Science and Truth: More Lisa Randall Quotes

“Scientists actively approach the door to knowledge–the boundary of the domain of what we know. We question and explore and we change our views when facts and logic force us to do so. We are confident only in what we can verify through experiments or in what we can deduce from experimentally confirmed hypotheses.” –Lisa Randall (Knocking on Heaven’s Door)

“Although there is much we don’t yet know about the evolution of the universe, we have a spectacularly successful understanding of the universe’s evolution based on the so-called Big Bang theory supplemented by a period of exponential expansion of the universe known as cosmological inflation… This theory has agreed with a range of observations, including observations of the microwave radiation in the sky–the microwave radiation left over from the time of the Big Bang.

“Originally the universe was a hot dense fireball. But during the 12.75 billion years of its existence it has diluted and cooled substantially, leaving this much cooler radiation that is a mere 2.7 degrees kelvin today–only a few degrees Celsius above absolute zero. Other evidence for the Big Bang theory of expansion can be found in detailed studies of the abundances of nuclei that were made during the universe’s early evolution and in measurements of the universe’s expansion itself.” –Lisa Randall

“In some cases, we will understand the observations sufficiently well to know what they imply about the underlying nature of matter and physical laws. In other cases, we’ll spend a lot of time unraveling the implications. Regardless of what happens, the interplay between theory and data will lead us to loftier interpretations of the universe around us and expand our knowledge into currently inaccessible domains.

“Some experiments might yield results soon. Others could take many years. As data come in, theorists will be forced to revisit and sometimes even abandon suggested explanations so we can improve our theories and apply them correctly… even when new results might require abandoning old ideas.

“Our hypotheses are initially rooted in theoretical consistency and elegance, but… ultimately it is experiment–not rigid belief–that determines what is correct.” –Lisa Randall

Belief not Indicative of Truth

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”  — Sam Harris (On George W. Bush, Letter to a Christian Nation)

One thing that aggravates me, and which I hear a lot from religious people, is that I shouldn’t criticize other people’s beliefs. 


What they are really stating is I shouldn’t criticize their beliefs. Or more specifically, I should just let them have their beliefs just because, and calling their beliefs delusional or stupid (i.e., challenging their beliefs) won’t change the fact that they believe in whatever it is they believe.


Consider a recent comment I received from my dear Christian mother who posted it on my Facebook under public (as such it went out to all my family and friends and anyone who can read my Facebook, not that I mind, but notice the distinct message here):

“Quit being such poop head… Let people have their beliefs. They let you have yours. And yours are no stupider than theirs.” 

Needless to say, because you believe something doesn’t make that belief true. Nor does it make the thing you profess a belief in necessarily true. In fact, philosophy, psychology, and science have shown us that our beliefs are more often than not mistaken. 



The question I want to ask those who claim that my beliefs are no stupider than anyone elses, is really? Do you really believe that? 


If, for example, I believe that traveling to third world countries once a year to do aid work and help with relief efforts is a justifiable good, am I right or wrong? Is this a valid belief to hold?


The question becomes: can we test whether or not relief efforts help relieve the economic turmoil and stress people feel after catastrophic and devastating natural disasters? Can we see the affects of charity benefiting those who are less fortunate and impoverished? Does building a school in an African village or impoverished region of Thailand improve their lack of education and give them opportunities they might never have had otherwise? 


Does helping to finish a roof on a new hospital which will be used to give medical care to hundreds of people in need of it not seek to improve people’s living conditions and overall well-being?


In all cases the answer is a definitive, resounding, YES. 


How do we know that the belief that doing good in this way is sound? Because doing good in this way gets the results I alluded to–we can see what the affect of our good actions or bad actions are. People with higher levels of education, medical care, and good health always seem to flourish, regardless of the culture or society, whereas those without educations, medical care, and generally poor health seem to do poorly and all too often suffer.


In the example of aid work, we can actually see to what extent the charity work improves the lives of countless people. The results of the actions only justify, and reinforce, the belief that helping in this way is not just worthy of our time and energy, but that, it is a belief worth having. Because it matters–and more importantly–it’s true.


