Comic: Dart Board of Religion

My Philosophy

Search for Truth

 

I build my philosophy from the ground up, like a tree! I start with the basics--I exist, my perceptions of my experiences exist, basic consistency exists, and logic is valid. If you don't assume those things to be true, you're going to have a bad time.

Those four foundations allow for the establishment of four very useful tools--math, science, (additional) philosophy, and history. With those tools it is possible to figure out whether or not a god exists. My attempts to do so can be found throughout this blog.

My philosophy is a process that gives me the best chance of finding truth.

Dear Christians, Biblical Faith Isn't Blind

This is a post for Christians. My purpose is to combat the misuse of the word "faith" as it is widely used in Christian circles today. This is important because the misconception is obvious, widespread, hurts the credibility of the church, and severely hinders Christian's ability to share the gospel (which they ought to care about).

Biblical Faith Isn't Blind

The modern, popular concept of faith: A way of knowing things--a fallback for when you can't know whether or not something is true. You combat uncertainty by just having faith. You get to know stuff because you have faith in it. You know because "no reason". Modern faith is the concept of choosing to hold a belief when the evidence is lacking, incomplete, or contradictory.

Biblical faith: Being convinced of the truth of something based on evidence, and acting on this truth.

I'm going to use the word "faith" as a noun a lot, so let's just go ahead and use the original Greek word for faith, πίστις (pis-tis). Don't worry if you don't know Greek. I'm going to highlight everything important with pretty colors and provide translations.

I suspect that the main reason for the modern misunderstanding of πίστις is a poor reading of Hebrews 11, in particular, verse 1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see."

Many Christians take this to mean that we can punt whenever there is uncertainty. Do you hope that God exists? Yes? Well then, be convinced that that is true even though you don't have evidence! This interpretation is utterly, obviously, completely false. It is also damaging to the church.

Let's take a look at Hebrews 11.

I don't expect you to read the Greek--I just want to show you where πίστις comes up, and how it is defined. Hebrews 11, or "The Hall of Faith", describes what Biblical πίστις is, and then gives examples of people in the Old Testament who exemplified πίστις.

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Hebrews+11:1

The Faith of the Members of the Hall of Faith

The members of the Hall of Faith are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and his parents, Rahab, the people of Israel in general when they knocked down the walls of Jericho, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets in general.

Let's look at the πίστις of some of the members of the Hall of Faith, in comic format! I highly recommend reading the technical breakdown of each one I will write (links will be provided soon), but if you choose to just read the comic versions, well, who will know?

The Faith of Noah, Pokemon Master

Genesis 6, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuYeHPFR3f0

I hope you got the point--Noah was OBVIOUSLY aware of God's existence. He had awesome reasons to think that God existed--God directly TALKED to him. πίστις for Noah wasn't a fallback when he didn't feel like pursuing the validity of a claim about God, or a punt for choosing to believe something without evidence. He KNEW that God existed, and CHOSE to live in accordance with the things that God said. He was convinced of the truth of God's words and it showed in the way he lived--by God's command he built a gigantic ark and wrangled a huge number of animals. THAT. IS. FAITH. USE THAT AS A DEFINITION. THAT IS HOW THE BIBLE DEFINES FAITH. STOP TRADING THAT DEFINITION FOR A LIE.

If you don't, you are making a joke of your beliefs.

After all... If the basis for your belief is that weak, why act on it?

Let's breeze through the other members of the Hall of Faith for the sake of completeness. I know I promised comics earlier, but I'm tired of drawing. If you want more comics, leave a comment below.

• Abel--parents had direct contact with God, he may have as well (Genesis 4)
• Enoch--he "walked with God." This may be figurative, but even if it is, he would have had a strong historical argument. (Genesis 5:24)
• Abraham--directly talked with God (Genesis 16,17)
• Jacob--Direct contact with God (Genesis 32)
• Joseph--relatives had direct contact with God (Genesis16-32)
• Moses--direct contact with God (all over Exodus)
• Rahab--possible exception, we don't know much about her.
• The people of Israel--saw many miracles (all over the Pentateuch)

In conclusion, Biblical faith is conviction of the truth of something based on evidence, and living a life in accordance with that truth. It is the trust of the trustworthy.

When a Christian tries to convert you, do this

If a Christian tries to convert you to Christianity, they are showing you a very sweet and caring form of love. They hold the belief that you are missing out on good things, and are in danger of bad things, so they take steps to try to help you.

