Common Questions to Atheists

I found this list of questions on Lady Atheist's blog that atheists are often asked. While I don’t particularly have anything original to add, I think that it is worth answering as it will demonstrate my views on a wide variety of issues. 

Q:  Where do you go when you die?

A:  While I wouldn’t claim to know with certainty, my view is that, upon death, we will cease to exist. From the evidence I have come across, it appears the mind is a function of the brain; so without a working brain, you will have no mind and therefore cease to exist. 

Q:  Aren't you worried that you might be wrong and you might go to hell?

A:  Not at all. Hell was never something I believed in (even when I was a half-assed Christian). Do I think it is possible that I am wrong? Of course. I just don’t think the probability of me being wrong about the existence hell is high enough to worry about. Take for example the chance that I will be hit by a car tomorrow; this is a scenario which I view as quite likely to happen in comparison with Hell being real, yet I’m not worried about being hit by a car. 

Q:  How can you be moral without God?

A:  How can you be moral with God? That isn’t a snide reply, but a serious question. Are you moral with God because God has defined what is good or because God is intelligent and powerful enough to determine what is good? If it is the first one, I would argue that you aren’t moral in any meaningful sense of the word. If it is the second, then you have just answered the question yourself; we can also determine what is good. We may not be able to do it as well as God could (assuming he exists), but being he isn’t putting his two-cents in on relevant issues, we are left to do it ourselves. 

Q:  You're really just angry with God.

A:  Sometimes, but this is irrelevant to why I am an atheist. To be clear, it is possible to be angry at a being regardless of whether it exists or not. For example, I am often infuriated by the character of Nikki on Big Love, yet that doesn’t mean I think she really exists. I am angry at the portrayed actions of her character. This is similar to when I find aspect of God’s personality (as depicted by the Bible) to be immoral/anger-inducing. Again, this doesn’t mean I think God exists; just that I find the actions that are portrayed by his character to be immoral.

Q:  You're really just angry at the abuses of the Church.

A:  Again, while I may sometimes be angry at the actions of Christians, this is irrelevant to my atheism. It may inform the actions I choose to take (e.g. opposing the homophobia of Christians directly), but it isn’t why I don’t believe in god. 

Q:  The church has been responsible for great works of art.

A:  So? There is much art in other religions, so either their gods also exist or inspiration can come from any source, real or imaginary. 

Q:  How do you know the Bible isn't true?

A:  In the same way you know that the Koran, the Tao Te Ching or any other religious text isn’t true; lack of supporting evidence and logical inconsistencies. 

Q:  Isn't it arrogant to presume you're right and all those Christians are wrong?

A:  Why is it arrogant for me to presume I am right, yet it isn’t arrogant for Christians to presume they are right? But I fully admit I may be wrong, but I will only change my position when given a good argument and evidence that my position is wrong. 

Q:  You think you know everything, don't you?  (Also: You think you have all the answers!)

A:  No. Just no. 

Q:  Science can't answer everything.  What about love?

A:  I’m not advocating that it can. Though I do think science can explain love; interactions between memories, emotions and social situations that are governed by neurons and chemicals in our brains. 

Q:  How do you explain the human need to believe in God?  God made humans different from the animals.

A:  I think the ‘need’ (I use quotation marks because I don't think it is really a need) can be explained by a number of facts known about human psychology. Firstly, humans are pattern and agent seeking creatures; our minds are built for detecting patterns and, often, attributing those patterns to an animate agent. An example of this is the thought some people get that their computer intentionally crashes when they haven’t saved; they are detecting a pattern (computer crashing when they haven’t saved) and blaming their computer for it. Now, most of us would agree that this is both not a meaningful pattern (i.e. there isn’t actually a causative effect between the chance of your computer crashing and whether you have saved your work or not) or an intentional act on behalf of the computer. I think this is a similar phenomenon to how humans came to believe in god (mistakenly identifying patterns in nature and attributing them to an agent).