If helping others didn’t improve their well-being and overall lives, even just a little bit, then the belief that building a hospital or a school, or any other form of relief/aid work, would be palpably false. If it could be proved false, then it would mean we are simply wasting out time, and that our belief that it is helping would be proved wrong. Gladly, this is not the case.


So why is it, when I point out a stupid belief that people hold, these people automatically assume I think everyone’s beliefs are stupider than mine? That’s not what I am saying. I am saying–we have methods of holding beliefs up to scrutiny. If a belief passes the test, then it is more likely to be a sound belief. If not, then not. 


On the other hand, how would I know if my beliefs were stupider than anyone else’s? If, for example, I believed that Elvis spoke to me through waking visions, and wanted me to streak butt naked down the city streets, when the police arrest me for acting on this belief, would they merely say, “Oh, fair enough, since it’s one of your beliefs, then we must respect it equally. After all, your beliefs are no stupider than anyone else’s.”


Hell no! The police would arrest my sorry ass, and toss it into jail, where I would be waiting to undergo a psych evaluations for holding a massively stupid, not to mention, delusional belief. 


I’m sorry to say, but some beliefs are stupid. Many more are unfounded, unjustified, and plain old wrong.


If you want others to start respecting what it is you believe, you have to give them valid reasons for believing what you do. Even then, if you have sound reasons for your beliefs, still they may prove to be wrong–and that is something we always have to be willing to face. We have to be willing to accept that, sometimes, our beliefs aren’t what we think they are cracked up to be–and if anyone can prove our beliefs complete erroneous, then we would be forced to seriously re-evaluated them. 


The fact that I get the old schpeal of “just let them have their beliefs, because they let you have yours” does not apply in such situations where we are talking about the reality of the situation and whether a belief is justifiable or not. Indeed, I want my beliefs to be challenged, so I can replace the false beliefs with better ones. The only reason to ever claim that one must simply accept the belief as is, is when the person doesn’t want their belief to be challenged, for fear of it being destroyed. 


It seems to me, that the emotional trauma, or more specifically the fear of emotional devastation one would undergo if their most cherished beliefs proved false, is often such a massive fear that they would sooner stop questioning the validity of their beliefs than actually have to face the truth.  But the only reason to hold a belief in the first place, is because we feel it holds a modicum of truth. If not, then what purpose is the belief?


So whenever I hear someone state, “Let people have their beliefs. They let you have yours. And yours are no stupider than theirs…” I have to check myself. And then, I have to call bull-shit. Are you kidding me? Please! 


Not all beliefs are created equal. That’s just a fact of life. The sooner you can learn to cope with it, the sooner you can begin to challenge your own beliefs, and hopefully, learn to formulate better more sound beliefs as you work toward a better understanding of what it is you actually believe, and not simply what you have been conditioned to believe.

Is Atheism a Belief System?

I usually say that Atheism is not a belief system. That is, there is no positive claim within atheism which could lend to any particular system of belief. However, atheists need to be careful, especially those who say atheism is not a *belief (singular). In the past I too made the mistake of claiming atheism is not a “belief” in an of itself, but I have come to see that this reasoning is wrong. Atheism is, in fact, the belief that there are no gods.


Before you jump down my throat and try to explain Strong (Positive) atheism and Weak (Negative) atheism to me, let me inform you that I am not arguing about the definition of atheism, but rather, testing whether or not it fits the definition of what a Formal belief is. 


If we find that atheism does fit the definition of a Formal belief, then we must be willing to admit that it has the properties of a belief. As such, it is important to make the distinction based on what analytic philosophers have defined as a Formal belief.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Most contemporary philosophers characterize belief as a “propositional attitude”. Propositions are generally taken to be whatever it is that sentences express (see the entry on propositions). For example, if two sentences mean the same thing (e.g., “snow is white” in English, “Schneeist weiss” in German), they express the same proposition, and if two sentences differ in meaning, they express different propositions. (Here we are setting aside some complications about that might arise in connection with indexicals; see the entry on indexicals.)

