Ramblings

Moonlight Flit

2011-12-22T11:18:00.003Z

This blog has moved: http://ronmurp.net/

Writing, from Thinking

2011-02-20T10:53:00.001Z

The thought provoking Lesley has provoked some thoughts, which, in line with her post, has given me the urge to write them down.

I'd agree with the sentiment of spiritedcrone's comment - that writing is prayer; though from an atheist perspective I'd say writing and meditation, or simply productive exploratory thought, are part of the same process, and writing is the foundation of all productive thought, including philosophy, maths, science, poetry, prose, fiction. If we are flexible enough with the medium then any of the visual, audio, tactile arts fall into the same pattern.

The point being that to write (or paint...) is simply a means of recording and organising one's thoughts for a productive purpose. Even if that's in a personal journal that no one else ever sees - and in this respect a blog is a brilliant medium for sharing some of our thoughts, whether we offer them up as words of wisdom, or as appeals for interaction. We are our own librarians.

I'm often struck by how often I have thoughts I wish I could record, but don't have the means. Driving and listening to a radio broadcast and knowing that some of my ideas will be gone by the time I can record them. I often walk listening to podcasts, and for repeated ones I know that on a previous hearing I had a thought about some point but can't recall it. Despite this frustration, so far, I've resisted carrying a separate voice recorder, to record my thoughts, because I'd have to spend further hours transcribing them. I'm waiting for the thought-transcription gizmo - maybe an app on the iPhone version 20.0. Or a separate device - the iThink?

I feel that without writing, my life would be an endless stream of fleeting events and ephemeral thoughts that would rarely lead to anything. I want to feel in control of my thoughts, and writing gives me this control. And this from someone who thinks there is no free-will - at least not as many of us normally think of it. I want (ok - this organism has a biological urge) to learn something from the electrical impulses that flit through my brain. The biological mush between my ears doesn't have the appropriate fidelity when it comes to recording ideas. We need other tools.

How many of us who are parents have held on to the treasures that are the shool work or our children.

My father was keen on electronics in it's early days. I have a notebook of his with jottings and drawings. It's not prose. My wife has notes and the odd letter of her mother's, tucked into her mother's bible. They're the only writings we have from them, and as little as they are they are valuable to us. It seems so little. But, archaeologists drool over any fragment from the past of human inscription - even if it's only the scraping of lines on a bone. We take what we can get.

How many are lucky enough to have family treasures of writings from dead parents or grand parents, or even ancestors you never knew? How many are published? What does it feel like to be a descendant of Darwin, for example?

Transcribing our thoughts, from cave paintings, through hieroglyphs, to writing as we know it, has been maybe the greatest invention of human beings. Writing has given us the capacity to do more than simply conceive of continuity. It has made it real for each of us, within our personal lives; and for some it has made them effectively immortal, at least to others if not themselves.

Why Islam?

2011-02-15T18:15:00.000Z

One theme comes out in comments by some Muslims on recent programmes about Islam, "Why pick on Islam?"

I'm not a fan of any faith, given that they all have dodgy interpretations. But Islam seems to be at the centre of many faith conflicts. I just happened to catch a few recent episodes of BBC Radio 4's Beyond Belief.

Try these episodes, while you can:
07 Feb 2011 - Sunni/Shia Tensions - Islam v Islam
24 Jan 2011 - Ayodhya - Hindu v Islam
17 Jan 2011 - Egypt - Christianity v Islam

In addition to the victim question, "Why pick on Islam?", there's also the other element, of minimising the extent to which Islam is often interpreted in a violent manner, such as the persecution of apostates, as described in the 17 Jan episode.

Maybe Muslims feel they are the centre of criticism. But maybe that's because there is plenty to criticise.

Anticipating Islamaphobia-phobia, Again

2011-02-09T14:03:00.000Z

I think that sometimes those that criticise Islam are seen as Islamaphobes, as if they make stuff up about the extent to which homophobia exists in Islam; or about or how women are viewed; or about how kafirs are viewed; or about how kids are indoctrinated in faith schools; or about the political nature of Islam. As if there is no rational reason to be concerned about Islam, or the reluctance to criticise Islam.

I'll be interested to see what is shown in this programme, Dispatches: Lessons In Hate & Violence , beyond this clip.