The second point I would bring up would be that this pattern seeking behaviour increases when we find ourselves in situations that are out of our control. There is a good, evolutionary reason for this; our ancestors found themselves frequently in situations that were out of their control such as attacks from predators. Now, increased pattern detection in such situations would aid in survival as these individuals could determine any activity they are engaged in that is affecting the attack rates of predators. For example, it could be noticed that if meat is left uncovered for too long, predators are more likely to attack. Thusly, this would lead to the covering of meat and decreased predator attacks as a consequence. This fact could also be used to explain another fact about our current world; the countries with the highest societal health (which is a good proxy for control over our situation) have the lowest levels of religious belief and vice versa. 

Q: What about the miracles of the Bible?

A: What about the miracles of the Koran? The Baghavada Gita? 

Q:  [insert seemingly miraculous prayer story here]. How do you explain that?

A:  I normal take a two pronged approach to such questions; firstly, unless it is an event that personally happened to individual telling me this story, the question of authenticity is one that is hard to answer. Secondly, I ask why there is the need to explain some fortunate event with references to the supernatural. An example I have had presented to me is one of a family had their unborn child diagnosed with a serious condition (unspecified as to which), the prayed and when the child was born, they had no problems whatsoever. The issue here is when you realise that most, if not all, medical tests have an error rate; that is, a percentage of test results are either false positives or false negatives. This is often quite small, but when applied to a large population size, is not an insignificant number. To demonstrate this, let’s say that the test in question had a .1% false positive rate; .1% of the time, the result indicated they had the condition tested for when they really didn’t. If this test is administered to all pregnant mothers (roughly 300,000 in 2010), then we can expect 300 false positives for 2010 alone. That is, 300 mothers will be told that their child has that condition, only to find at birth that they don’t. Not really miraculous at all. 

Q:  Christianity has been around for 2,000 years.  How could it survive if it were false?

A:  How has Hinduism survived for 4,000 years if it was false? 

Q:  There are millions of Christians.  They can't all be wrong.

A:  Yes, they can, just as the billions of Muslims and Hindus can be wrong.

Q:  Nothing can exist without a creator, so the fact that things exist proves there's a God.

A:  If nothing can exist without a creator, then neither can God. If things can exist without a creator, who is to say that the cosmos isn’t one of those things? 

Q:  You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

A:  And you can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist too. I am not an atheist because I think God has been proven not to exist, but because there is no evidence to prove that he does. 

Q:  If you're an atheist doesn't that mean that you don't believe in anything?

A:  I believe in things that have evidence that prove that they exist. 

 Q:  If you don't believe in God, that means you want to be God.

A:  Depends what you mean by that statement; if you mean I want humans to fulfil all the functions that have normally been attributed to God (morality, purpose etc.), then yes. If you mean I want to be a dictator in the sky, then no. 

Q:  You just left the Church because you want to sin.

A:  I was never really in any church. 

Q:  So then your life has no meaning?

A:  Yes and no. I do not believe life has any inherit meaning. But that is different from saying it has no meaning. Life has the meaning that I (and all of us) choose to give it.

Being wrong for the right reasons

In a discussion recently with a fellow atheist, I was asked which of the two following options I would prefer; a world full of rational Christians/Muslims/Jews etc. or a world full of irrational atheists. After a brief moment of thought, I responded that I would prefer the rational religious to the irrational atheists. This perplexed my friend, who said that they would prefer the opposite. They couldn't seem to understand why, given that we are both atheists, would I choose a world where everyone is wrong (from our point of view). My response is the topic of this post.

I place a higher value on the method upon which people reach their conclusion (i.e. reason, logic, evidence etc.) rather than whether the conclusions they reach are correct (or whether they match my own conclusions). This is because, if someone is at least willing to base their views off the same method as mine (or society in general), we can actually have a valid discussion of the issue. A person who rejects reasoned argument and evidence as a source of truth can’t be reasoned with.

This brings us back to the original hypothetical; while the irrational atheists agree with a single conclusion I have drawn, the fact that they use an alternative method for deducing it (say blind faith; accepting a claim as true regardless of the evidence for or against it) means they are more likely to have false views in other areas (politics, science etc.). And being that the theists in this hypothetical are using reason and logic to come to their opinions, they are more likely to have better opinions in these areas. So I would much rather a world where people came to the wrong conclusion on the topic of whether a god exists or not, but were still using the preferable method of coming to other conclusions.

