Chapter 1 - How It All Began
1 A long, long time ago -- even just slightly *before* the beginning in fact -- was God. 2 And God was very powerful and He could do absolutely anything He wanted. 3 And God thought for a moment. 4 And then He decided to create everything. 5 So He did and that means that everything you see anywhere was created by God. 6 Get it?
Chapter 2 - Where is God Now?
1 God is so amazing that He can be everywhere at once. 2 Where ever you go God will be there with you, even if you're hiding somewhere in the dark. 3 God's also invisible: no one can see, hear, touch, taste or smell God. 4 If we actually could see, hear, touch, taste or smell Him we would probably be overcome by His immense power.
Chapter 3 - God's Plan
1 From just-slightly-before-the-beginning God had a plan for what He wanted to happen. 2 And God is still watching to make sure His plan is carried out. 3 Part of His plan is to give every human being freedom to do whatever he/she wants. 4 Are you ready to say "Thank you!" to Him?
Chapter 4 - God's Goodness
1 God is good. Seriously. I mean really, really, really good. 2 God is more good than the nicest, loveliest, cuddliest person you can possibly imagine. 3 God is so good that nothing good can happen anywhere without it being due to His goodness. 4 And that's really saying something.
Chapter 5 - The Apophatic Nature of Theodicy
1 Now some people try to blame all the really fucked up shit that happens on God too. 2 But we know that can't be right because of what we've already learnt. 3 So don't even go there.
Chapter 6 - God's Plan for Just After You Die
1 God's plan is for you to obey Him for the rest of your life. 2 And then to live with Him in heaven for eternity when you're dead. 3 Bargain! 4 Or you can choose to go to hell when you're dead instead if you want.
Chapter 7 - Science
1 Science means the things that people find out about God's creation (see Chapter 1). 2 A man once put a fake monkey skull into the ground because he hated God. 3 Then he told people that the monkey skull explained where humans come from. 4 Have you ever heard of humans coming from a fake monkey skull? 5 No! Me neither! We obviously come from God because everything comes from God! 6 Silly man.
Chapter 8 - Rock Music
1 Never, ever listen to rock music. 2 Most of the words are in German anyway, so there's really no point: Eine Gestalt lag auf dem Boden, so bösartig, dab die Blumen um sie herum verwelkten blah blah blah... 3 See what I mean? Trust me just stick to Mozart or Beethoven.
Chapter 9 - God's Trueness
1 Now look, I don't know why you're looking all skeptical like that clever clogs. 2 I've already explained everything to you: the answer is God. 3 Don't believe me? 4 Why the hell not? 5 Do you think you're smarter than Albert Einstein or something?
Chapter 10 - How to Sacrifice a Red Heifer
This chapter is intended as a bonus, quick reference guide, available should you ever have unintended physical contact with a corpse.
Step One: Procurement
Procure yourself one red cow - female.
Step Two: Virginity Testing
Now some of you may wish to delegate this step to a relevant veterinary professional, just to be safe. To be perfectly honest, I'm not certain about the details of this step myself. Another approach would be to inquire with the previous owner as to whether the animal was ever left visible but unattended with it's rump assessable from a public thoroughfare.
Step Three: The Slaughter
Cut through the trachea, oesophagus, carotid and jugular using a sharp knife. Pause while the animal dies with blood spurting from it's severed neck. Try to show some respect during this step obviously.
Step Four: Burn
Burn the dead cow. This step has scope for some spontaneity and creativity - think of what scented timbers you might include in the fire.
Step Five: Just Add Water
Add the ashes to a bowl of filtered spring water. Or the other way around - add the ashes first then the water. It doesn't matter which way you do it apparently.
Step Six: Purify Yourself!
This is the moment you've been building up to. So, woohoo! Sprinkle that purifying water on yourself! What the fuck were you doing with that corpse anyway?
Step Seven: A Six Week Course of Tetracycline
Always follow your medical practitioner's instructions carefully. Seriously.
2011-11-15
2011-09-27
Evilution
For many theists the title of this blog post, rather than being a typographical error, such as the often-tweeted "athiest", amounts to a fully fledged failure of comprehension or, as a philosopher might say, a category error. I once attended a creationist talk where the speaker, a chemistry PhD, opined from a church pulpit that he thought any evolutionist who maintained that the Holocaust was morally problematic was being inconsistent, because, he said, it obviously compels us to mercilessly crush the weak. Afterwards a lady from the church told me that she had recently come to the UK from Russia, where, under communism, acceptance of evolution had been common place. Presumably she thought she might sway my opinion about the validity of Darwin's theory by linking it to a form of totalitarian governance. It genuinely seems to be news to creationist Christians that evolution by natural selection is not a theory about morality, and certainly not a set of moral prescriptions compelling us to kill our fellow human beings.
The process of evolution is now significantly better understood than it was back in the nineteenth century when Darwin proposed his theory. The modern formulation sees natural selection as a force acting on genetic variation in a population of organisms. Selection acts most directly at the level of the gene. A gene controls a particular biochemical function in the organism, such as carrying out a chemical reaction, relaying a signal, or providing a structural protein. There will be multiple versions of at least some of these genes present in any natural population and geneticists call these different versions alleles. The alleles differ in the sequence of DNA base pairs they contain, leading to differences in the biochemical functions they provide. Some alleles may perform their role more efficiently, other less efficiently or not at all. Natural selection acts to make beneficial alleles more common in the population. When new alleles arise by mutation, they have a chance to increase in number if they provide some benefit compared to existing alleles. Most mutations will lead to a reduction in effectiveness of the gene's biochemical function, and selection will tend to drive these alleles to extinction.
