another quick hint on opening constructive dialogs with Christians

Don't blame Christianity for every dark point in the history of Western Civilization. Don't pretend that the obvious hypocrites were sincere Christians. Don't attempt to maintain that the sole efforts of the church were to exert thought control through force. Look, some awful people did some awful actions, no question. But how is that different from every other place and time on Earth?

Consider what would most likely have happened if Christianity, like other world religions, hadn't largely replaced the original belief systems. No religions worse than Christianity? Do some more research, this time with the objectivity.

a quick hint on opening constructive dialogs with Christians

Don't label Christian communities with the words "tribe" or "tribal", or else be careful to reapply the same words to other communities, too. Insinuating that people can't think for themselves but rather that they have "tribal" beliefs that they defend as members of a "tribe" is simply not an effective way to reach them. Any social group usually has shared beliefs that are intrinsic to the group's very existence. One may as well state that the American Dental Association tribe has zealous beliefs about oral hygiene. People with that "tribal affiliation" will take a stand against those who question the "tribal laws" for combating tooth decay.

secular metaphors

"Secular values" pointed out that since values and religion are so intertwined, and values are so important for individuals of a society to make good decisions, the marginalization or elimination of religion from culture must also include secular substitutes for values. In a similar way, the metaphors of a culture both intertwine with religion and serve important cultural functions. Therefore, secular metaphors must be introduced along with secular values.

Examples of cultural metaphors from Christianity are David and Goliath, Noah, Adam, Lazarus, Samson, Moses, Solomon, and Jesus, of course. Turns of phrase from Christianity include "let he who is without sin", "lamb to the slaughter", "go the extra mile", "feet of clay", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "wheat from the chaff", "wash my hands of", "turn the other cheek", "straight and narrow", "scapegoat", "salt of the earth". Some concepts from Christianity commonly alluded to include the Apocalypse and all the associated symbols like the Four Horsemen, numerous stories like Babel and the Ark and the battle of Jericho, parables or teachings like the Good Shepherd. Moreover, cultural metaphors from other religions also abound. Consider "herculean", "sisyphean", "Midas touch", "titanic", "tantalizing", "procrustean", "Achilles heel".

The official or inclusive stance on religious metaphors usually seems to be that these metaphors are really metaphors from influential literature that happened to be religious in nature. It's true that metaphorical uses of the above elements jettison the important theological meanings of the originals. For instance, David's victory over Goliath was a divine work or gift, as was Samson's strength and Solomon's wisdom. But merely placing the metaphors in the same category as "lilliputian" and "something is rotten in Denmark" doesn't change the fact that the metaphors originate from the exact "dangerously deranged religions" that some wish would just go away or become irrelevant or benign. If supernatural belief is a metaphorical millstone around the neck (oops, the Bible mentions that too) of humanity, wouldn't it at least be more satisfactory for the irredeemably-flawed associated metaphors to be replaced by secular metaphors? Or am I opening Pandora's Box, so to speak, by mentioning this challenge?

In any case, it seems rather hypocritical when people who loudly cry against supernatural beliefs continue to mine those beliefs for artistic metaphors. You have your own set of anti-theistic beliefs, which you are proud of (and why not be proud of your beliefs when everyone else is proud of theirs?). Why not use metaphors from beliefs you hold?

seeing isn't believing, double blindness is

One tactic of persuasion often put forth in favor of the supernatural is a (deeply sincere) report of someone's own past experiences; appropriately, this category of evidence is called anecdotal. A confession of an occurrence--an anecdote--may seem quite convincing to the witness. After all, it's not a tangle of philosophical premises or an admonition to "just trust", but an observation of reality. "Seeing is believing."

However, scientific studies of complicated phenomena that are tied to human experience, such as medicine, use different standards. First, if at all possible, the observer or subject shouldn't be notified that he or she is expected to report a positive result. That is, the observers should be placed without their knowledge in one of two groups. One group is the "experimental" group, which is expected to give a real report. The second group is the "control" group, which is not really undergoing the same test but is nevertheless under that impression (in some cases with a placebo). This way, the effect of observer bias is "controlled for": the observations of everyone in the control group are only based on bias. Their incorrect assumption is that they are giving a real report. The observers or subjects don't have awareness of what they are "expected" to say, so they're "blind". This method is "single-blind".