However, if they start trying to have a conversation about Jesus with you, I would encourage you to say something like this:

"Thank you for talking to me about this, but before we continue, I need to ask you something: You expect me to be open to changing my mind if your viewpoint is true, correct? Are you willing to change your mind about Christianity if the things I say show that your viewpoint is wrong?"

If they say no:

Stop the conversation. They are operating with a double standard--they expect you to be willing to question your worldview and have an open mind, but they aren't willing to do the same for you.

If they dodge your question:

Don't let them. Don't talk about anything else until this issue has been addressed.

If they make special pleading for their view:

They may say something along the lines of "but what I believe is ACTUALLY true, so it would be wrong for me to be open to doubting it". This is special pleading. What they believe may very well be true, but question has to do with how you go about determining whether or not something is true. You figure out what the truth is by honest and open questioning and searching--not by just knowing it.

If they say yes:

Awesome. Have an open and fair discussion about something really important.

Overcoming the Fear of Changing Your Mind

"The fear of change is evolutionary in humans. Since times immemorial, man has liked routine. Our internal predispositions (heredity and genetics) teach us to resist change mainly to ‘always feel in control’.  But the normal fear of change becomes a full blown phobia when it is irrational, persistent and very intense." -fearof.net

Changing your mind is difficult. This is especially true when the subject of potential change is close to your heart.

Take, for example, a Christian pastor whose job depends on maintaining a Christian worldview. This pastor also has a family that he needs to provide for. His only marketable skill is church ministry. What would happen to this pastor if he ended up thinking that the majority of the evidence pointed away from Christianity?

As another example, think about a Muslim college student who recently moved to the USA. After a year, this student starts to think that Hinduism is actually the belief system that is best supported by the available evidence. Quran 3:90 might come to his mind: "But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray."

On a less paradigm-shattering level, maybe you simply find yourself in an argument and someone else made a solid point--one that clearly demonstrates you are wrong. Do you get mad? Are you afraid? Do you change the subject? Or do you simply say "that is a solid point, I need to change my mind on this".

As I have been subliminally hinting with photos of hermit crabs, if you can't change, you can't grow. The following crab "clearly" has the wrong shell. It is obvious to everyone around him--his shell is an artificial construct dumped into the ocean and adopted without any serious consideration. He has made some poor life decisions.

But will he venture out and find a more hermit-crab appropriate home?

Will he?

Yes. He is a hermit crab. Hermit crabs are smart. Even if they stumble on a hokey shell once in a while, they update their beliefs in accordance with new evidence as it becomes available. Heck, they even go out in search of new evidence. Hermit crabs, I salute you.

Don't fear change. Don't fear being wrong. Fear the failure to grow.

1. All photos courtesy of http://www.fearof.net/fear-of-change-phobia-metathesiophobia/

2. Introduction quote from http://www.fearof.net/fear-of-change-phobia-metathesiophobia/

MD/PhD Essay

I was recently accepted into an MD/PhD program, which has has been my life goal ever since I started undergraduate research two and a half years ago. I have never been so excited about my future! My plan is to get my PhD in neuroscience.

When students apply for MD/PhD programs, they write three essays: a Personal Statement, an MD/PhD Essay, and a Research Experience Essay.

This is my MD/PhD essay, the one specifically geared towards my reasoning for wanting an MD/PhD as opposed to an MD or a PhD alone. Although it breaks several 'rules' for writing essays for medical school applications (discussing potentially controversial subject material and including a quotation), I just couldn't bring myself to make up a story about my reasoning behind wanting an MD/PhD that would 'sound better'. I simply wrote down my story, and here it is.

My MD/PhD Essay

During high school, I became an enthusiastic member at a local church. At the same time, I came to realize that my father, a former leader in the church, had lost his faith. Concerned for him, I sought to change his mind using evidence and reason. Because he is a PhD in chemical engineering, I needed to increase my intellect dramatically if I wanted to have meaningful discourse with him. To this end, I studied scientific texts and devoted myself to learning. My goal was to be competent enough to talk with my dad before leaving for college. Unforeseen to me at the time, this quest would instill in me a love for science, and motivate me to develop unbiased research skills.

At first, this search reinforced my existing beliefs. However, I reached a turning point while arguing over a theological issue with my roommate. During this discussion, it dawned on me that I might be wrong; perhaps I should seriously consider his point-of-view. After all, what were the odds that I had no errors in my thought?