Once we understand that natural selection acts on genetic variation in this way, what are the moral implications? Is evolution nature's way of ensuring that things progress from a lower to a higher state of being? Are more primitive organisms destined for the dustbin (trash can) of history? Are we morally obliged to help selection weed out bad alleles from our own species? Will our species degenerate if we prevent selection from taking its natural course?
Darwin once wrote a note to himself: "Never say higher or lower in referring to organisms". He appears not to have considered evolution to be inherently progressive, but rather a process adapting organisms to their current local environment. He studied worms and barnacles, so we might conclude that, if he thought these worthy of his attention, he did not consider them to be in some way inferior to his pigeons. More recently two prominent biologists, Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins, have disagreed about the degree to which evolution can be said to be progressive. Dawkins takes the view that, over time evolution does have a definite tendency to produce more and more complex organisms, whereas Gould's view is that most organisms have remained simple over the history of life in Earth, and complexity has arisen thought a form of neutral drift from a baseline of simple organisms. However, it is fair to say that neither would equate evolution with progress in any ethical sense, and certainly neither would say that evolution has any long term plan or purpose built in to it.
Selection is a kind of 'force' acting on genetic variations. There is an analogy with the fundamental forces of physics, such as electromagnetism and gravity. Once we understand that the law of gravity makes objects fall, we have useful new information to feed into ethical decisions, but we are not obliged to help the force by throwing ourselves off the nearest cliff. We might conclude that building an airship or helicopter is not 'unnatural' due to some mysterious law that humans must always remain on the ground, but rather see that, given appropriate technology, gravity an be overcome and safe forms of human flight can become possible. Our understanding of natural physical forces provides raw information for us to work with, not ethical precepts.
Evolution is essentially the same as this. It does not tell us what to value, but gives us enhanced understanding about the consequences of our actions. It can never give us a direct ethical precept, such as 'killing the weakest members of society is right', but can only tell us something new about the consequences of such an action. In this case, we (hopefully) already consider killing people to only be justifiable in very limited circumstances, such as extreme self defence or war. The information provided by evolutionary theory, that killing people with genetic defects will reduce the prevalence of certain alleles in the population, is unlikely the convince most people that the killing is justified. The same considerations apply to the idea of forcibly taking away someone's ability to have children by sterilising them.
http://www.thegeneticscenter.com/ashk_md.htm
http://rarediseases.about.com/od/geneticdisorders/a/doryeshorim.htm
A real world example of the use of information about a person's genetic defects comes from the Ashkenazi Jewish community in the US (disclaimer: I am relying on the information from the above two links. If you would like more detailed/accurate information please consult the primary sources yourself). This group has a higher prevalence of some genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, than the general population. Disease symptoms are present only if the child inherits the defective allele from both parents. Having only a single allele does not cause any symptoms and therefore neither parent will know they are a carrier unless the have a genetic test. For Orthodox Jews abortion is not permitted and therefore the only way to prevent the birth of children with one of the genetic disease is genetic testing of prospective partners before they get married. Orthodox marriages are arranged by the parents and a rabbi. Prospective marriage partners are tested to see if they are carriers for any of the genetic diseases found in people of Ashkenazi Jewish decent. The rabbi examines the results and does not permit the marriage to proceed if he sees that both partners are carriers for the same disease. Which partner is the carrier is kept secret to avoid stigmatisation.
In this case evolutionary theory tells us that this practise is probably slightly increasing the frequency of the defective alleles in the population. This is because, without testing, people have no way to tell if their partner is a carrier. The more common the disease allele becomes, the more couples will both be carriers and have a chance of bearing children suffering from the disease, and therefore unlikely to survive to adulthood. In this way selection begins to prevent the allele from becoming any more common in the population by killing those children who have unfortunately inherited two copies. With genetic testing, this selection effect is removed since people can avoid partnering with other carriers, and the allele does not experience negative selection. This is considered ethical because, even though we can deduce that selection would ordinarily act to prevent the disease allele from becoming more common, it does so only through the suffering and death of children, and we likely regard this as unacceptable as soon as it becomes preventable.
This example shows that, once we understand the biological origin of a phenomenon (in this case genetic disease), far from concluding that this now constitutes a moral imperative to treat the phenomenon as natural, desirable and right etc., it actually does the opposite. Disease is no longer God's judgement or a natural mechanism for removing the weak, but a simple genetic malfunction to be contained and, quite possibly, one day eliminated through unnatural but ethical means.
The process of evolution is now significantly better understood than it was back in the nineteenth century when Darwin proposed his theory. The modern formulation sees natural selection as a force acting on genetic variation in a population of organisms. Selection acts most directly at the level of the gene. A gene controls a particular biochemical function in the organism, such as carrying out a chemical reaction, relaying a signal, or providing a structural protein. There will be multiple versions of at least some of these genes present in any natural population and geneticists call these different versions alleles. The alleles differ in the sequence of DNA base pairs they contain, leading to differences in the biochemical functions they provide. Some alleles may perform their role more efficiently, other less efficiently or not at all. Natural selection acts to make beneficial alleles more common in the population. When new alleles arise by mutation, they have a chance to increase in number if they provide some benefit compared to existing alleles. Most mutations will lead to a reduction in effectiveness of the gene's biochemical function, and selection will tend to drive these alleles to extinction.
Once we understand that natural selection acts on genetic variation in this way, what are the moral implications? Is evolution nature's way of ensuring that things progress from a lower to a higher state of being? Are more primitive organisms destined for the dustbin (trash can) of history? Are we morally obliged to help selection weed out bad alleles from our own species? Will our species degenerate if we prevent selection from taking its natural course?