Yet bias could still be creeping into the study. What if the conductors/interviewers of the study, due to their own awareness of which group each observer is in, influence what the observers say, no matter how subtly? The conductors of the study have their own stake or bias, after all. They want a cleanly definitive set of observations that match the reality of what is under study. Those in the control group should report negative results and those in the experimental group should report positive results. A better way is to also "blind" the conductors of the study such that nobody involved knows who is in which group until the analysis afterward. During the study, that information is stored separately. Since both sides aren't aware of whether a particular observation really supports what is under study, the method is "double-blind".

Data that supports the existence of the supernatural is either measurable or not. If the data isn't measurable, then it must consist of human observations. But if the data is human observations, then the data collection should be double-blind in order to eliminate bias as much as possible. If the data collection can't be double-blind, then it should be single-blind. If the data collection can't be single-blind, then its level of relative credibility is indeed low. The inherent inability to systematically eliminate bias from observations of the supernatural is partly why some people are skeptical.

secular values

For most people, and through much of history, their values (i.e., the qualities they value) have been intertwined with their religion. This isn't surprising because values and religion are parts of a culture, which is a connected whole. Values, especially the relative priority of each, form the starting point for the free moral decisions made by each individual. Values are therefore vital to a society.

If someone works to reduce the influence of religion on a culture, or eliminate religion altogether (based on the quaint notion that godlessness produces utopia), then he or she must also ensure that the resulting culture will have the values people need to make good decisions. With religion no longer playing a role, secular values are the only option. "Secular" in this context doesn't mean anti-religious, just non-religious. What are secular values, and what is the basis and/or the justification of those values? The issue must be addressed convincingly by people who wish to sweep religion out of culture. A culture must contain livable and functional values to be viable.

case of the nonexistent brain

No, the title doesn't refer to a particularly vicious insult. It refers to a misleading story I've received numerous times via email. To summarize, a teacher/professor tells a student that since God can't be directly observed God must not exist. Then the student retorts that since the teacher/professor's brain can't be directly observed his/her brain must not exist, either. Not nearly as poetic as comparing God to the wind, but much more incisive. (It also superficially resembles another gambit: if all human thoughts originate from lumps of matter called "brains", then how can someone trust any of his or her own conclusions?)

The story's moral is certainly valid: not everything that exists can be directly sensed. However, any readers of the story (and there are many) should not be misled into applying this childish moral to the actual philosophical clash between belief systems that include the supernatural and belief systems that deny it. The problem isn't that the moral is inapplicable to the clash; the problem is that the moral offers no "ammunition" for either side, because everybody believes it. To represent the opposing point of view as being so crippled is dishonest.

In fact, very few human endeavors of significance can happen without assuming the truth of this moral. When someone shakes a closed, opaque container or weighs it to determine how much is inside the container, the inability to directly sense the contents doesn't result in someone assuming the contents don't exist. When a hurtling object is momentarily blocked from view by a tree or pole, the inability to directly sense the object for an instant doesn't result in someone assuming the object blinked out of existence. The inability to see germs or atoms with the unaided eye doesn't result in someone assuming such things don't exist. The inability to directly sense thermodynamic energy (we only see evidence of energy when it's transferred by doing something) doesn't result in someone assuming it spontaneously appears and vanishes.

Unlike the teacher caricature in the story, people who say there's no proof for the supernatural can then say they have brains without contradicting themselves. They would do this by patiently enumerating the "brain evidence": over time many observations have consistently shown that humans have brains, and over time many other observations have consistently shown that the body under consideration, exhibit "Me", is indeed a human just like the rest. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that exhibit "Me" has a brain. They would then go on to state that a similar chain of evidence doesn't hold for evaluating statements about the supernatural.

One last important point is that the moral doesn't act as a persuasive point for the existence of any given supernatural entity. In short, the truth that some things that exist are nonphysical does not mean that anything that is nonphysical exists. Don't accidentally place God in the same category as leprechauns and fairies.