A propositional attitude, then, is the mental state of having some attitude, stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is true—a mental state of the sort canonically expressible in the form “S A that P”, where S picks out the individual possessing the mental state, A picks out the attitude, and P is a sentence expressing a proposition.

As such, Atheism appears to be a belief in the non-existence of God, the rejection of theism, and the proposition that God does not exist.



This complicates matters when trying to define what atheism is, because having concluded that it is, in point of fact, a Formal belief, we can’t claim atheism isn’t a belief. In actuality, it is.

Can Atheism Be “A Lack of Belief” in Something? 

Lacking a proper belief in something means you are ignorant as to the properties of what it is you are supposed to believe. Many nonbelievers, and secular Free Thinkers, lack the belief in a god or gods specifically because they have never heard anything about them. I am willing to bet that almost everyone is an atheist with regard to other culture’s gods and godesses. This doesn’t mean they don’t know what the concept of god is, but they may be completely in the dark as to the quality or nature of any particular specified god concept (e.g., the Christian God, the Hindu Pantheon, or the gods and goddesses of the Australian aborigines, and so on). 

Not knowing something, then, cannot properly inform us as to anything which would constitute a belief. The simple matter is, if we don’t know anything about said god then we can’t have a belief in it–we would lack the belief in that thing. 


As such, if I were to ask you whether or not you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you would probably respond, “No.” 

“Why not?”

“Because there is no evidence for it.”

“Well,” I’d say, “That doesn’t prove the FSM doesn’t exist!”

“No, it doesn’t. But zero knowledge amounts to zero belief–I can’t honestly believe in something I know absolutely nothing about. Even if it did exist, my belief in it would be unfounded.”

“So you admit the FSM could exist!”

“It’s a possibility, but in order for me to believe in the reality that it exists, I would need to examine and test real evidence first. Something to prove the referent is real and not just imagined. Until then, the odds are equal to none that it’s imaginary.”

“You’re wrong! You just have to have faith!”

“I thought we were talking about facts. After all, you can’t believe in something that is imaginary, other than to believe it’s not real. In which case, you’d be an atheist just like me.”

We must be careful here not to confuse the lack of belief with agnosticism. Agnosticism is based on the quality of knowledge available, and whether it is convincing enough to make a decision either way. Lack of belief, as we are to understand it, means there is zero knowledge to be had. If you know nothing of god, then you cannot claim to believe in god. 

This is why most professions of faith are logically unsound. People are claiming to believe in something they cannot possibly believe in because they have no knowledge of the thing they supposedly believe in. They have no valid reference for god. And no, Holy books such as the Bible and Koran do not count as evidence for God. What they are, mainly, are stories about god. The same goes for spiritual experiences, which when tested, universally fail to stand up to scrutiny. The so-called testimony of believers doesn’t amount to anything when we are considering the empirical facts, sorry to say.

Additionally, because atheism does not require a referent, it is not a belief in an existing thing, rather, it’s simply the rejection of the belief of said thing–hence the belief that said thing does not exist. 

The Burden of Proof 

The burden of proof is on the Believer to establish a referent in order to qualify the Belief as an actual belief in something real. What theists are referring to when they state “I believe in God” is the concept of God. The concept here is the referent, not actually God, since there is no defensible evidence for the existence of God. In other words, when the theist claims to believe in God they are technically stating they believe in the idea of God, and more often than not, they confuse this with the belief in an actual God (even as they fail to establish the referent to any actual God). The Philosopher Dan Dennett calls this the “belief of the belief in God.”

This brings us back to Formal Beliefs. Proper beliefs usually depend on something being true, or having true properties, in order to be believed as true.  For example, we cannot say we believe in delicious Smapples, because, to our knowledge, there is no such thing as a Smapple, hence no referent. Therefore we have no way to detect the truth properties of Smapples, delicious or not. The burden of proof would be on the person who thinks a Smapple is a real thing. They would need to produce one, so that their truth claim about the delectable quality of Smapples could be validated, or else, disproved.