This conversation changed my perspective. I was humbled, I became open-minded, and I became excited to reexamine my beliefs. I adopted a new Golden Rule: “Treat another’s arguments the way you want your arguments to be treated.” With this new mindset, I began an inquiry into many world views, learning what each thought and why. I used the same criteria for every view, including my own, to attempt to be as fair and objective as possible. After three years of study involving biology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, philosophy, and history I concluded that my original beliefs might not be true. I am now in a continual process of learning, finding evidence, asking for advice, and examining new ideas to progress in my honest search for truth.

During my quest, I started conducting research with an organization devoted to fostering student-mentor relationships and collaborative learning. I found that my intellectual process had equipped me to analyze complex ideas, generate hypotheses, and develop experiments. I was well-prepared for a research environment in which reason, evidence, and precise methodologies are paramount.

What began as an attempt to have a meaningful conversation with my dad turned into a passion for science. Once I reached a certain point of understanding concerning one topic, I recognized its beauty and inherent worth and investigated further. When I was exposed to translation and transcription in eukaryotic cells, for example, I became captivated by protein biosynthesis and started learning more purely for the sake of learning more. Because I have been fascinated by many fields of science, especially ones related to mechanisms of disease, I now know that I want to pursue a career in medical research to cultivate my curiosity and improve the world around me.

“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." -Andre Gid

The Importance of the Universal Applicability of Axioms

Certain baseline assumptions are required for obtaining any knowledge. A string of 'why?' questions ultimately leads us back to the most basic kinds of knowledge.

Check out these two posts for an introduction for this post:

1. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions.html
2. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html

If you don't read them, this won't make sense!

A question I have often received is 'why not make morality a fundamental assumption?' This is a question I have frequently pondered myself, because it seems to be similar to some of the others. Especially in the case of the general reliability of the senses; if I trust my senses because they appear to be generally accurate, as well as absolutely applicable for living and making decisions, shouldn't objective morality itself be a fundamental assumption?

First off, there cannot be arguments for or against fundamental assumptions (let's call them 'axioms' from now on). Axioms are just true- we assume them because we have to assume things. In that sense, I can't say that it is wrong to make objective morality an axiom. I would just ask you to specify which morality for the sake of completeness.

Here is why I don't personally use objective morality as an axiom: The whole point of my axioms and subsequent process is to find the truth. Truth is out there, and I am going to figure out what it is.

In order to find it, I don't want to use any axioms that would disqualify potential truths, and selecting an objective morality would disqualify certain beliefs or worldviews. As in, no matter how strong the evidence is for or against a stance, if there is an axiom that discounts it, the argument is simply over. No other evidence matters, even in the slightest. If I make atheism an axiom, then no evidence can disprove atheism. If I make 'anyone who eats sandwiches is a bad person' an axiom, then no amount of evidence can disprove that statement.

Because I don't want to disqualify eating sandwiches from the realm of possible things that could be good, I won't make that an axiom.

Absolute truth exists, and if we knew what it was, then everything that we knew would be an axiom. We could just say "here is everything that exists, and we know everything, done." Unfortunately we do not know everything, so we have to start out by picking some axioms to make progress towards finding truth.

In picking our axioms, then, we need to be careful. If we pick something that disqualifies certain religions, moralities, or worldviews, then we automatically disqualify certain types of people from being able to find the truth. Keep in mind here, that we shouldn't assume that we are the 'certain types of people' I mentioned in that last sentences.

We want our axioms to be universal for the human race, to the greatest degree possible. By choosing axioms that are valid for all of humanity, and only using those to make progress, we protect ourselves from making unwarranted and unresolvable mistakes.

Think about it this way. Lets say there are 30 'correct' axioms, and 30 'incorrect' axioms. In order to make any progress whatsoever I have to pick at least 3. So I pick 3, and try to make progress, and succeed in doing so. That is awesome!

Now, should I pick 4? Why not? Oughtn't 4 be better and more useful than 3? Well, the fourth one would make subsequent progress easier, absolutely. HOWEVER, it would also decrease your odds of actually finding the truth, because you don't know that that axiom actually is part of absolute truth. It is a risky business, adding axioms to the bunch.

With morality specifically, if I pick Christian morals as an axiom, then it is impossible for the end result of my search to be anything other than Christianity, NO MATTER THE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST. Once an axiom is established, it is there, and no one can argue with it, period. If I pick Mormon morality as an axiom, then I cannot logically end up believing something other than Mormonism. I have disqualified potential truths. If I make a certain moral stance an axiom, I disqualify other moral stances from the realm of possibility for me.

