I happened across a blog which criticized me for saying that empirical scientists and rational skeptics care more about truth than religious believers do.

Interesting thought. Especially since Mr. Ra also believes that those who believe in God have no interest in the truth. But is the truth rational skeptics, as Mr. Ra identifies himself as, care about the whole and complete truth, or is any partial truth ok? Or is it that since, in Mr. Ra’s estimation, Christians have no real care for the truth that any care for the truth no matter how small or partial , would be more? Somehow I get the impression that neither of these is what he meant.

What I meant is that scientists only care about how accurate their position can be shown to be, and not whether they’ve convinced anyone else. Meanwhile religious believers only care about how convinced they appear to be. Since nothing they believe is in any way implied by any testable data whatsoever, they have no reason to believe what they do. Yet somehow it doesn’t bother them that none of their beliefs are verifiably accurate to any degree at all. Thus they have virtually no probability of being even partially correct, and no possibility of being completely or certainly correct.

Many times theists have made public statements to the effect that whether they believe matters more than whether any of it is true, because they think there are consequences to believing differently or not believing any of it at all. They imagine their god will punish them simply for not believing. According to their interpretations of man-made mythology, that is the one-and-only thing their god seems to care about. This to me is an indication that the god in question was created in the minds of people who really really want to pretend that they’re more important than they are, and that they have some destiny beyond what could really be due to them. I find it sad to see people in such a state.

The only thing that really matters is that we find some way to determine where and how we ourselves are wrong, what are the flaws in our position, and how do we correct them? Because that is the only way our understanding can improve. Faith prevents this. Even though it is an unsupported assumption asserted without warrant, faith makes the erroneous claim of certain knowledge of absolute truth, and often insists that it cannot even be wrong. This is just part of the reason why faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

But my critic continues:

So if Mr. Ra is so committed to truth why does he have such an aversion to it? While busily stating over & over , I suppose in the hope that repetition will make something true, that evolution has been proven, he steadfastly avoids calling evolution a law, the scientific proclamation of true, provable, and reproducible fact. Fair enough, part of scientific law requires a theory to be reproducible, ie: standing on Earth, let go of an object and it will fall to the ground.

1. I have no aversion to truth.

2. Evolution is a provable, reproducible fact which is evidently true, but it would be inappropriate to call it a ‘law’, because there are actually many laws of evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH8LOQAu-5I

There are also many laws within the theory of gravity, some devised by Newton, some worked out by Einstein. My critic’s problem is that, -like all creationists- he does not know what a ‘theory’ is.

“Because it’s called the theory of gravity”. Yes that’s right the theory of gravity. Do you find it interesting that it is now the theory of gravity. Has gravity been “Plutocized” from a law to a theory? My guess is that the hope is by reducing certain laws of science to theories it will help elevate the theory of evolution in the public eye. But here is where Mr. Ra’s statements start to break down. At 10:01 of his recorded lecture at Eastern Illinois University“Because it’s called the theory of gravity”. Yes that’s right the theory of gravity. Do you find it interesting that it is now the theory of gravity. Has gravity been “Plutocized” from a law to a theory? My guess is that the hope is by reducing certain laws of science to theories it will help elevate the theory of evolution in the public eye.

My critic goes on to accuse me of changing the meaning of the word he never understood. He even accuses me of lying about what a scientific theory is. So there would be no point in my citing where I have presented concise specific definitions from the Atheist Dictionary , even though I can prove that all those definitions are correct. Nor would it do any good for me to show him part 1 and part 2 of the video where I explain what a theory is. He doesn’t know what a law is either, but since he has already accused me of lying about these things, I suppose there would be no point in my explaining that either.

I could suggest that he do something he has obviously never done, and question his own assumptions: He should fact-check himself, look it up before pretending to know what he obviously doesn’t really know. But then, that’s what faith is all about, isn’t it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4WUFXvCFQ