An analogy of what I mean can be found in mathematics classes; from my experience, teachers would give marks on tests if you used the right formulas, but made an error in calculation (and therefore had the wrong answer). Some teachers would even go so far as to not give full marks for a question if working was not shown, even with the right answer. This is pretty much exactly what I mean; it is better to use the right formula, make a mistake in calculation and come to the wrong answer than to use no formula at all and get the answer right by chance.

My Moral Framework

I recently completed an assignment on my values and moral framework. As I scored fairly well (23 out of 25) and that ethics and morals are a subject that interest me, I decided to share my essay with you. Would enjoy any feedback, positive or negative.

"1. Introduction

An ethics and moral framework is an important component of any worldview. It enables us to make choices on how we should act and how we should interact with others (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). As there are many frameworks in the world, choosing one requires exploration of what each individual values and then a comparison to find a framework that incorporates those values.

2. Personal Values

The following are the values that I have identified as being of importance to myself. I hold each of them in the same regard.

2.1 Truth

Truth is a fairly expansive value. I am applying ‘truth’ to cover all types of truth; be they personal, historical, scientific or any other kind. The main reason for valuing this is that I believe that to determine the best course of action in a specific situation or the best way to live in general, an individual needs as much true information and as little false information as possible. This is demonstrated in Appendix 1; if you have incorrect information, you are more likely to draw incorrect conclusions. I have discussed this issue in regards to creationism (Appendix 2). As stated, I believe that denying evolution and promoting creationism in its place is spreading misinformation, thus promoting people to draw conclusions on other issues that could possibly be incorrect.

2.2 Equality

The equality I speak of is slightly different from the normal concept of equality; that all men (or people) are created equal. I do hold that everyone should be treated equally. However, there are differences, often subtle, between men and women, between people of different ethnicities and between people of different cultures and countries. The equality that I value is that an individual is judged as an individual, not by the various groupings they belong to. For example, women on average have lower physical strength than men (Martini, 2006). If a woman is applying for a job that requires physical strength, she should not be judged by her gender’s average physical strength, but by her own personal strength.

2.3 Liberty

Liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act occurring to their own will (Carrier, 2005). Before including it as a value of my own, I would add a qualifier; provided their actions do not infringe on the liberty of others. Preventing an individual from infringing on the liberty of another (i.e. stopping a person from killing another) is an action I would say is permissible, as the killer is violating the liberty of the victim in the first place. An example of my value is my position on drug legalisation and use (Appendix 3). My opinion on this issue is that anyone should be allowed to consume any substance, provided they do not interfere with others while under the influence. For example, a person who drinks alcohol yet does not harm anyone while intoxicated should be allowed to continue drinking. The simple potential of alcohol contributing to violence in some individuals is not sufficient to disallow others from using it.

2.4 Altruism

Defined in the ethical sense, altruism is the idea that individuals should take actions that help, benefit or otherwise improve the lives of others, possibly even with detriment to one’s own life (Carrier, 2005). Altruism can be derived into two categories; reciprocal altruism and true altruism (Appendix 4). The reason I put forward that altruism is a value worth having is that the significant majority of humans want to both live and to avoid suffering (Appendix 5). Following from these observations, it could be concluded that if everyone wants to avoid suffering, it should be in our best interest to work together and consider the suffering of others as equally as our own. Example being that if you are in a well-off position in life, considering others who are not as well off and trying to help them is something you should strive to do.

3. Framework

The following is the framework that I found to fit best with my values. It should be noted that, as the framework was not constructed by me, it is not a perfect fit.

3.1 Secular Humanism

Defined simply, is a worldview that places value on the progress and betterment of human life, without having to lean on supernatural ideas (Carrier, 2005). While having specific tenets (Appendix 6), these are not rigid rules that cannot be changed but more a guide on how to live. As to what Secular Humanism is in terms of morality, I personally see it as a combinational approach between utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Why I considered Secular Humanism to be the best fit with my values is as follows.

Truth is perhaps the most obviously compatible with Secular Humanism. Points one, two and four of Appendix 6 all demonstrate a commitment to search for truth and to always demand factual support for claims. Equality seems to conform with points five and seven; treating people equally and by their individual abilities would help to reduce inequality and the suffering caused by it. Point six seems to espouse liberty; that individuals have autonomy over their actions by making them responsible for them. Finally, altruism is demonstrated in points two, three, five and seven as they ask us to take into account the well-being of the entire human race, rather than just ourselves.