Darwin once wrote a note to himself: "Never say higher or lower in referring to organisms". He appears not to have considered evolution to be inherently progressive, but rather a process adapting organisms to their current local environment. He studied worms and barnacles, so we might conclude that, if he thought these worthy of his attention, he did not consider them to be in some way inferior to his pigeons. More recently two prominent biologists, Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins, have disagreed about the degree to which evolution can be said to be progressive. Dawkins takes the view that, over time evolution does have a definite tendency to produce more and more complex organisms, whereas Gould's view is that most organisms have remained simple over the history of life in Earth, and complexity has arisen thought a form of neutral drift from a baseline of simple organisms. However, it is fair to say that neither would equate evolution with progress in any ethical sense, and certainly neither would say that evolution has any long term plan or purpose built in to it.
Selection is a kind of 'force' acting on genetic variations. There is an analogy with the fundamental forces of physics, such as electromagnetism and gravity. Once we understand that the law of gravity makes objects fall, we have useful new information to feed into ethical decisions, but we are not obliged to help the force by throwing ourselves off the nearest cliff. We might conclude that building an airship or helicopter is not 'unnatural' due to some mysterious law that humans must always remain on the ground, but rather see that, given appropriate technology, gravity an be overcome and safe forms of human flight can become possible. Our understanding of natural physical forces provides raw information for us to work with, not ethical precepts.
Evolution is essentially the same as this. It does not tell us what to value, but gives us enhanced understanding about the consequences of our actions. It can never give us a direct ethical precept, such as 'killing the weakest members of society is right', but can only tell us something new about the consequences of such an action. In this case, we (hopefully) already consider killing people to only be justifiable in very limited circumstances, such as extreme self defence or war. The information provided by evolutionary theory, that killing people with genetic defects will reduce the prevalence of certain alleles in the population, is unlikely the convince most people that the killing is justified. The same considerations apply to the idea of forcibly taking away someone's ability to have children by sterilising them.
http://www.thegeneticscenter.com/ashk_md.htm
http://rarediseases.about.com/od/geneticdisorders/a/doryeshorim.htm
A real world example of the use of information about a person's genetic defects comes from the Ashkenazi Jewish community in the US (disclaimer: I am relying on the information from the above two links. If you would like more detailed/accurate information please consult the primary sources yourself). This group has a higher prevalence of some genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, than the general population. Disease symptoms are present only if the child inherits the defective allele from both parents. Having only a single allele does not cause any symptoms and therefore neither parent will know they are a carrier unless the have a genetic test. For Orthodox Jews abortion is not permitted and therefore the only way to prevent the birth of children with one of the genetic disease is genetic testing of prospective partners before they get married. Orthodox marriages are arranged by the parents and a rabbi. Prospective marriage partners are tested to see if they are carriers for any of the genetic diseases found in people of Ashkenazi Jewish decent. The rabbi examines the results and does not permit the marriage to proceed if he sees that both partners are carriers for the same disease. Which partner is the carrier is kept secret to avoid stigmatisation.
In this case evolutionary theory tells us that this practise is probably slightly increasing the frequency of the defective alleles in the population. This is because, without testing, people have no way to tell if their partner is a carrier. The more common the disease allele becomes, the more couples will both be carriers and have a chance of bearing children suffering from the disease, and therefore unlikely to survive to adulthood. In this way selection begins to prevent the allele from becoming any more common in the population by killing those children who have unfortunately inherited two copies. With genetic testing, this selection effect is removed since people can avoid partnering with other carriers, and the allele does not experience negative selection. This is considered ethical because, even though we can deduce that selection would ordinarily act to prevent the disease allele from becoming more common, it does so only through the suffering and death of children, and we likely regard this as unacceptable as soon as it becomes preventable.
This example shows that, once we understand the biological origin of a phenomenon (in this case genetic disease), far from concluding that this now constitutes a moral imperative to treat the phenomenon as natural, desirable and right etc., it actually does the opposite. Disease is no longer God's judgement or a natural mechanism for removing the weak, but a simple genetic malfunction to be contained and, quite possibly, one day eliminated through unnatural but ethical means.
2011-07-09
Theory versus Doctrine
A recent exchange with a Catholic anti-abortion advocate on twitter brought up the subject of scientific theories versus religious doctrines. The contention of the other party was that science can be mistaken, take decades to discover its mistakes, and in the meantime never-the-less be popular (and, presumably, prochoice). My position is that science forms the most reliable body of understanding about the world available to us, and that it justifiably has a privileged position in public discourse between people with differing world views, since theories, in order to qualify as scientific, must be supported by objective evidence and be subjected to systematic attempts to falsify them. Theories must never be held dogmatically, but must always be modified if the balance of evidence genuinely changes. Evidence cannot be subjective, such as one person's interpretation of a special experience they have had. No theory is true by default, rather the default position is doubt. Never-the-less, so much progress has been made using the scientific method that a large, interlocking and self-consistent body of understanding now exists that can be treated as reliable for all practical purposes, and is likely to remain essentially unaltered into the foreseeable future.
Religious doctrines are not of the same nature at all. Whilst claiming to be truthful descriptions of reality, they are generally of such a nature as to be beyond any kind of verification and tend to be based on hearsay found in certain ancient documents or issuing from certain figures within religious organizations. Religious doctrines often make claims that would be regarded as unreasonable, irrational, paranoid or delusional were they not presented with the context of a system of thought privileged for purely historical or demographic reasons. Let's take a look into one chapter in the history of Christian 'thought'.
The Christians of Medieval Europe tortured and murdered to achieve several ends. One of these was the supposed discovery and elimination of 'witches', people who were believed to have magical powers, such as being able to summon storms, change into animals or smite their good Christian neighbors with illness or misfortune. Those who have looked into the evidence from the period have found little to support the idea that any such cults really existed, but thousands of women were made to confess under torture. Bible verses can easily be found in both the old and new testaments to support the killing of the unorthodox, verses which are considered to this day to be god-inspired by the faithful.