Be prepared for the backlash of denials. It's happened before, here in 2007, where complainants managed to convince the police that Channel 4 had it wrong. It appears that if the religious make enough noise, if they can be offended enough, their voices will be heard. But, it didn't end there. There is, or was at that time in 2007, a distinct bias towards tolerating Islamic intolerance. As shown here.

It's not just police that are in denial. Every Islamist's favourite non-Muslim Brit, George Galloway, can be relied on to back them, no matter how vile they are. Here, from 2008, is his response to another dispatches programme that had similar evidence. The ridiculous GG doesn't get how biased he is here. GG seems to lose the plot entirely, and takes on the manner of a berating Islamist speaker. Does GG really think those investigated would say what was recorded under cover if it had been in the open? And GG has the nerve to lecture on interviewing, while making his own political speech. He's right of course, that there are extremist Zionists and Christians. Some of the crazies on the recent Louis Theroux story from the West Bank, and his reports on US Christians attests to that. But to use this to sidestep the points made in the programme on Islam is just bollocks.

I wonder if the new programme will help the government reconsider its position on faith schools. Sure, most faith schools won't be like this. But faith schools, indeed faith itself, facilitates this. Because faith, ultimately, relies on accepting stuff on authority. The ultimate authority may be claimed to be God, but in practice it's the authority of those that claim the authority to interpret the words of God.

And when a religion inherently advocates strong sanctions against those within the religion that criticise it, or against those that want to leave it, or against those that fail to meet its most stringent requirements, then that adds to the stranglehold it has on reason, criticism and scepticism. And when it uses the mechanism of taking offence to attempt to censor non-Muslim criticism of Islam, the results are fiery. I wonder what claims of Islamaphobia will emerge, and to what extent various non-Muslim organisations and individuals ignore the points made in the programme because of their phobia of Islamaphobia - heaven forbid that a post-modern liberal relativist give up their relativism for the sake of common sense and evidence.

So, I'll look forward to the responses to the Dispatches programme as much as the programme itself.

Confirmation Bias

2010-10-29T10:59:00.000Z

Confirmation bias is such a tricky one that it requires persistent vigilance.

Scientific American for November carries the story based on Marc Hauser's problems, the nature of which hasn't been made clear yet. Some suspect fraud, but the more generous view is confirmation bias.

"Two factors make combating confirmation bias an uphill battle. For one, data show that eminent scientists tend to be more arrogant and confident than other scientists. As a consequence,they may be especially vulnerable to confirmation bias and to wrong-headed conclusions, unless they are perpetually vigilant. Second, the mounting pressure on scholars to conduct single-hypothesis-driven research programs supported by huge federal grants is a recipe for trouble. Many scientists are highly motivated to disregard or selectively reinterpret negative results that could doom their careers. Yet when members of the scientific community see themselves as invulnerable to error, they impede progress and damage the reputation of science in the public eye."

"The very edifice of science hinges on the willingness of investigators to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong."

"The best antidote to fooling ourselves is adhering closely to scientific methods. Indeed, history teaches us that science is not
a monolithic truth-gathering method but rather a motley assortment of tools designed to safeguard us against bias."

"As astronomer Carl Sagan and his wife and co-author Ann Druyan noted, science is like a little voice in our heads that says, “You might be mistaken. You've been wrong before.” Good scientists are not immune from confirmation bias. They are aware of it and avail themselves of procedural safeguards against its pernicious effects." [my emphasis]

At least it's reassuring that scientists are keeping an eye on each other, given the difficulty of keeping an eye on oneself. It's about the best we can expect. And given this is the case, it illustrates the paucity of any 'other way of knowing'.

More on Marc Hauser here.

What Do New Atheists Actually Believe?

2010-10-28T09:39:00.001Z

Discovery Institute has Michael Egnor asking this question...

What Do New Atheists Actually Believe?

And he has some specific questions...

1) Why is there anything?

2) What caused the Universe?

3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?

4) Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?

5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?

6) Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself? How can mental states be about something?

7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)

8) Why is there evil?

Well, here are my answers...

1) Why is there anything?

We don't know.

It's not that this question is nonsense, it's simply that we don't have access to the data that would answer it. From a philosophical perspective we have no firm response to the solipsist. The best we can do is say that what appears to be the case most forcefully to our minds and senses (given our senses might be an illusion of the mind) is that the material world is so convincing that we might as well use it as a model for reality until we figure out a better one that actually fits with those facts that the 'apparent' material world imposes on us.