The final critical point of why secular humanism is my framework rather than simply humanism is that secularism is what works best for everyone (Appendix 7). As stated, secularism prevents a religious majority from imposing their will, good or bad, on a minority who do not share their religious convictions. It does not suggest that people should not have religious beliefs, just that their beliefs are personal in nature and do not apply to everyone.

4. Conclusion

While more being a guide than a perfectly constructed moral and ethic system, secular humanism still has a lot to offer humanity. It should be noted, however, that secular humanism does not require everyone to follow its rules; just to respect the opinions of others.
 
6. Appendix

Appendix 1

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: 4.1 Earthquake in China.

“We make the best decisions we can with the limited amount of information and brain power we have at our disposal. Sometimes it turns out good (as it did in this scenario), sometimes it turns out bad.

The only way we can make sure that our decisions go in our favour is by making sure we have as much good information and as little bad information as possible.”

Appendix 2

Taken from ‘Creationism and the spreading of misinformation’ (Bishop, 2010a).

“So on one side of the coin, we have experts saying that evolution is correct. On the other side, we have ‘experts’ saying that evolution is incorrect. How is your average individual, with very little understand of how science actually works, going to be able to tell the difference between the two? From the laymen perspective, it could seem like scientists are ‘divided’ on the issue of whether evolution is right or wrong (more accurately, indicated by the evidence or not). This is possible the main reason I choose to speak out against creationism/other pseudoscientific claims whenever I get the chance; it spreads misinformation among the general population. And being most people have very little time/interest in going to check if a claim is true (assuming they would even know where to start), a fair number of individuals will accept what these groups say as truth.

Being ignorant of a subject is bad enough, but lying to disprove it is infinitely worse.”

Appendix 3

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Drug Legalisation in Australia

“An individual is responsible for his or her own actions, even if their actions are being influenced by other factors, in or out of their control. (example being mentally ill; even though they may not be in direct control of their actions, we still lock them up if they harm others).
Following from this premise, one can draw the conclusion that ingesting any substance is permissible, so long as the individual accepts responsibility for the actions they take while under the influence.

Example being the difference between happy and angry drunks; if you know you get angry when under the thrall of alcohol, you should not drink.”
 
Appendix 4

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Virtue Ethics

“Well, I would divide altruism into two types; reciprocal altruism and true altruism. Reciprocal altruism is helping others so that they may help you at some point. True altruism would be helping others at a detriment to yourself that may never be paid back (or with no intents for it to be paid back).”

Appendix 5

Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Earthquake in China

“1. Everyone wants to live.
2. Everyone wants to avoid suffering.

I perfectly understand that neither of those are entirely universal (though near enough). Also, premise 1 overrides premise 2 (i.e. ending someone’s life to prevent their suffering is not okay, unless of course they want to have their life ended).

Yes, those two premises are my opinion. But others opinions would overrule them if I had to deal with those people (i.e. if I was in a disaster situation like the one described and someone said 'I'm in too much pain. Just leave me to die', I would consider respecting their wishes). They are just general rules I go by until presented with exceptions.”

Appendix 6

Taken from ‘What is Secular Humanism?’ (Stevens et al., 2010)

“Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

• A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.”

Appendix 7

Taken from ‘A Response… But No Apology’ (Bishop, 2010b)

“Our government is secular, as stated in Section 116 of the Constitution:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

This part of the constitution is incredibly important; it is what keeps the religion that is held by the majority (Christianity in Australia) from imposing its will on the minority (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists etc.). Statistically speaking, the amount of representatives in the government would more or less reflect the averages of the population; we have a majority of politicians being Christian. If it were not for this law, there would be nothing stopping them from passing laws that restrict other religions and promote Christianity. The same goes the other way of course. In Japan, where around 65% of the population is non-religious, they are prevented from passing laws that restrict those who are religions by Article 20 of their Constitution:

“(1) Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all.
(2) No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.
(3) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.
(4) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.”
This is the fairest system one can have in place, as it prevents any majority, be it religious or atheist, from imposing their views on the minority. This a major problem with any dictatorship, be it an atheist or religious one.” 