A simple question may be posed: how long did it take the Christian churches and states to realize there is no such thing as a witch? The answer seems to be: round about 300 years. 300 years of mayhem finally yielded the realization that someone will admit to absolutely any charge to stop torture.
It was interesting to hear the response of the Catholic tweeter to this same question: "3-500 years ago". So in essence the response was not "Yes it took far too long to stop that nonsense" but rather "That is in the distant past and irrelevant". This was of course followed by the robotic "But atheists are killing religious people today". Never mind that the inquisition era as a whole lasted from 1184 until 1834-50, longer than the subsequent non-theocratic period.
Fortunately for every westerner, the Enlightenment eventually raised the collective consciousness of the Christian west, by the discovery of the scientific method and the triumph of reason over ignorance and dogma. By 1816 even the Pope decided torture was getting a bit old fashioned. Meanwhile, the Catholic church still teaches the doctrine of eternal hell fire:
Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather... all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM
How trivial must a few minutes or hours of physical torture have seemed, and must still seem to the faithful, as the price for trying to save someone from eternal separation from god?
In response to the notion that a theory can be popular before it is proved "wrong":
(i) if it's a genuine scientific theory, then at least it *can* be proven wrong at some future time, unlike religious doctrines such as creationism
(ii) theories are more often modified than outright rejected: Newtonian gravity is good enough to guide a space-probe to remote parts of the solar system, even though general relativity is now universally considered a better theory, and even this is not compatible with quantum mechanics and hence likely to need further modification
(iii) a new theory, like string theory, is not accepted as true unless sufficient evidence can be found for it, until then it's just an hypothesis
Science will continue to improve our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. As our understanding improves, so our capacity to make well informed moral choices will also improve. Science is not a blue print for morality, but is a foundation and common ground upon which rational discussions can be based between disagreeing parties. Science obviously trumps religious doctrine in any situation where someone is seeking to have their metaphysical speculations imposed upon the lives of others. Keep your doctrines to yourself. Some of them are likely to be wrong.
source: Sam Harris, The End of Faith
Religious doctrines are not of the same nature at all. Whilst claiming to be truthful descriptions of reality, they are generally of such a nature as to be beyond any kind of verification and tend to be based on hearsay found in certain ancient documents or issuing from certain figures within religious organizations. Religious doctrines often make claims that would be regarded as unreasonable, irrational, paranoid or delusional were they not presented with the context of a system of thought privileged for purely historical or demographic reasons. Let's take a look into one chapter in the history of Christian 'thought'.
The Christians of Medieval Europe tortured and murdered to achieve several ends. One of these was the supposed discovery and elimination of 'witches', people who were believed to have magical powers, such as being able to summon storms, change into animals or smite their good Christian neighbors with illness or misfortune. Those who have looked into the evidence from the period have found little to support the idea that any such cults really existed, but thousands of women were made to confess under torture. Bible verses can easily be found in both the old and new testaments to support the killing of the unorthodox, verses which are considered to this day to be god-inspired by the faithful.
A simple question may be posed: how long did it take the Christian churches and states to realize there is no such thing as a witch? The answer seems to be: round about 300 years. 300 years of mayhem finally yielded the realization that someone will admit to absolutely any charge to stop torture.
It was interesting to hear the response of the Catholic tweeter to this same question: "3-500 years ago". So in essence the response was not "Yes it took far too long to stop that nonsense" but rather "That is in the distant past and irrelevant". This was of course followed by the robotic "But atheists are killing religious people today". Never mind that the inquisition era as a whole lasted from 1184 until 1834-50, longer than the subsequent non-theocratic period.
Fortunately for every westerner, the Enlightenment eventually raised the collective consciousness of the Christian west, by the discovery of the scientific method and the triumph of reason over ignorance and dogma. By 1816 even the Pope decided torture was getting a bit old fashioned. Meanwhile, the Catholic church still teaches the doctrine of eternal hell fire:
Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather... all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM
How trivial must a few minutes or hours of physical torture have seemed, and must still seem to the faithful, as the price for trying to save someone from eternal separation from god?
In response to the notion that a theory can be popular before it is proved "wrong":
(i) if it's a genuine scientific theory, then at least it *can* be proven wrong at some future time, unlike religious doctrines such as creationism
(ii) theories are more often modified than outright rejected: Newtonian gravity is good enough to guide a space-probe to remote parts of the solar system, even though general relativity is now universally considered a better theory, and even this is not compatible with quantum mechanics and hence likely to need further modification
(iii) a new theory, like string theory, is not accepted as true unless sufficient evidence can be found for it, until then it's just an hypothesis
Science will continue to improve our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. As our understanding improves, so our capacity to make well informed moral choices will also improve. Science is not a blue print for morality, but is a foundation and common ground upon which rational discussions can be based between disagreeing parties. Science obviously trumps religious doctrine in any situation where someone is seeking to have their metaphysical speculations imposed upon the lives of others. Keep your doctrines to yourself. Some of them are likely to be wrong.
source: Sam Harris, The End of Faith
What is skepticism?
Firstly, some dictionary definitions. There is a common misconception that skepticism and cynicism are the same thing. To further complicate matters, both words have distinct ancient and modern meanings. Ancient Skepticism, was a school of philosophy which doubted whether real knowledge of things is possible, whereas Cynicism was an ancient philosophy which scorned worldly things and held self-control to be the only good. The present day meaning of skepticism is to doubt or mistrust ideas, religious beliefs or people etc., whereas the modern meaning of cynicism is to believe the worst about people, ideas etc. The key difference being that skeptical doubting can be a process of conscious evaluation leading to a positive or negative conclusion, or to continued uncertainty, whereas cynicism seems to imply drawing a negative conclusion by default.