For example, if we were entirely mental phenomena (or a single phenomenon) why can't we get past the apparent material death of another mind (or my illusion of another mind)? The material non-supernatural explanation fits this and many other problems so easily that it's a sufficient model for now.

The rest of the answers are given with respect to this point of view.

2) What caused the Universe?

We don't know.

So far we, and our instruments, haven't had physical presence far beyond our solar system, and in person not beyond the moon. So, all our observations of this universe are restricted to hypotheses based on remote (in time and space) observations. Some hypotheses have mathematical reasoning to lend them some weight. But really, we don't know.

3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?

We don't know. We'd need to resolve problem (2) to get any further with this. We observe regularities, but we can't explain them in any deep sense.

4) Of the Four Causes in nature...

We don't know.

This is philosophy going beyond the bounds of available or accessible knowledge and is more akin to theology.

Specifically, do final causes exists? Well, if we could answer some more questions on causality that would be a start. But then we come up against the same problem of accessibility of the data. And, the question isn't clear on meaning of 'final cause'.

5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?

Given (1) this can only be answered in atheist materialist terms, and within that context the understanding of matter and how life is just a formation of matter in action, and from there on to evolution. I'll keep this short, but would be glad to expand on request.

All matter responds to interaction with other matter. Things bounce. At some basic levels we have explanations for this - such as the coming together of atoms of my skin with those of the table, where despite that fact that atoms are mostly space, the electric and nuclear forces stop atoms merging or flowing through each other.

Basic life is complex formations of matter. We still don't know anything concrete about the beginnings of life, abiogenesis, but the basic hypothesis is that early replicators began the process - try thinking of something like growing crystals, though even this seems an inadequate analogy. The problem with all of this, life, is that we only have life on this planet to examine, that the origins are in the distant past, and anywhere the same process began spontaneously it would be consumed by local chemical reactions or organisms.

Form there, simple single cell life forms react in very complex ways compared to simple elements and molecules - but their responses to contact with other inanimate matter and other living organisms is basically physical and chemical. They go around bumping into stuff, and when they do chemical reactions on their surfaces give rise to further activity.

Complex cells formed by the combination of different single celled entities - i.e. mitochondria. Complex multi-cellular organisms formed cohesive bodies and functionality was subsumed to different organs. In a soft celled multi-organ organism think of the combination like a turtle and its shell. The inner soft and delicate organs don't need protection from the environment if outer organs are dedicated to that task - e.g. skin.

So, at this stage we have complex systems, of which one component is a nervous system that co-ordinates activity for the organism as a whole. Not all organisms use this approach - e.g. plants. But there seems to be a relationship between the motor capabilities of the organism and the complexity of its nervous system.

Given that one aspect of the nervous system is to respond to the environment in order to direct processes in the organism, and to direct it's motion, required to find food, one natural outcome is that the organism should be able to detect itself. No point in eating your own arm is there. And this is the basis for self awareness, which most organisms have to some degree if they have a nervous system that samples the environment.

Mammals have multi-mode senses - sight, hearing, touch... And these need co-ordination if they are to be useful. The chicken egg answer is that complexity of nervous system and co-ordination of senses probably evolved together, each effecting the development of the other.

It seems a natural progression that when an organism gets to a certain degree of complexity this self-sensing can include sensing the very internal processes of nervous system itself. In us this isn't complete, since there's a big part of our sub-conscious nervous system of which we're not aware. But basically subjectivity is simply what it appears like when an organism senses it's own nervous system in action.

6) Why is the human mind intentional...

(5) pretty much answers this.

7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)

It's a subjective (see 5) conceptual product that has evolved in a social sense, but is based on biologically evolved feelings of empathy and sympathy.

See here for more detail.

8) Why is there evil?

There isn't, in any objective sense, any more than there is moral law (see 7).

Evil is simply a classification of behaviour that humans typically ascribe to the behaviour of other humans.

Sometimes it can be conflated with suffering generally, such as the as a consequence of natural disasters, but that notion is only the concoction of those religious people who think natural disasters are associated with demons or with divine retribution.

We don't ascribe the term 'evil' to thinks that animals do which if performed by humans would be classified as evil. This is again due to the confused thinking of the religious who think that humans have some special gift, or some special place in the universe, or some special relationship with some god or other, and that some or all of these misconceptions give special meaning to human actions we generally disapprove of.