7. Bibliography

BISHOP, J. R. 2010a. Creationism and the spreading of misinformation. Lord Bishington's Thoughts [Online]. Available from: http://lordbishington.blogspot.com/2010/03/creationism-and-spreading-of.html [Accessed 21/04/2010].

BISHOP, J. R. 2010b. A Response... But No Apology. Lord Bishington's Thoughts [Online]. Available from: http://lordbishington.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-but-no-apology.html [Accessed 21/04/2010].

CARRIER, R. 2005. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism, Bloomington, Indiana, AuthorHouse.

MARTINI, F. H. 2006. Fundamentals of Anatomy & Physiology, USA, Benjamin Cummings.

STEVENS, F., TABASH, E., HILL, T., SIKES, M. E. & FLYNN, T. 2010. What Is Secular Humanism? [Online]. Council for Secular Humanism. Available: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what [Accessed 24/04/2010].

THIROUX, J. & KRASEMANN, K. 2009. Ethics: Theory and Practise, Pearson International Education."

Creationism and the spreading of misinformation

A few weeks ago, I attended a screening of ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ at the local Baptist church. I knew what the premise of the movie was and had heard/read various criticisms of it, but I had held off viewing the movie/forming an opinion as I wished to take my own notes and come to my own conclusions. In hindsight, I think I wasted 97 minutes of my life. It was possibly the most horrid movie I have ever seen. And no, I don’t mean just the message itself; I have seen other intelligent design/creation/anti-evolution movies that were ‘worth’ watching (The Voyage That Shook The World was bearable). It was the tactics the movie employed in delivering the message. I found this to be quite amusingly contrasted with the statement the pastor made before the movie: “This is an academic topic and to ridicule Intelligent Design advocates is dishonest to academic truth” or something of that effect. For those of you who have seen the movie, you will know what I am talking about. For those of you that haven’t, many actual scientific ideas such as the ‘Clay Theory of Abiogenesis’ were mocked by Stein as being science fiction, when, in reality, many tests have been done that demonstrate that it is at least a possible avenue by which life could have arose.

After the movie, leaflets and books were handed out with more information about the issue. One was just a summary of the points made in the movie (didn’t really need it, as I wrote around four pages of notes while watching it), the other was a book entitled ‘Answers to the 4 Big Questions’, made by Answers in Genesis. The four ‘big questions’ they ask, and supposedly answer, are ‘Does God exist?’, “What about Evolution?’, ‘Where did the ‘races’ come from?’ and ‘Who was Cain’s wife?’. While I happen to disagree that these are the most important questions we could have answers to, that is a topic for discussion at another time. I decided to put my complaints about the questions aside and see what they had to say. I made it through three lines before putting the book down, in fear I might have a stroke. I will replicate here those three lines:

"Once great nations are in social decline. Family breakdown and crime are increasing. An epidemic of youth suicide afflicts nations where there would seem to be everything to live for. What accounts for this?"

Literally the first sentence of the whole thing made me cringe. I mean, people could and have written entire theses, taking them up to a year to write, on the topic, debating all the factors. And yet, Answers in Genesis feels they can make a single statement on the issue and that is that. Not to mention that a lot of people feel the exact opposite. After a few minutes of not reading the book, my blood pressure had returned to normal and I decided to continue reading. I wanted to know what they thought was responsible for this (I already had an idea of what they might say, but I wanted to confirm it). And low and behold, I was right: evolution is to blame. More accurately, that we are teaching evolution to our children; that they came from ‘monkeys’. As I read on, I began to notice a common trend: just as with the introduction, wide sweeping statements were made on complex issues/ideas, usually glaringly wrong to anyone with even a mild understand of the topic in discussion. A single sentence that they made could require reading an entire book to demonstrate why it is wrong.

As I have a moderate level of knowledge of arguments and tactics used by both sides in the evolution/creation debate, I recognized this ploy immediately. It is colloquially known as the ‘Gish gallop’, made famous by the creationist Duane Gish. It is where, during a debate, you make so many simple statements that are wrong and require lengthy responses that your opponent is either unable to respond to most of them or gets bogged down trying to and doesn’t get to address your actual argument as they are too busy trying to show why your points are wrong. It is even more effective when the topics being discuss are issues your target audience is more than likely not familiar with (that way, they have no means of determining the validity of what you have said, it will more than likely accept it as truth, especially if it supports their currently held worldview). While this isn’t so much of a problem in book form, as you have all the time in the world to write a counter-argument, I do think it presents a problem.