Modern skepticism has moved on from the ancient form. If you still doubt whether real knowledge of the world is possible, you now probably qualify as a 'postmodernist', whereas a modern skeptic is likely to accept scientific knowledge as more or less dependable. This can lead a modern skeptic to question someone who goes against the scientific consensus, such as an advocate of alternative medicine. In this case the skeptic rejects a new idea because it appears to contradict something they already know. No well informed skeptic would help fund an expedition to search for undiscovered mountain ranges, because they would be confident that the entire surface of the Earth has already been explored, mapped and imaged from space by satellite.
Consider skepticism's opposite: credulity. A credulous person is someone who believes whatever they are told without stopping to think first. Taken to its extreme, this implies a person who believes everything they hear, resulting either in a mind full of contradictions, or someone who forgets whatever they previously believed in order to follow the latest craze. This latter may sound familiar to some readers as the kind of scare story told by Christian parents to their children to try to stop them abandoning their faith: stand for something (Christian faith) or you'll fall for anything. To which my response would be: don't build your life on an unsound foundation (faith). Better to start rebuilding from scratch on solid rock than to continue working on your existing house built on the sand. There may be a storm coming.
In conclusion, skepticism is not a cynical view of the world, but rather a method by which a reliable world-view can be attained. Skepticism implies self-consistency, and a view based only on trustworthy ideas. Where evidence is lacking it is often better to remain equivocal than to cultivate a false certainty.
Modern skepticism has moved on from the ancient form. If you still doubt whether real knowledge of the world is possible, you now probably qualify as a 'postmodernist', whereas a modern skeptic is likely to accept scientific knowledge as more or less dependable. This can lead a modern skeptic to question someone who goes against the scientific consensus, such as an advocate of alternative medicine. In this case the skeptic rejects a new idea because it appears to contradict something they already know. No well informed skeptic would help fund an expedition to search for undiscovered mountain ranges, because they would be confident that the entire surface of the Earth has already been explored, mapped and imaged from space by satellite.
Consider skepticism's opposite: credulity. A credulous person is someone who believes whatever they are told without stopping to think first. Taken to its extreme, this implies a person who believes everything they hear, resulting either in a mind full of contradictions, or someone who forgets whatever they previously believed in order to follow the latest craze. This latter may sound familiar to some readers as the kind of scare story told by Christian parents to their children to try to stop them abandoning their faith: stand for something (Christian faith) or you'll fall for anything. To which my response would be: don't build your life on an unsound foundation (faith). Better to start rebuilding from scratch on solid rock than to continue working on your existing house built on the sand. There may be a storm coming.
In conclusion, skepticism is not a cynical view of the world, but rather a method by which a reliable world-view can be attained. Skepticism implies self-consistency, and a view based only on trustworthy ideas. Where evidence is lacking it is often better to remain equivocal than to cultivate a false certainty.
2011-06-26
The Great Agnostic - Robert G. Ingersoll
Two quotes from Robert Ingersoll about hell:
"I have seen upon the field of battle a boy sixteen years of age struck by a fragment of a shell; I have seen him fall; I have seen him die with a curse upon his lips and the face of his mother in his heart. Tell me that his soul will be hurled from the field of battle where he lost his life that his country might live -- where he lost his life for the liberties of man -- tell me that he will be hurled from that field to eternal torment! I pronounce it an infamous lie."
"I will live by the standard of reason, and if thinking in accordance with reason takes me to perdition, then I will go to hell with my reason rather than to heaven without it."
"I have seen upon the field of battle a boy sixteen years of age struck by a fragment of a shell; I have seen him fall; I have seen him die with a curse upon his lips and the face of his mother in his heart. Tell me that his soul will be hurled from the field of battle where he lost his life that his country might live -- where he lost his life for the liberties of man -- tell me that he will be hurled from that field to eternal torment! I pronounce it an infamous lie."
"I will live by the standard of reason, and if thinking in accordance with reason takes me to perdition, then I will go to hell with my reason rather than to heaven without it."
2011-06-15
The Cosmological Argument
http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-leaflet-do-we-have-good-reasons-to.html
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/LeafletDoWeHaveGoodReasonsToBelieve.pdf
I just finished reading the above leaflet. The link was kindly provided by a fellow tweeter I met online recently during the exchanges that grew out of the World Atheist Convention (twitter tag #wac11) in Dublin. The following is my response to the first section of the leaflet, which uses a form of the cosmological argument to argue for the existence of a god.
First I'll summarize the part of the leaflet I am going to respond to, numbering according to the leaflet's paragraphs:
Summary
Paragraph [1] argues that the universe must have begun to exist at some point in time, otherwise there would be an infinite causal regress. Paragraph [2] says that the Big Bang theory supports this view, but that science cannot explain what happened prior to 1x10^-34 seconds after the Big Bang. [3] "(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause (2) The universe began to exist - Therefore the universe had a cause". [4] the cause of the universe must be very powerful and [5] Occam's razor allows us to conclude there was a single cause, otherwise we create more questions than we answer. [6] we need to avoid an infinite chain of causation, otherwise the universe would take infinitely long to come into being. [7] the universe cannot be its own cause or create itself out of nothing. [8] the cause had to be immaterial, since any material cause requires a prior material cause. [9] we are lead to the traditional, single, eternal, immaterial god of monotheism.
Clarifications
[2] refers to the Planck epoch of Big Bang theory, the first approximately 1x10^-43 seconds of time. The leaflet incorrectly states this time to be 1x10^-34 seconds i.e. overstates the duration by a factor of one billion. Although this error is obviously of no consequence for the argument, if we're going to include modern physics, we may as well get the numbers right.
