Steve-Doug is a guest writer at State of Protest.
As atheists, we feel compelled to share the epiphany of disbelief. Unfortunately, finding a mode to convey our rationality often undermines the powerful sensations which accompany the reduction of myth-based doctrine. Certain stereotypes of activism need to be addressed; there are, in fact, more opportunities for activism than the average heathen may be aware of. While operating prestigious science blogs, writing numerous best-selling diatribes on faith, and donating hefty sums to atheist networks and coalitions certainly advance the cause of godlessness significantly, these are not the standards of activism we as laypeople must set for ourselves; it is just not feasible for us all to utilize these vehicles of activism. Rather, we can observe openings in our daily interactions which can facilitate the dissemination of rationality and scientific literacy.
My own conversion to atheism occurred almost a year after I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a type of cancer which infects the body’s lymph nodes. Despite being only fifteen and very religious, I was still very unwilling to preserve this belief system when prayers went unanswered and skeptic inquiry into Christianity yielded no intelligent answers. Chemotherapy being just as debilitating as it is known to be, my social interactions were greatly limited and I depended on the internet to express and develop my deviations. The online game Star Wars: Jedi Outcast grew to be a virtual outlet for my social needs. The game catered to tight-knit virtual communities, and it wasn’t long before I had established very strong friendships with a group of players of varying religious stances. Of these players, I found myself steadily growing to regard the fundamentalists with much reproach, while the pantheist, agnostic, and atheist members encouraged my skepticism. Before long, my beliefs had no common ground with the fundamentalists.
While I was exploring the concepts of atheism, I became transfixed by the mechanics of evolution, a subject almost invariably linked to disbelief. The poetic antithesis of complexity and simplicity characteristic of natural selection occupied my mind at great intervals. Naturally I was very distraught when, after discussing evolution in general terms, my fundamentalist friends professed rejection of the theory. In their dismissals classifying the theory as luck-based, entropy-violating, and largely speculative, it also became clear that they had no understanding of the actual theory; rather, they had crafted an insincere amalgamation of absurd statements which could only be said to resemble extreme misinterpretations of evolution. Noting their inability to be swayed by well-structured argumentation, I decided that I must take it upon myself to illustrate the true mechanics of this process in terms that would register with them. I set out to design a modification for Jedi Outcast which showed how the theory worked in accurate terms.
The modification consisted primarily of a custom built level designed in an urban setting. Throughout the level, pop-up text informed players of key concepts they were observing. Pictured below is the “starting point” of the level.
Once inside, players witnessed robots with design codes. The robots were analogous to organisms, while the design codes represented the genotype. The codes, or genotypes, explained the physical attributes of the robots; i.e. shape, resistance to fire, ability to travel across water, etc. In the following rooms, robots with different codes attempted to traverse difficult landscapes. If the robot made it across, it was stated that its traits were suited to survival and would get to be continued in the next generation of robots. Consecutive rooms provided different challenges, establishing the theme that what is effective in one generation and environment is not always effective in another; thus variability is needed. Pictured, different robots traverse a harsh environment.
The final area of the level was constructed to resemble Richard Dawkins’ image of Mount Improbable: a large gap separated two ledges, at one a large and rather complex machine and at another a small and not-so-complex machine. Players were encouraged to attempt to jump from ledge to ledge, but this was impossible. Instead, a gradual slope ran along the mountain with “transition” machines spaced at intervals along the slope until the player had gradually arrived at the complex machine. This illustrated how organisms do not “jump” from species to species, but rather move in slow alterations. Players were greeted with two pop-up footnotes: the first denounced the phrase “transition organism” as purely for use of explanation, as all organisms (or in this case, machines) are transitory; the second stated that evolution is in no way a goal-oriented force. Evolution does not seek to craft complex machines, heat-resistant robots, or human brains. Evolution simply sees to it that designs which suit their environments succeed in replication. In this case, the environment has rewarded generator-like designs. Pictured is Mount Improbable, with the machines highlighted in the attempt of allowing them to be seen more clearly.
At the close of the level, players were told that the representations in the level were very much generalized and reduced for the sake of illustration, which is perhaps an understatement. Although my graphic representation was not as detailed or analytical as a published treatise on evolution, it provided an effective illustration as an introduction to evolution, especially for people who dismissed evolution based solely on handy catch-phrases developed and promoted by religious-based opposition.
In the end, this endeavor proved to be bittersweet. On the one hand, my fundamentalist friends were greatly informed by the representation. Several openly professed that they had a complete non-understanding of the theory beforehand, and now had some understanding, simplified as this understanding may be. However, none were able to accept the theory. Holding an understanding of how evolution works, they could no longer assault the theory under false pretenses. They were thus resigned to utilize only unclear pseudo-philosophic arguments stating that faith was absolute and what we observe could be satanic trickery. It is my belief, though, that their confinement to such ridiculous arguments devoid of empirical backing emphasizes the denialism of creationism to such an extent that rejecting its pseudoscience becomes substantially easier to the layman who might believe that there might be some legitimacy in creationism. I have come to believe that even if our non-scientific opponents fail to find themselves swayed by the scientific method, removing any doubt of rationality from their arguments is the only effective way to control their propagation. Even though we may not always hold the burden of proof and evolution has certainly secured itself beyond significant scrutiny, I should gladly take the opportunity to explain the rationality of science to the ignorant in the effort to reduce any perceived eloquence of pseudoscience.
As I hope my example has showed, there are extraordinarily varied options for spreading the cause of rationality. It is up to the individual to identify and take advantage of opportunities for such activism. It must be remembered that rational inquiry seldom sways those utilizing the reality-limiting perspective of faith, and we must try not to be discouraged. The frustration accompanying an opponent’s refusal to acknowledge scientific principles can make debates almost unbearable. The practice of “keeping quiet” instead is on par with aiding the spread of pseudoscience, and as such, I will gladly explain the principles of reality to the staunchest of fundamentalists in lieu of silence; I know I’m not the only one.