As humans, we tend to accept information given to us by authority figures; our parents, teachers, preachers, politicians. Sometimes it is good to accept what an authority has to say with minimal self-investigation (i.e. asking a lawyer for legal advice), other times it is a bit murky (i.e. listening to a politician say a certain policy is ‘for the best’). As the writers of this book have science degrees, they do give off an air of authority. But when they say things like ‘mutations only lead to lose of information, not increase’, a stark contrast to what most biologists say, it does becomes questionable. It is even worse when you realize that there are many examples of mutations that have benefited the organism and increased the information in its genome, so it seems like they are outright lying.

So on one side of the coin, we have experts saying that evolution is correct. On the other side, we have ‘experts’ saying that evolution is incorrect. How is your average individual, with very little understand of how science actually works, going to be able to tell the difference between the two? From the laymen perspective, it could seem like scientists are ‘divided’ on the issue of whether evolution is right or wrong (more accurately, indicated by the evidence or not). This is possible the main reason I choose to speak out against creationism/other pseudoscientific claims whenever I get the chance; it spreads misinformation among the general population. And being most people have very little time/interest in going to check if a claim is true (assuming they would even know where to start), a fair number of individuals will accept what these groups say as truth.

Being ignorant of a subject is bad enough, but lying to disprove it is infinitely worse.

Amway: Because they won't let you do it your way

Before I beginning, I just want to say my inspiration for writing this entry is due to having read Russell Glasser’s excellent webpage discussing his own experiences with Amway. I highly suggest reading it if you want another perspective: http://www.apollowebworks.com/amway/amintro.html

While out the other night for a friend’s 21st, I ran into an old friend as I was leaving. Now, this wasn’t just an old acquaintance that I saw every now and then, but someone I saw at least four times a week at the height of our friendship and could talk to them about anything during those times. If asked then, I would have said they were my best friend and that we would always be best friends. Anyway, the conversation that ensued went virtually as follows:

Me: “Hey, haven’t seen you in ages.”

Them: “Yeah, I know. What have you been up to?”

Me: “Just uni really. How about you?”

Them: “Oh, just the business.”

Me: “Oh yeah” *Awkward silence* “Anyway, I have to head off. Good seeing you.”

You might be wondering why two individuals who were as close as we were could now be so distant. What could possibly have happened that drove us apart? If you guessed Amway, you are right (though it was an obvious guess, being that is what this blog is about).

Before getting to how it destroyed our friendship (and other friendships of his too, from what I have heard) and why I left Amway, I will start from the beginning.

1987: On a mid-August night, my parents lay in bed together, as husband and wife often do.

Okay, too far back.

2007: I had just finished high school the previous year and was just about to start at university. While I was looking forward to the new experience that university had to offer, I wasn’t overly excited about my course. Throughout high school, I didn’t really have any aspirations in life and was looking for a job just to pay the bills. I had always had an interest in computers and games, so I figured game design would be a logical choice (in hindsight, I probably should have given it a little more thought). I was also working part-time at McDonalds, a job which I had a love-hate relationship with (loved the money, hated the work). This was the time at which I was friends with the above mentioned individual, who I shall refer to as Luke to keep his identity private (for those of you who knew me during that time and know who I am speaking of, I would ask you do the same).

Now, Luke had been telling me for awhile about the business he was starting up. For a long time, he never really went into any detail when I asked him what it was. One day, I was mentioning to him how I didn’t really want to have to work to live for the rest of my life and would rather just spend my time travelling and exploring the world (wouldn’t we all?). It was then that he suggested that I should get involved in his business. Of course, my first question was “but won’t that mean I am just working for you?”. To this he replied “no, I mean you can start your own”. This raised more questions than it really answered, so he told me I should come along to a meeting and hear all about it. Being my position in life at the time, I figured I had nothing to lose. I went with him over to a house of another ‘business owner’ Kate* (again, real name changed). It was here that they had David*, who was a lawyer and also in ‘the business’, explain it to me.