Without providing a Smapple, however, we are only left with–well–nothing. No belief in the flavor of Smapples can be made based on nothing, and unable to imagine what a Smapple ought to taste like, it is impossible to claim we believe them, let alone believe them to be delicious. 

In such instances, we can use intuition and experience to determine whether or not it is possible, and therefore likely, for mysterious fruit nobody has ever heard of to spontaneously pop into existence. But since our intuition and experience tells us this is never the case, we can safely formulate the belief that Smapples don’t exist.

Same goes for God. Atheism is simply the rational response to not being able to find any referent in reality which would qualify as God, and consequently formulating the belief that God does not exist. 

Consequently, theists still have the burden to provide a tangible referent, or their belief erodes to a delusion rather quickly–hence the burden of proof isn’t just necessary in proving the belief in the existence of God, it becomes an imperative for the person of faith. Believers must establish a justifiable means to properly believe there is a referent, usually in the form of trustworthy evidence, or admit they have failed to do so. They can’t have it both ways.

If You Don’t Have Faith, Then What Do You Believe In?

Recently a Christian asked me, “If you don’t have Faith, then what do you believe in?”

She was earnest, and so I replied earnestly:

               I believe in goodness, for which without there could not be kindness. I believe in lending a helping hand to our fellow homo sapiens, as well as to animal kind. I believe in equality and the active protest of inequality wherever it should rear its ugly head. I believe in peace, freedom, love and the pursuit of happiness. I believe these are the inalienable rights of every person regardless of age, gender, or race.

I believe in human rights, the right for people to choose who they want to love and how they go about expressing that love. I believe in the right for gays to marry and for women to go unveiled. I believe we have the right to take a stand against promoters of dangerous ideologies as well as actively support those ideologies which will enlighten the human race and liberate us from the shackles of antiquated and outmoded belief systems. I believe in diplomacy. I believe in triumphing over cruelty and iniquity, stupidity and ignorance.

I believe in progress, in science, and in the heuristic quest for answers. I believe being erudite trumps being lazy. I believe in patience and in formulating a thought carefully before voicing an opinion. I believe in gaining an educated opinion about somebody else’s cherished beliefs before criticizing it. I believe in a vast expanding universe so magnificent that when put into perspective I am infinitesimally un-important. But I don’t think this is nihilist or defeatist, I find it humbling, even awe-inspiring. I believe not all questions need answers and not all answers require deeply profound inquiries.

I believe in the innate good of humanity, and the struggle to become more than just an animal. I believe we have the capability to transcend out primitive origins. I believe in free thinking. I believe respect must be earned, not doled out because it is simply expected. I believe in striving to better myself and do good. I believe in human solidarity and the eternal struggle against our flawed nature to improve ourselves to the point where pain and suffering are minimal. I believe these things are all achievable, and that with some effort and hard work, we can move towards unheard of echelons of human moral goodness. I believe that all this is true even without the added concept of God.

All these, which I call appreciations, can be understood and achieved without the idea of God.

She then countered with the question, “Well, what are your moral guides then? What are your secular ‘Ten Commandments’? How do you know right from wrong?” Instead of correcting her on the nature of the Ten Commandments (most of which are unethical, let alone erroneous—but that’s a debate for another time) I simply informed that I derive my morality from the accumulative appreciations I have accrued, and that it’s not just one set of beliefs I prescribe to, but an unlimited and never ending sea of ideas, thoughts, principles.  Each of these key appreciations which make up my “belief,” subsequently, compound to form a larger foundation for morality than any holy book could ever provide. And the tools of reason and my moral sense (call it my conscience if you will) help aid me to decipher the wisdom, discerning the excellence from the genuinely rubbish, simultaneously finding merit in the best while disregarding the worst.