Perhaps the main point I'd want to make is that theists are in exactly the same position. They don't know. But what they do is make up an answer with no substantiating data and claim that to be the case. They think that the combination of ancient tradition and pseudo-profound language gives credibility to their view, but it really exposes their gullibility to ancient stories from a time when such ignorance was excusable for lack of any reasonable data.

There has been no evidence for religious claims that can be substantiated by third party examination. All subjective personal claims about religious experience have plausible explanations in a materialist world view, where various results of brain sciences can replicate or account for those experiences.

Love - Something Humans Do

2010-10-17T02:48:00.000Z

On Lesley's post Peter Rollins - What is Religion? I've been trying to understand what Rollins is saying, without much success. But in the ensuing comments I claimed that love is just something that humans do - my intended implication being it is nothing to do with a god, or specifically God.

Kathryn asked, "Why do you think this [love] is something humans do? Do you think it is a genetic fluke, or is there some purpose?", and I wanted to give a more complete response than I could in a comment on Lesley's post.

It's a fluke in one sense: the sense that it just turned out that way due to evolution, without any intentionality or direct design or purpose. But that 'fluke' is not to be confused with ID critiques of evolution that say evolution relies on impossible odds. Fluke, luck, random events, whatever we might call them, have a part to play in evolution, but the theory of evolution shows that other forces, such as natural selection, play on those flukes in order to cause some change that persists.

The significant point from an evolutionary perspective is that traits that have some benefit in some sets of circumstances are more likely to survive.

Some simplistic examples to make the point and put love in context (for sexually reproductive species)...

A genetic condition (e.g. a mutation) that caused infertility would not be passed on to the next generation at all. Another mutation that didn't effect fertility but did remove sexual lust would also die out quickly in most animals (though humans, with our cognitive abailities, could overcome this). An emotion like love may not be as necessary at all for short term survival, but may be necessary in some species for greater group cohesion, or perhaps mother-infant bonding. Both fertility and lust are necessary for reproduction in sexually reproductive animals, but love isn't.

But we can still see how love can provide a greater benefit than not experiencing love, for some species.

Fertility we count as a physiological trait, love as an emotional one, but lust we see more as something of both physiological and emotional - so, where's the divide between physical trait and emotional trait? When you get down to the chemistry of what's going on in the brain they are, all three, physiological traits, each with their own contribution to the survivability of a species (along with all other influences). We have no reason to suppose that love is anything other than this, and certainly no evidence that it has any special meaning or value outside the context of humans that, using our brains, give it meaning and value. it's not something we need to associate with God, despite that fact that theists tend to raise it to the level of the divine.

Evolution doesn't have a purpose as such - and so there is no purpose for love. There is a trivial descriptive sense in which, looking back, we might use a purposive description - e.g. 'the purpose of this gene sequence was to cause that trait to emerge...' (again, a simplistic view of genes) But this isn't purpose in the sense of an agent intentionally causing some trait to appear for particular purpose of his. We are used to attributing purpose to the things we do, and we can mistakenly attribute purpose to complex causal chains that are otherwise hard to describe. It can be helpful to describe causal chains with such anthropomorphic framing of purpose - but we need to be careful that we understand that this purpose isn't real, it's a metaphor for causality.

So, there is nothing in our evolutionary past which could predict, in any reasonable sense, that love would turn out to be a trait that a particular species valued highly. There are clues available to the hindsight we have acquired through the development of the theory of evolution, based on our understanding of empathy and attachment that bond animal parents to young, and in some cases parents to each other. Insects have a very specific type of bond to their fellows nest, which is basically chemical. So, love (or its simpler animal parallel) isn't necessary for all animals to be evolutionarily successful - though for larger animals with more complex brains it may be particularly beneficial. We think it's beneficial for us - so much so we have learned to value it highly.

In this sense love is just what humans do, without it having any directive purpose. It's one of the many things we do, along with hate, fear, lust, empathy and many other traits. They all boil down to having emerged through our evolutionary history, and having been developed in our intellectual and cultural history.

Perhaps a better phrasing might be love is just what humans did in the past as a more refined development of empathy, but which we do now with more purpose and intent as we have come to appreciate it and value it.