Being that this is the part where I had ‘the business’ (this was how they referred to it, rather than Amway) explained to me, I figure it would be a good point to explain it to those of you who are unfamiliar with it.

Amway is what is known as a Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) business. You pay a yearly membership fee, and for that you can have access to a wide variety of products at a discounted rate (in reality, most products are more expensive than they would be retail, plus you pay for shipping). You also get a rebate of 3% every month on the products you have bought or sold to others (if you buy 100 points worth of products a month, that is). The real money (or so you are told) is in ‘sponsoring’ others to join the business. For every person you sponsor who buys and sells products, you get a cut of their rebate. So the more people you sponsor, the more money you get. Also, the more points generated in your ‘business’ (your purchases plus all those you have sponsored/who they have sponsored etc.), the larger your rebate becomes. The highest rebate attainable is 21%. If you maintain a rebate level of 21% for six months, you become what is known as a Diamond and you ‘breakaway’ from the person who sponsored you (in reality, they still get 4% of all the money that goes through your business). At the Diamond stage, it is said that individuals earn around $4000 a month. And once it gets to that stage, you just have to sit back and watch it increase.

Sounds impressive, no? $4000 a month or more for simply getting people to join your business and helping them to get people to join theirs. It is only when you realize where that money is coming from that it starts to become a little murky. Being that the significant majority of products bought are by the ‘independent business owner’s’ (IBO’s) of Amway (in fact, selling products to people who aren’t part of Amway is discouraged), all the money comes from the IBO’s themselves. Amway is best described as a ‘zero-sum game’: when everyone in the company adds up all the money they have made and lost through the business, the total sum is zero. A better way to look at it (thanks Russell) is as a game of poker you play with your friends: you all put in $10 to start the game. Some people walk away with more than $10, others with less. The point is that you can only make money if someone else loses money. This is exactly how Amway works. All the money that those Diamonds are making is coming from those on the bottom level. Sure, those at the bottom could one day become Diamonds and make it all back, but they would be taking money from others who are now at the bottom. This becomes a problem when you realize that the population of the Earth (or more accurately, the population who are able to even join Amway) is finite. Eventually, someone will be stuck at the bottom, unable to make their own way up the ladder.

Now as you can imagine, this wasn’t how it was presented to me. The real presentation was full of sugar-coating and sweet-talking. Add to that the extra ‘argument from authority’ given by David, who explained that he had gone over the whole business concept as a lawyer, concluding that it was both legal and moral, and I was sold. Looking back, I cringe that I accepted his conclusion simply because he was a lawyer, given that I can easily spot an argument from authority nowadays. Anyway, I was in like Flynn. I told them I wanted to join up. They were quite enthusiastic (and why wouldn’t they be? They just got another person who will make them all money). When they asked if I had anyone in mind that I could sponsor, I immediately thought of my parents. They suggest that when presenting it to them, I should avoid using the name ‘Amway’. When I asked why, they said it was because there had been some ‘negative press’ of the company a few years earlier and that my parents might remember it and reject ‘the business’ without listen to it. Being that I am openly honest with my parents about most things, I disregarded this advice and told them straight up. And being that I thought at the time that it was such a good concept, I couldn’t see why they would object to me being involved/not want to get involved themselves. Ah, to be young and naïve. When I told them, they were less than pleased that I was involved and didn’t want any part of it themselves. They didn’t, however, tell me that I should get involved; more that I should just not be disappointed if it doesn’t work out. In retrospect, I think this was the best move they could have taken, as I probably wouldn’t have listened and it would have made me more resistant to the later problems that I saw.

Despite the cautious advice from my parents, I joined up. Within a few months, I had already sponsored two people, one of whom had sponsored another. I figured it wasn’t long until I could sit back and watch as the money came pouring in. During this time, I came to develop a deeper understanding of what ‘the business’ actually entailed. My first real objection was when I discovered that it was a zero-sum business. So I came forward to David, being he was the lawyer and I thought the person who would be able to give me the most comprehensive answer. I asked him “if everyone in the world joined up, wouldn’t the people on the bottom just be essentially giving their money to the ones on top?”. After some crafty non-answers (“not everyone is going to join up” and “the people at the top worked (*cough*) to get there”), he eventually said “sure, but isn’t that how the world works at the moment? There are people on the bottom who do all the work and those on the top who get all the money”. At first, I had to agree with him, because that is how the world works. It was only later as I was driving home that I realized the absurdity of what he had said.