[3] is the Kalam version of the cosmological argument presented as a syllogism consisting of two premises and a conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Argument
Response
The leaflet essentially stands or falls on the cosmological argument. This argument has been raging for several thousand years, going all the way back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Rather than copy and paste the wikipedia page, I'm going to present my response as an atheist Westerner trained in science (but not physics or cosmology). I'll label my points with letters.
[A] Why is atheism more prevalent among scientists than the general population? If a simple syllogism like [3] can essentially prove the existence of a god, why are fewer scientists theists than the populations they come from? This suggests that an understanding about the material, 'causal' nature of the universe actually weakens belief in a god.
[B] How can one of the simplest forms of logical deduction (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism) combined with everyday notions about causality answer the most profound questions about reality? Why are the philosophers still arguing about this after more than 2000 years, if the syllogism is convincing?
[C] Why do you rely on physics to describe the universe after the Planck epoch, but disregard the physicists assertion that it is meaningless to talk of a time 'before' the beginning of the universe? Time and space are said, by current theory, to have come into existence with the Big Bang. Our notions of causation are derived from our observations of events within the universe, i.e. within the laws of physics. We have no observations relating to anything outside of the universe. And yet the syllogism is applied as if causation can transcend the framework within which we define and understand causation. Can causation exist without or before time? What would that even mean?
[D] Do we even properly understand causation in an ordinary, everyday context? The famous Schroedinger's cat paradox (or 'thought experiment') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat was originally proposed to show the apparent absurdity of quantum theory (read the wikipedia article if you're not familiar with it). We can probably 'disprove' the paradox with a syllogism, using something like: (1) nothing that exists can be both alive and dead at the same time (2) Nermal the Kitten exists (3) therefore Nermal cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. But Schroedinger's cat was not the death knell of quantum mechanics, or even of the Copenhagen interpretation of it that Schroedinger was addressing. The thought experiment rather serves to highlight something at the heart of physics which remains unresolved.
I personally like the cosmological argument for a similar reason. It highlights the limitations of our everyday intuitions about the universe and reminds us that at the heart of reality lie great, unsolved mysteries. Now stop thinking in syllogisms and let's do some experiments!
Light Entertainment Section
(1) causation currently has no meaning except within the context of space-time (2) the origin of space-time did not occur within the context of space-time (3) therefore causation cannot explain the origin of space-time
(1) syllogisms are not powerful enough to prove the existence of any god (2) the Kalam argument is a syllogism (3) therefore the Kalam argument is not powerful enough to prove the existence of any god
(1) born-again Christians are all [insert proposition here] (2) David Lane Craig is a born-again Christian (3) therefore David Lane Craig is a [insert conclusion here]
(1) not everybody knows how to make up syllogisms properly (2) I do not know how to make up syllogisms properly (3) therefore I am not everybody
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/LeafletDoWeHaveGoodReasonsToBelieve.pdf
I just finished reading the above leaflet. The link was kindly provided by a fellow tweeter I met online recently during the exchanges that grew out of the World Atheist Convention (twitter tag #wac11) in Dublin. The following is my response to the first section of the leaflet, which uses a form of the cosmological argument to argue for the existence of a god.
First I'll summarize the part of the leaflet I am going to respond to, numbering according to the leaflet's paragraphs:
Summary
Paragraph [1] argues that the universe must have begun to exist at some point in time, otherwise there would be an infinite causal regress. Paragraph [2] says that the Big Bang theory supports this view, but that science cannot explain what happened prior to 1x10^-34 seconds after the Big Bang. [3] "(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause (2) The universe began to exist - Therefore the universe had a cause". [4] the cause of the universe must be very powerful and [5] Occam's razor allows us to conclude there was a single cause, otherwise we create more questions than we answer. [6] we need to avoid an infinite chain of causation, otherwise the universe would take infinitely long to come into being. [7] the universe cannot be its own cause or create itself out of nothing. [8] the cause had to be immaterial, since any material cause requires a prior material cause. [9] we are lead to the traditional, single, eternal, immaterial god of monotheism.
Clarifications
[2] refers to the Planck epoch of Big Bang theory, the first approximately 1x10^-43 seconds of time. The leaflet incorrectly states this time to be 1x10^-34 seconds i.e. overstates the duration by a factor of one billion. Although this error is obviously of no consequence for the argument, if we're going to include modern physics, we may as well get the numbers right.
[3] is the Kalam version of the cosmological argument presented as a syllogism consisting of two premises and a conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Argument
Response
The leaflet essentially stands or falls on the cosmological argument. This argument has been raging for several thousand years, going all the way back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Rather than copy and paste the wikipedia page, I'm going to present my response as an atheist Westerner trained in science (but not physics or cosmology). I'll label my points with letters.
[A] Why is atheism more prevalent among scientists than the general population? If a simple syllogism like [3] can essentially prove the existence of a god, why are fewer scientists theists than the populations they come from? This suggests that an understanding about the material, 'causal' nature of the universe actually weakens belief in a god.
[B] How can one of the simplest forms of logical deduction (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism) combined with everyday notions about causality answer the most profound questions about reality? Why are the philosophers still arguing about this after more than 2000 years, if the syllogism is convincing?
[C] Why do you rely on physics to describe the universe after the Planck epoch, but disregard the physicists assertion that it is meaningless to talk of a time 'before' the beginning of the universe? Time and space are said, by current theory, to have come into existence with the Big Bang. Our notions of causation are derived from our observations of events within the universe, i.e. within the laws of physics. We have no observations relating to anything outside of the universe. And yet the syllogism is applied as if causation can transcend the framework within which we define and understand causation. Can causation exist without or before time? What would that even mean?