Accordingly, by a process of elimination, and proven methods of critical thinking, I allow myself to step back and examine each appreciation in detail finding a common strand of wisdom interwoven into their very fabric, their significance enhance by the awareness of their internal congruity, and with each increasing appreciation their total value and sophistication also increases, as does my benefit from them. For each moral improvement helps me advance morally.

All this sounded fine to her, but she couldn’t quite believe that the myriad of random philosophies floating in my head could come out as anything other than sound bites of sophist opinion. I said I would agree with such a statement, if and only if, I was immoral and an imbecile to begin with, and by my own unfortunate circumstances of being held ransom to my own naïveté, retarded by ignorance, could not find the moral sense enough to unravel the greater mysteries. Only an automaton would be calculating probabilities of the raw data without consideration of the implications regardless of the negative harm it might cause. Nor am I a moral relativist. I believe there is good and there is bad, and what’s more, that we can know the difference. But I am not a cold soulless robot, I reminded her. I am an Atheist, and so too a skeptic, and I could never put my faith into something I knew to be blatantly untrue.

(Note: I do not mean to say I “know for certain” that God does not exist. I think with our current understanding it is impossible to assume God exists or not, and so I remain agnostic on whether such a supreme being exists or could even exist, in which case I  must agree with Albert Einstein who properly stated, “I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.” However, when a person says I believe in a specific type of God, i.e. the God of Christianity, which is beyond mere personal knowing and becomes an individualized sort of God–reflected in the cultures which first conceived and championed it, I think this sort of man-made God is disprovable and can be invalidated along with the religious claims which like to accompany it.)

Which is to say, I think,  and I know this much, I’m not a cast iron mechanical contraption without a heart. The Tin Man was without a heart, but as it turned out, he had an innate moral sense all along. We don’t need the illusion of God, or some  magical man behind the curtain posing as one, to tell us such things; we can realize them on our own.

I’m a human being, flawed, sure, but whatever else I may be I choose to strive toward goodness, not because I think that it is the ultimate final destination, but because I think that it’s a perfectly fine goal worth achieving simply for all the good it will do us.  And that’s the kind of person I choose to be.

She told me that from her perspective the thing which makes me human—or which gives me my humanity—is the saving grace of God. For her, I suppose, God is that final destination. I offered, give me something worth believing in, and I might agree with you—but as a skeptic I’m not just going to take your word for it. As far as I can tell, I told her, the case seems to be the opposite. We are good for goodness sake, regardless of whether or not God exists at all. She demanded I prove such a proclamation of faith by picking the noblest appreciations I could think of which didn’t have anything to do with her notion of God. And although I knew that whatever I gave her she would inevitably set about trying to reconcile whatever secular advice I told her and connect it back to her devotional convictions, in effect reinterpreting them not according to their own worth, but according to the values she perceived through the lens of her faith, only by coming into contact with the issues first hand could she glimpse my understanding of them. In due course, I came down to three appreciations which mean the most to me personally. They are as follows:

Appreciations for Living a Good Life: Which I Try to Follow

1)      Albert Einstein’s remark: “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

2)      Kant’s maxim: “Dare to Know.”

3)      Thomas Paine’s espousal: “My religion is to do good.”

In summary, from these appreciations I derived these three reasonable conclusions: 1) Never lose your sense of wonder, 2) always seek knowledge and the truth, and last but not least, 3) always do good.

Whether or not God is real, these are real appreciations I can live by, and they can enhance my life. There is no reason to suppose any supernatural entity or divine being in order for me to glean these morsels of wisdom or put them into practice. Now multiply these appreciations by a hundred fold, and then apply them in a similar fashion, and every one of us has the capacity, indeed, the capability of living a respectably moral and ethical life without God. At any rate, our conversation continued in depth, neither of us trying to convince the other of their belief’s supremacy, neither of us trying to prove our argument superior, but rather, we respectfully listened to what each other had to say and although we did not change the other person’s mind, we agreed to disagree. In other words, we did get to understand each other’s thinking better. And, I dare say, that’s what counted the most.