercayaan terhadap hipotesa non-ilmiah, tak teruji dan metafisik, namun mereka yang mudah percaya (kredofil) lebih suka mempercayai bahwa – ketika ditekan – kita para skeptik akan mengakui telah mengadopsi paling tidak beberapa derajat pandangan metafisika. Hal ini hanya merupakan upaya putus asa dan impian para kredofil, pernyataan bahwa mereka tak dapat percaya bahwa tidak setiap orang mudah percaya. Ini hanya sesuatu yang tidak dapat mereka terima.

Begini cara para kredofil melihat kita para skeptik, dan bagaimana mereka berusaha membuat diri mereka tampak rasional, secara kontras dengan cara kita: Mereka akan menyatakan bahwa banyak dari mereka telah mengadopsi posisi religius yang tidak ortodoks – dan mereke mungkin memasukkan dalam daftar ini orang-orangan pemikat kepercayaan yang jelas-jelas menggelikan seperti Theosophy dan Scientology, hanya untuk menunjukkan bahwa mereka tidak kekurangan akal sehat sama sekali. Mereka mengatakan bahwa sementara banyak skeptik menyangkal kecenderungan religius, namun, dengan pemeriksaan yang cermat, mereka (skeptic) pun mungkin sering tampak memiliki kepercayaan mendalam, yang dilihat para kredofil sebagai "doktrin metafisika" yang mereka sebut,"materialisme". Doktrin ini, kata mereka, menyangkal keberadaan entitas seperti pikiran, jiwa, dan roh, dan menegaskan bahwa alam semesta fisik seluruhnya terdiri dari realitas. Mereka menunjuk bahwa sebagaimana materialisme tidak dapat dikatakan secara ilmiah atau filosofis terbukti, posisi kita sebagian mungkin karena reaksi atas kejadian-kejadian dan kecenderungan tertentu dalam sejarah sains.

Menurut pendapat saya, ini adalah kebalikan kereta- dan-kuda. Untuk menyimpang sebentar, biarkan saya berikan pandangan dan pendekatan yang telah saya berikan sebelumnya. Pembaca akan menyadari hadiah jutaan dolar dari JREF. Banyak – mayoritas – dari pemohon hadiah tersebut manantang kami untuk menyanggah klaim mereka. Kami menunjuk bahwa kami tidak membuat pernyataan, dan kami hanya meminta mereka untuk membuktikan (klaim mereka); kami tidak, dan tidak akan, berusaha untuk menyanggah apa yang mereka nyatakan sebagai benar. Sama halnya, skeptik tidak berupaya untuk membuktikan materialisme. Itu hanyalah penjelasan yang terbaik, paling logis, rasional tentang alam semesta. Ini menggunakan parsimony. Dan materialisme dapat diuji – suatu hal yang sering dikatakan para kredofil tidak dapat diterima dan tidak diperlukan dalam pandangan dunia supernatural mereka.

Skeptik tidak mengijinkan temuan yang menyenangkan/ mudah dalam situasi atau entiti yang tak dapat diuji untuk membangun pernyataan, juga tidak menerima bahwa property mental atau spiritual dapat dianggap berasal dari materi fisik, yang merupakan asal mula gagasan lokasi dan relik suci. Gigi Budha, Kain Kafan Turin, Lourdes, Batu Hitam Mekkah, contohnya. Aristotle, yang ajarannya menjadi dasar agama Kristen, mengajarkan bahwa terdapat "Bola Kristal" yang membawa planet-planet dan bintang dalam perjalanan angkasanya, dan bahwa mereka berkaitan dengan "penggerak" yang tak berwujud, tak tertentu, yang memberi tenaga yang membuat benda-benda langit tetap bergerak. Ia berpikir bahwa "penggerak" ini dasarnya adalah spiritual, dan bahwa hubungan antara penggerak dengan bola kristal seperti jiwa bagai tubuh. Pandangan ini dipertegas oleh penafsir Aristoteles kemudian seperti Thomas Aquinas pada abad ke tiga belas yang mengajarkan bahwa materi dasar memiliki sifat/property psikologis.

Jangan keliru dengan menyalahkan Aristoteles dan Harvey sebagai pemikir yang buruk; tidak. Mereka menulis tentang hal-hal lain dengan baik. Tampaknya adalah bahwa jika mereka memiliki akses terhadap pengetahuan yang lebih baik yang berkembang setelah masa mereka hidup, mereka akan menerima dan merayakan hal tersebut; mereka ilmuwan, meskipun disiplin dari profesi tersebut belum ada ketika mereka sampai pada kesimpulannya. Kenyataan bahwa pandangan animistik yang fantastis mengenai materi alam semesta ini lenyap adalah hasil dari perkembangan ilmiah, tidak seharusnya mengarahkan kita untuk merendahkan gagasan kuno; mereka melakukan hal terbaik yang dapat mereka lakukan, dan k rena mereka dengan bebas – menciptakan temuan agama mereka - perawan melahirkan dan kisah roti-ikan selalu muncul di pikiran - mereka tidak menemukan kesulitan dengan asumsi mereka yang secara argumen kurang fantastis. Bagaimanapun, ini tampaknya waktu yang sesuai bagi paramormal, okult, dan peminat religius masa kini untuk menerima bahwa asumsi2 mereka sendiri juga tidak lagi dapat diterima. Kita perlu tumbuh dewasa.

• Bright adalah seseorang yang terbebas dari pandangan dunia yang bersifat supernatural, mistik dan berpandangan naturalis