Axioms are as much about truth as they are about disqualifications. And you know what? I'm ok with disqualifying the possibility of logic not being valid. I'm just fine with disqualifying the possibility of my senses being unreliable. I also have absolutely no qualms with disqualifying the possibility of my own nonexistence.

I see no point in laying out the evidence for and against those things- there isn't even a conversation to be had there. If my hearing is unreliable, I couldn't even hear you, especially if I didn't exist, and logic being invalid would only make things worse.

In short, an axiom should only be made if the potential 'truth' it disqualifies results in catastrophic instantaneous meltdown.

Not making objective morals axiomatic sure does cause emotional strain, but it doesn't rip the heart out of the very fabric of space-time. In fact, making one specific objective morality an axiom DECREASES your odds of successfully finding out what the correct objective morality would be, if it did in fact exist.

We should not assume that we are not the 'other' people. If we utilize axioms that are not universal for the human race, we risk disqualifying ourselves from potential candidates who could find out pieces of absolute truth.

Fewer axioms are better. Axioms regarding specific kinds of morality decrease your odds of finding the truth (including the truth regarding morality itself), as opposed to helping you find truth.

Because I shouldn't assume that I am not part of group B. If the arguments I formulate are based off of axioms that apply to all of humanity, then I am ensuring that whatever arguments I use end up correctly applying to me, in a retroactive sort of way. Not including morality as an axiom is a way of ensuring that whether or not I start out believing the correct thing, I can end up believing the correct thing.

Neither a specific objective morality nor the existence of morality itself should be axioms, in the same way that 'eating sandwiches is a bad idea' should not be an axiom. Sure, we could include both, but then we end up excluding certain types of people from ever being able to find the truth; and we should never assume that we aren't the 'other' people.

Betting Your Life

Why go on a search for truth in the first place? In this post I will outline why many choose not to search, what I have lost from choosing to search, and why the benefits of searching far outweigh the losses. Here is a short definition of what I mean when I say search for truth: Take the time to examine all of the relevant evidence for and against the existence of God(s), as well as for and against every worldview.

Speaking from almost 4 years of experience now, I can say that there is quite a lot to lose from spending the time to fairly and honestly search. I grew up in a religious community with a staunchly single-minded background, where evidence means little unless it supports a previously decided conclusion. Having decided to question and come to my own conclusions, I have learned that most people would rather abandon an upstart searcher than spend the time necessary to have an open dialogue, much less go on a search for themselves.

Here is a brief list of things that can be lost from going on a journey to find the truth:

• Time. Lots and lots of time. Possibly a whole life's worth.
• Work. It takes a great amount of energy to learn about all of the essential subject material. As one tiny example, to have a basic grasp on the Cosmological Argument (one out of man arguments) one must understand parts of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. To learn about that takes work.
• Relationships. If someone comes from a close-minded worldview, they are likely to abandon you. This may not always be the case, but abandonment was the general trend for me (with a few amazing exceptions).

Let's say you come from a Christian household and grew up in a Christian community. You go to college and all of your close friends are Christian. Honestly considering the validity of every worldview and not coming to a conclusion as to what you think until you have examined all of the evidence will cost you your relationships with your community. What do you choose? Search for truth, or enjoy your social life?

I think that searching for truth is a much better option, because your life is at stake.

On the one hand, it is possible that hell (any version, not just the Christian version) exists. If this is the case, and you don't find out about how to avoid it, you could end up in eternal turmoil (it is possible that hell does not last forever, depending on the meaning of the Greek word "Aeonios", but an eternal hell is also a possible interpretation). The possibility of eternal stakes makes an honest search for truth infinitely worth it.

Starting to sound like Pascal's Wager? Hold on a minute- the ol' wager only applies if the choices are limited to two options- a religion or not that religion. If multiple religions come in to play, then the wager becomes watered down with each additional belief system that is added to the set of possibilities. Realizing this, most will simply discard the wager. I, however, think it is best to examine every religion and cut down the number of ones that are taken into account. This way the wager becomes re-strengthened if enough worldviews/religions are cut out (i.e. We can throw out belief in Zeus, because he obviously doesn't exist).

On the flip side, choosing Christianity, for example, means throwing your life away, not saving it. Christians are among all people most to be pitied if Christianity is invalid, according to the Apostle Paul. This means that it is not a good idea to simply throw your life away, as anyone who is actually a Christian would, if Jesus did not rise from the dead. Those who hold to Christianity without a care as to whether or not Jesus rose simply don't understand Christianity.