Firstly, and most simply, just because the world works like that doesn’t mean that everyone else does. I saw what he was saying as a virtual “I did it because my brother did it” type justification kids give when they misbehave. Secondly, while the world may indeed work like that, the difference is that in the real world, you can actually change your position. For example, a person from a less-than-well-off family could go to university, get a degree in business, start a company and make millions. Yes, this doesn’t happen often, but it can happen. The difference with Amway is that it can’t happen. You will always be in the position you are on the ‘chain’. Sure, you may get more people under you so you are actually making money, but they will be in the exact same position you were.

While this should have been more than enough to get me to rethink what I was involved with, I decided that, while I thought the concept was less perfect than I thought, I would continue for the moment. It was a few weeks later that the ‘last straw’ came up. You see, Amway is very into the whole ‘motivational’ angle. While I do definitely agree that having a positive attitude when approaching a task can make you more likely to success, all other things being equal, they take that concept and run a marathon with it. To them, having a positive attitude is the ONLY thing that is required to do well in ‘the business’. Now, I didn’t really have much of a problem with this (though I did have to fake a lot of outward emotions), but it was when they took that concept that was already over-stretched and decided to try to fly to the moon with it that I had a problem. I came over to Kate’s house one day for a group meeting as I often did and she told me that they had a video to show me. I asked what it was about and she said “it is the only video I needed to see to become a Diamond”. I was intrigued until a minute into the video when the title came up: ‘The Secret’.

Wait, what!?

For those of you who are unaware, The Secret is a new-age belief that the universe rewards positive thought. Want a car? Think positively about it and you will get a car. Wait, you didn’t get a car? Well, you didn’t think positively enough obviously. Not only is this worldview tantamount to victim-blaming (all those people in third-world countries just aren’t thinking positively enough), it is downright unfounded on anything in reality. The video contains a lot of people trying to make it sound scientific by using terms like ‘quantum mechanics’, ‘energy’ and other words that have meanings that are far removed from what these people believe they mean.

Now, I was already well-versed in what The Secret was and why it was intellectual onanism with no basis in reality. When I saw the title come up with ‘The Secret’, that was the final straw for me. I could almost describe it as having a veil lifted from my eyes. I finally saw Amway and ‘the business’ for what it really was: a scam. I left Kate’s that night knowing I would not longer be a part of such an organization. Unlike Russell, however, I chose not to take the ‘lone ranger’ approach and try to save people from Amway. I was and am convinced that, at some level, they know it is a scam, but justify it because of their own greed and poor comparisons like the one David made. I, instead, chose to just slip away. I stopped attending meetings, making excuses at first and eventually just not returning calls and messages.

And how did this affect my friendship with Luke? Well, at first I wanted to maintain the relationship we had. But as time went on and I was missing more and more meetings, he began to pester me into coming along. We could no longer hang out without him somehow bringing up ‘the business’ in conversation. It was all he seemed to care about. I also found that he was not the same person he was before he was involved with Amway. It was from this observation and retrospective analysis of others in ‘the business’ that I came to the conclusion that the organization is more or less a cult. Not only are members told not to associate with individuals who are negative of Amway, they lose the capacity to be critical of ‘the business’, even when the flaws are literally smacking them right in the face. I’m not saying that they are unintelligent people (and research shows that most people who get involved with cults are of normal intelligence), I am simply saying that our human urges to be social, to be accepted and to have as much money/items as we can for as little work as possible can be quite overpowering; enough to disable logical thought.

From viewing other blogs that have been critical of Amway, I am expecting at least some negative feedback from the ‘Amway drones’. Before you post saying how much money you are making in Amway/that I am a loser for not being able to make ‘the business’ work, please reread and try to absorb the message I have tried to convey. I never said that no one can make money in Amway, just that the money you make comes from those who are below you and eventually someone will be stuck at the bottom. In regards to my comments about Amway destroying relationships/that it fosters a cult mentality, take look at your friend network and whether it is predominated by other IBO's. Not everyone will see the same thing I did, but I know many out there feel the same as I do.

Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed my story/rant on my experience with Amway.

Lord Bishington.