We can reasonably explain the relationship between some of these things we do, in this simplified evolutionary context...

Personally and subjectively we like the feeling of love, and we dislike the feeling of fear. Our empathy makes us appreciate the same perspective in others, so we want love for others as well as for ourselves, and part of that is that we get additional pleasure from giving love, and even more from reciprocative love. And conversely we dislike fear, we dislike seeing fear in others, and so we want to alleviate the fear we see in others. And, on top of that we dislike seeing others cause fear, because of our empathy for the victims; and in a simple sense, just as a mother responds to defend her young with the animal equivalent of anger, so we respond with anger towards those that cause fear. These are strong innate emotional responses, honed in our history, with their origins lost in myth.

Many of our basic emotions have parallels in other animals, but have been developed into more refined concepts by us, probably because of the concurrent development of our language and our brain's ability to be more acute in our understanding of these emotions and the concepts we form about them. Just as a musician can develop a more acute sense of musical notes (an analogy Kathryn uses).

The problem is we don't often consider the simpler animal basis for our complex emotions - partly because of our ignorance of the evolutionary perspective. This ignorance was understandable for most of human history in which our reach back to the past was only ever measured in terms of a few generations. We could only develop myths out of that ignorance - ironically using the very creative imagination that later allowed us to come up with the science that helped us discover more plausible explanations.

The weight of those myths persists, and is maintained in varying degrees by a continued ignorance of the significance of what evolution is telling us, along with the willing, and sometimes not so willing, indoctrination in and bias towards those myths. Even those theists that have an understanding of evolution find it hard to accept the full implications of evolution and related ideas when they challenge their theological beliefs - they sometimes express a fear of the consequences of following the ideas through - e.g. the fear of the nihilism of atheism, in the absence of God.

To help a theist put this in perspective, consider some of the cosmological ideas that are floating around - many of which theists use as examples of how science has its own myths. In some respects our old myths parallel the current speculations about our cosmological origins - the old myths were speculations in the absence of data, just as some of our cosmological ideas are speculations in the absence of data. In some cases the mathematical theory of the latter replaces imaginative theology of the former, and so cosmologists might feel their theories have a greater legitimacy than theologies. But there may come a time, when we are better informed, when some our current cosmological speculations seem more like myths. So, this is how now atheists see theologies as outdated myths.

The deep history of religion is interesting, but I'm still largely ignorant about it. One particular book on my reading list is The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright. It appears to put the contingency of Christianity in perspective, effectively explaining the myth. It's the historical perspective that I need to know more about; and I suspect many Christians need to know more about it too, but without their own theological bias. If ever there was a case of the winners getting to write the history, theology is it - I don't think much of the history of theology sees the light of day. I don't know to what extent history of theology is taught in this respect. The book's website gives a good sampling of the book and is worth a read.

Bring On The Lions

2010-09-01T09:34:00.002Z

No, I'm not referring to the up-coming England match. It's a much more serious issue than that. Or at least Christians think so.

Even my very fair minded liberal Christian friend Lesley is concerned, after reading this article in GQ

When saying 'damning', who or what does Lesley think is being damned? The nation, for it's loss of faith? Or those that remain Christians, for this reason, "Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims nonexistent." It does sound a little like role reversal; you know, the rapture of irreligion, and the left behind of the faithful, stuck at the bus stop on a cold wintery day not knowing the last bus has been cancelled.

This point is right, "...it's only natural that we should dismantle the massive amounts of tax money and state power that are given to the religious. It's a necessary process of building a secular state, where all citizens are free to make up their own minds.", which will make it fair for all. But I can understand the fear in the CoE at losing privilege.

When I read this and what followed, "Really? Let's list some of the ways in which Christians and other religious groups are given special privileges,..." I realised that it was religious privilege that the article was damning after all.

This was particularly damning of Mormons in '78, "Until 1978, the Mormon Church said black people didn't have souls. (They only changed their mind the day this was made illegal, and God niftily appeared to their leader to say they were ensouled after all.)"

This "In response, Carey and the Church of England demanded Christians be allowed to break the law" and the recent nonsense at the Gen Synod continues to be damning of the CoE now. And don't get me started on RC and Islam.