The same argument holds true to a greater or lesser extent to any belief system which has a cost. I do note that some belief systems do not come with significant negative side effects. If a belief has no negative side effects, it is outside the scope of this conversation. An appropriate analogy would be the administration of various kinds of drugs. If a drug has no side effects and useful benefits- such as a fish oil supplement- then go ahead and take it. If a drug has extreme side effects- such as those used for chemotherapy- it is only worth taking if it is absolutely necessary.

I suppose I just compared Christianity to chemotherapy. Good if it is absolutely needed, bad otherwise.

In addition to acquiring a certain level of eternal security (if there is an afterlife of some kind), or avoiding the costs of holding to certain religious beliefs if they turned out to be true (as is the case with many beliefs), there is the added benefit of undergoing mind-expanding exploration. I have found this type of learning to be most joyous and fulfilling.

Conclusion:

We all have a single life to live. In order to live this life to the fullest, we need to figure out what the rules of life are. If the rules are that one can live forever by believing in someone, then believe in that someone. If you can go to paradise for being a good person, be a good person. If there is no afterlife, enjoy your life as much as you possibly can, because you only have so much time to enjoy. Searching for truth allows us to figure out how to obtain the most joy.

What is Inside of the Box?

"We will never know whether or not God actually exists," is a phrase I have heard time and time again while discussing my search for truth. Here is why I think this is a ridiculous statement!

Ok. Jim has a box that Larry cannot see into, and there may or may not be a marker inside of the box. Now Jim has a question for Larry: "Is there a marker inside of the box?"

Larry certainly can't tell me whether or not there is a marker in the box right now, because he can't see into the box. Jim decides to try to figure out whether or not there is a marker in the box, but Larry tells him "it is impossible to know whether or not there is a marker inside of the box."

This is an extremely prideful statement for Larry to make. Saying that he knows that it is impossible to know, would be to say that he has already ruled out every past, present, and future method for determining whether or not there is a marker inside of the box. How does Larry know that it is impossible, if he hasn't even made an honest attempt at the possible methods for finding out.

You know what? I think that Larry is lazy and just wants to stay in his comfort zone. His life is simple and figured out based off of what he currently thinks about this devious marker, and questioning his belief would force more questions.

It is far easier to say that it is impossible as an excuse to not try. Unfortunately, Larry would have to have already exhausted every methodology to determine that it is, indeed, impossible to know.

Here are a few things that we thought were impossible to know in the past:

• How to create vaccines
• How to build prosthetic limbs
• How to send a man to the moon
• What the atomic structure of water is
• How many membranes certain types of bacteria have

If Larry had been asked about these things 1000 years ago, and said "it is impossible to know," he would have been very wrong.

Now, it is possible for there to be things that are impossible for us to know about. For example, did Napoleon spit in a pond on the third day of June while he was 19 years old thinking about how much he likes good wine and cheese? This, probably is impossible to know, unless we develop time travel and ask him.

But if something really is impossible to know about, is it worth it to bet your life on something you can't know about?

The Difference Between Searching for Jesus and Searching for Truth

Having attended protestant-based churches for my entire life, I have noticed a unifying goal: searching for Jesus. This includes a longing to know him, experience him, glorify him, and share the good news about him with others.

I have found that there is a fundamental difference between seeking Jesus, and seeking truth. I will use Christianity as an example here, but feel free to insert whichever worldview you prefer. My argument should apply to many belief systems.

The first thing many Christian readers will think here is "But Josh! Jesus is the truth, so when you search for truth, you are searching for Jesus!"

Allow me a few paragraphs to explain why I do not think this is the case

------------------------------------------------------.

1. Someone searching for truth believes things only based off of their true-ness, and devotes their time and energy to examining arguments and evidence. If this person were to end up believing in Jesus based off of evidence, then they believe in Jesus because he is true.

2. Someone searching for Jesus assumes that Jesus is true, and devotes their time and effort to deepening their relationship with him. This person believes in truth because it is Jesus.

It is possible for someone searching for truth to end up believing in Jesus if the evidence points towards him. The logical conclusion of a search for truth that points towards Jesus is to follow him, accept the gospel, and believe (once again, a search for truth could end up with the searcher being an Atheist, in which case it makes the most sense to simply enjoy the one life you have and not bother with silly religious blather). This type of belief in Jesus does not, as I have defined things, made that person someone who fundamentally searches for Jesus. The person is most fundamentally someone who searches for truth, and the evidence just so happens to point towards one specific religious leader (who, in this case, would also happen to be God).