[D] Do we even properly understand causation in an ordinary, everyday context? The famous Schroedinger's cat paradox (or 'thought experiment') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat was originally proposed to show the apparent absurdity of quantum theory (read the wikipedia article if you're not familiar with it). We can probably 'disprove' the paradox with a syllogism, using something like: (1) nothing that exists can be both alive and dead at the same time (2) Nermal the Kitten exists (3) therefore Nermal cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. But Schroedinger's cat was not the death knell of quantum mechanics, or even of the Copenhagen interpretation of it that Schroedinger was addressing. The thought experiment rather serves to highlight something at the heart of physics which remains unresolved.
I personally like the cosmological argument for a similar reason. It highlights the limitations of our everyday intuitions about the universe and reminds us that at the heart of reality lie great, unsolved mysteries. Now stop thinking in syllogisms and let's do some experiments!
Light Entertainment Section
(1) causation currently has no meaning except within the context of space-time (2) the origin of space-time did not occur within the context of space-time (3) therefore causation cannot explain the origin of space-time
(1) syllogisms are not powerful enough to prove the existence of any god (2) the Kalam argument is a syllogism (3) therefore the Kalam argument is not powerful enough to prove the existence of any god
(1) born-again Christians are all [insert proposition here] (2) David Lane Craig is a born-again Christian (3) therefore David Lane Craig is a [insert conclusion here]
(1) not everybody knows how to make up syllogisms properly (2) I do not know how to make up syllogisms properly (3) therefore I am not everybody
2011-05-23
Atheism is not a religion
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. As such it is not even a belief system or world view, but defines something the person is not. An atheist is not a theist, polytheist, deist or pantheist (although deism is a rather reduced form of theism and pantheism pretty close to atheism).
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism can, however, be the result of the beliefs or world view the person holds. Here "believe" simply means "consider true", and has nothing whatever to do with religious faith. If someone has a well thought-out, self-consistent world view, it should come as no surprise if her lack of belief in god turns out to be based on a deeper, positive belief, and this is very often the belief in the importance of evidence and reason. A skeptic -- that is, someone who apportions their beliefs based on the balance of available evidence -- may well consider that, whereas science provides sufficient evidence for believing in all kinds of imperceptible things such as the big bang, Darwinian evolution, electrons etc., they do not see sufficient evidence to believe in any kind of god. Skepticism therefore often, though certainly not always, forms the basis for a person's atheism. We also often find other beliefs in tandem with godlessness, such as humanism, materialism, metaphysical naturalism and more.
Humanism is the driving force behind moral choices for many atheists. Having rejected or never entertained belief in any god, divine command is obviously not going to be the basis for morality in any (self-consistent) atheist's life. Theists may concur, but state that there is no valid alternative basis for morality aside from god. In my opinion this is simply a failure or refusal to consider a world-view other than their own. If you are going to define morality as coming from god, then obviously this is a definition which looses its meaning outside of theism. Very little good can come from a non-existent entity. No atheist is going to accept the argument that god is the only possible ontological basis for morality and therefore we should believe in god to lead a moral life. This is not an argument for the existence of god, but rather an opinion about a putative benefit of god's existence. With god absent from the scene most (psychologically normal) people would consider human well-being and the continued flourishing of human civilization to be the most important things in existence and the highest good, and this leads to some kind of humanism as the basis for their morality. Utilitarianism and consequentialism are two related categories of moral thought which do not entail any kind of theism.
Atheists are often materialists and metaphysical naturalists, meaning that they do not believe in any kind of spirit world or supernatural forces, and consider the operation of non-teleological physical laws (that is, laws which, unlike a person or god, do not fundamentally operate with any foresight or purpose) acting upon matter to be enough to explain all phenomena. Buddhists are an interesting exception to this generalization, since their religion is more-or-less devoid of anything like a god and could therefore be called atheists. Buddha is understood by most Buddhists to have been a human being whose mind attained an exalted state called enlightenment. The Buddhist world view is essentially dualistic, whereby the mind is considered to be something quite different from ordinary matter, although closely bound to it during life, which can leave the body when it dies, and latter be reborn into another body. For some Buddhists the material world is something like an illusion resulting from previous karma. This is in marked contrast to a materialist who believes that the mind is the result of the complex, but purely physical processes occurring in the brain, and of the interactions between the brain and the external world again via purely physical processes.
It's certainly possible to be an atheist and believe that life is, in every sense, worth living and fulfilling -- apparently this may come as a surprise to some people. Let's take one source of confusion on this topic: atheists are not compelled to believe they are automaton droids. An atheist who is also a materialist and a metaphysical naturalist will not believe in the kind of contra-causal free will that some theists believe is god-given and the reason human beings are morally accountable for their actions. A commonly heard confusion from theists is that, because materialists believe human actions result purely from the laws of physics acting in the brain they, the materialists, cannot explain free will. Choices, so the confusion goes, could only be the result of the laws of physics and there's no way for 'you' to alter them. Your choices are either predetermined by the state of your brain before you made your choice, or else are the result of random processes, and equally not your own. Therefore you are not capable of making an real choices, and should conclude (apparently reasoning is not impaired by the non-interruption of causation) that murderers are not responsible for their crimes etc. God-given free will supposedly solve this conundrum by allowing the 'real you' to make a choice at some crucial moment in time which is not determined by the action of physics on the brain, and for which god can hold you to account. God, or some other unspecified mechanism, intervenes to allow 'you' to make the choice free from the normal laws of causation. This is called contra-causal free will.