Keep in mind that a search for truth can point in any direction--it does not decide where it is going to end up at the beginning. Instead, it sets up a framework for determining which things are true and which things are false. This means that a searcher for truth could end up believing in anything or nothing, depending on where the arguments and evidence leads. The important thing in searching for truth is the evidence.

It is not generally possible for someone searching for Jesus to end up believing something else. Not caring about evidence, or more commonly, assuming that the evidence overwhelmingly points towards one's own beliefs without ever actually looking at the evidence either way. I have found that this type of belief is based off of social pressure (including parental pressure) or emotional experiences.

Summary:
Someone who follows Jesus based off of evidence is someone who most fundamentally believes in him based off of searching for truth. They believe in Jesus because he is true. This is in stark contrast to someone who believes in truth because it is Jesus. 

A final thought. Searching for Jesus lacks distinction. By this I mean that if you pick a religion or worldview for reasons other than evidence, you essentially roll the dice and hope that what you picked it true. Searching for truth has distinction, because it can fairly distinguish between all other kinds of worldviews.

Parable of the Fallen Bridge

Once there was a group of three climbers who were trying to reach the peak of a gigantic and treacherous mountain.On their way to the summit, they came across a deep chasm spanning a long distance. As they neared the edge, they realized that a bridge crossing the expanse had recently fallen.

Looking down at the remnants of the bridge, the climbers noticed nine people clinging to the ropes and boards. The climbers called to them, but unfortunately, none of them were strong enough to climb up and save themselves.

The first climber looked down, and felt very uncomfortable at the thought of all the lifting and working that would be involved in saving them. He reasoned to himself: "Helping all of the people would be an impossible task. I'm only one person. Even if I tried I wouldn't make much of a difference." Then, pretending not to see the people, he continued on his way up the mountain.

The second climber looked down, and felt a surge of compassion. Not wanting to look inconsiderate like the first climber, he stooped down and threw out a rope. After working for a few minutes, he pulled up one or two of the hapless individuals. Suddenly he realized that it was taking real work to save the needy, and decided he would much rather go on with his life. The second climber thought to himself: "I have certainly done all that can be expected of me. Normal people would have helped much less. After all, I did more than the first climber." Then, ignoring the cries from the people below, he continued on his way up the mountain.

The third climber looked down, and thought to himself: "If I were in distress and holding on for my life, and someone else had the opportunity to help me, I would want to be saved." He then abandoned his aspirations for reaching the peak of the mountain, and started pulling people up. He continued to do for the rest of his life.

The third climber never successfully saved every person on the fallen bridge. He only saved as many as he could.

 -----------------------------------------------------------

"In round numbers there are 7 billion people in the world. Thus, with an estimated 925 million hungry people in the world, 13.1 percent, or almost 1 in 7 people are hungry."

"Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths."

"The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase."


Which climber are you?

All statistics taken from: www.worldhunger.org

But why stop at world hunger? There are many fallen bridges in our world.

Doubt your Doubts?

Today I heard the phrase "doubt your doubts" one too many times. It was when a concerned Christian was attempting to desuade their fellow believer from asking serious questions about the validity of their faith.

If I may, I must go on a short rant.

What does "doubt your doubts" even mean?? It seems so witty and savy, turning the doubting tables on the doubts themselves, but there is no actual substance to the statement.

For example, "doubt your doubts" could be countered by "doubt your doubting of doubts." This could in turn be countered by "doubt your doubting of your doubting of doubts." And so on and so forth.

I don't understand why someone would find security in a belief system based off of this phrase. "Doubt your doubts" means nothing.

Consider the following story: A person happens to believe that the world is flat. They are presented with some arguments in favor of the sphericallness of the earth. A fellow flat-earthest consoles them by saying "doubt your doubts!" The person goes on believing that the world is flat because they doubted their doubts about the flattness of the earth.

It is much better to dwell in a realm with substance. If you have a doubt, ask yourself why you have it. Perhaps you want an honest answer to a question. Perhaps you are curious. Perhaps you have personal experience or wisdom relating to the validity of certain kinds of claims. Simply doubting doubts does nothing. Addressing the doubts by examining evidence allows you to make progress.

So please, if you have ever heard the phrase "doubt your doubts," I would encourage you to at least doubt your doubting of doubts. Even better than that would be to start looking around for valid types of evidence and coherent streams of logic that pertain to your doubts so that you can draw some legit conclusions.

Rant: completed.