It is obvious that the idea of human beings as mindless automatons is objectionable, and goes against our personal experience of what it is like to make a free choice. What is less obvious is why those special moments of escape from normal cause and effect are an explanation. How can a contra-causal choice be anymore down to you than a plain old physically determined one? Of course if you believe the 'real you' is an immaterial soul inhabiting your body, then yes, free will can be contra-causal, as can presumably anything else such as prayer, spoon bending, the resurrection of the dead or homeopathic radiation sickness medicine. But I digress. Within the materialist world-view, contra-causal free will is more or less ruled out by definition. Events can still happen without any immediate physical cause (radioactive decay is a well known example) but they can't allow the 'real you' to assert itself, because they are essentially random. The solution is simply to accept that there is no single moment in time or location in the brain where 'you' have to fight against causation. A person's choice is the result of the physical state of his brain at the time, including probably some random and some non-random processes. This is actually very good news, because the 'real you' then becomes the sum total of all the things which have influenced your brain (and mind) during your life up to that point, from the immediate physical surroundings, to your short and long term memories of all kinds, to the physical state of your body, (including your genes), your current thought processes and your world-view. All that is the real, non-miraculous but ontologically valid, material and materialist you.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism can, however, be the result of the beliefs or world view the person holds. Here "believe" simply means "consider true", and has nothing whatever to do with religious faith. If someone has a well thought-out, self-consistent world view, it should come as no surprise if her lack of belief in god turns out to be based on a deeper, positive belief, and this is very often the belief in the importance of evidence and reason. A skeptic -- that is, someone who apportions their beliefs based on the balance of available evidence -- may well consider that, whereas science provides sufficient evidence for believing in all kinds of imperceptible things such as the big bang, Darwinian evolution, electrons etc., they do not see sufficient evidence to believe in any kind of god. Skepticism therefore often, though certainly not always, forms the basis for a person's atheism. We also often find other beliefs in tandem with godlessness, such as humanism, materialism, metaphysical naturalism and more.
Humanism is the driving force behind moral choices for many atheists. Having rejected or never entertained belief in any god, divine command is obviously not going to be the basis for morality in any (self-consistent) atheist's life. Theists may concur, but state that there is no valid alternative basis for morality aside from god. In my opinion this is simply a failure or refusal to consider a world-view other than their own. If you are going to define morality as coming from god, then obviously this is a definition which looses its meaning outside of theism. Very little good can come from a non-existent entity. No atheist is going to accept the argument that god is the only possible ontological basis for morality and therefore we should believe in god to lead a moral life. This is not an argument for the existence of god, but rather an opinion about a putative benefit of god's existence. With god absent from the scene most (psychologically normal) people would consider human well-being and the continued flourishing of human civilization to be the most important things in existence and the highest good, and this leads to some kind of humanism as the basis for their morality. Utilitarianism and consequentialism are two related categories of moral thought which do not entail any kind of theism.
Atheists are often materialists and metaphysical naturalists, meaning that they do not believe in any kind of spirit world or supernatural forces, and consider the operation of non-teleological physical laws (that is, laws which, unlike a person or god, do not fundamentally operate with any foresight or purpose) acting upon matter to be enough to explain all phenomena. Buddhists are an interesting exception to this generalization, since their religion is more-or-less devoid of anything like a god and could therefore be called atheists. Buddha is understood by most Buddhists to have been a human being whose mind attained an exalted state called enlightenment. The Buddhist world view is essentially dualistic, whereby the mind is considered to be something quite different from ordinary matter, although closely bound to it during life, which can leave the body when it dies, and latter be reborn into another body. For some Buddhists the material world is something like an illusion resulting from previous karma. This is in marked contrast to a materialist who believes that the mind is the result of the complex, but purely physical processes occurring in the brain, and of the interactions between the brain and the external world again via purely physical processes.
It's certainly possible to be an atheist and believe that life is, in every sense, worth living and fulfilling -- apparently this may come as a surprise to some people. Let's take one source of confusion on this topic: atheists are not compelled to believe they are automaton droids. An atheist who is also a materialist and a metaphysical naturalist will not believe in the kind of contra-causal free will that some theists believe is god-given and the reason human beings are morally accountable for their actions. A commonly heard confusion from theists is that, because materialists believe human actions result purely from the laws of physics acting in the brain they, the materialists, cannot explain free will. Choices, so the confusion goes, could only be the result of the laws of physics and there's no way for 'you' to alter them. Your choices are either predetermined by the state of your brain before you made your choice, or else are the result of random processes, and equally not your own. Therefore you are not capable of making an real choices, and should conclude (apparently reasoning is not impaired by the non-interruption of causation) that murderers are not responsible for their crimes etc. God-given free will supposedly solve this conundrum by allowing the 'real you' to make a choice at some crucial moment in time which is not determined by the action of physics on the brain, and for which god can hold you to account. God, or some other unspecified mechanism, intervenes to allow 'you' to make the choice free from the normal laws of causation. This is called contra-causal free will.
It is obvious that the idea of human beings as mindless automatons is objectionable, and goes against our personal experience of what it is like to make a free choice. What is less obvious is why those special moments of escape from normal cause and effect are an explanation. How can a contra-causal choice be anymore down to you than a plain old physically determined one? Of course if you believe the 'real you' is an immaterial soul inhabiting your body, then yes, free will can be contra-causal, as can presumably anything else such as prayer, spoon bending, the resurrection of the dead or homeopathic radiation sickness medicine. But I digress. Within the materialist world-view, contra-causal free will is more or less ruled out by definition. Events can still happen without any immediate physical cause (radioactive decay is a well known example) but they can't allow the 'real you' to assert itself, because they are essentially random. The solution is simply to accept that there is no single moment in time or location in the brain where 'you' have to fight against causation. A person's choice is the result of the physical state of his brain at the time, including probably some random and some non-random processes. This is actually very good news, because the 'real you' then becomes the sum total of all the things which have influenced your brain (and mind) during your life up to that point, from the immediate physical surroundings, to your short and long term memories of all kinds, to the physical state of your body, (including your genes), your current thought processes and your world-view. All that is the real, non-miraculous but ontologically valid, material and materialist you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)