Why do we have to resort to law to demand equality from religions? Christians are often quick to tell us of their valiant role in the abolition of slavery and their many other fights against injustice. OK all Christians, put up or shut up. Stop all prejudice and privilege - voluntarily! Let the ABC call for this now (I won't hold my breath - he'd rather have Sharia). Let's move to a secular nation, in education and government, that's equal to all. You'll be surprised how quickly atheists lose interest in your religion. Hold on. That's precisely what Christians are afraid of isn't it. Silly me.

The feelings of persecution even extend to the repeated mistake of thinking atheists want to abolish religion. This is from a comment by Chris, "The New Atheists seem to think a secular society is one that rejects religion" - No, quite wrong. That's what Christians think New Atheists seem to think. You being a case in point :) We (atheists new and old) know what it means, and you too would know that we know, if only you knew more about New Atheists, and old atheists.

Chris, "In fact, most countries with a secular constitution see secularism as protecting religion." - Try telling that to Christians in America, with it's very purposeful secular constitution. I can't figure out why even having such a specific constitution isn't clear enough. Oh, hold on. Got it. After centuries of selectively reading the Bible Christians are primed to read a constitution and see in it the very opposite of what is written.

And, what's more Chris, when you've figured this out, could you let Tony Blair know: "Tony Blair warns that Christians must speak out in 'aggressively secularist' age" - The problem is, Tone, Christians and other faithful have been speaking out all too loudly for centuries now. "But he has since converted to Roman Catholicism and set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to "promote respect and understanding about the world's major religions". " - Well, Tone, religions might have earned a little respect if they hadn't been partying on so loudly themselves, indulging to excess in privileges, and then hypocritically protesting as the hurt and offended when the neighbours open a window and shout at them to be quiet while everyone gets some peace.

Preacherwoman isn't keen on Johann Hari from GQ (God Quits? God's Quiet?, Garrulus Quadrigae?), pointing out his selective use of data. She makes a fair point. We do have to be careful not to impart our bias. But wasn't that the main point that the article went on to make, i.e. the whining by Carey and others about persecution, when religion has so many privileges? Hasn't religion always been biased?

It's not just Carey. This is from Cristina Odone, "Afraid to be a Christian? Who can blame you? The authorities, the media and the chattering classes are forever trying to run you down. We don’t have to brave the Colosseum, with its rapacious lions; we don’t have to wear an identifying badge; or meet in secret – yet." - What?! Let's form two queues - one of atheists who want a secular nation with freedom to think and choose our world view without favour to any, and another one of atheists who want to ban religion. I'm sure Carey and Odone think we're all in the near empty latter. They're confused by this secular call for freedom. Being so familiar with the centuries of persecution by the religious they think that once they lose power they'll be burned at the stake.

"Christians need to be as strident as Muslims" she says. Well, that makes a change from Christians bemoaning how strident a few atheists are. But again she makes the mistake of bias again. The strident atheists are calling for freedom for all, and would protect the rights of Christians and Muslims alike - we're just saying we won't protect the current privilege of Christians or Muslims, and won't give in to the strident calls for privilege. The stridency isn't the problem, it's what one is calling for that counts.

"But there is no doubt that many are afraid to be Christian. They will watch anxiously today as Shirley Chaplin will fight the NHS in an employment tribunal." - For heaven's sake, is there no end to the whining. Thankfully the tribunal saw sense.

But Chaplin "...had the support of a number of bishops who claim that Christians are being persecuted in an increasingly secular society." How very Christian. I really do think some won't be satisfied until there's a Colosseum in Trafalgar Square, "Ha! to a mosque at Ground Zero. We Brits will show you how to be persecuted. Bring on the lions."

Heavenly Science

2010-08-30T12:20:00.001Z

I'm sometimes asked if I'm spiritual. Of course I'm not spiritual in the theistic sense, being an atheist, but there are atheists who consider themselves spiritual beings: Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, for example. I don't think I am, but I do have a sense of wonder and awe about the world, whether it's about our cosmological origins, or the new ideas in earthly sciences.

I guess this is the closest I'd come to heaven - being surrounded by fascinating people figuring out what makes the world go round, and how to make it go round better. Their enthusiasm is palpable.

For all Christians go on about what their God gives them it just seems pretty lame compared to discovering new stuff about the universe, or creating fascinating new content that solves very human problems.

Science Foo Camp 2009: by Nature Video.

I guess this un-conference format doesn't make for easy video, and it's by invite only. But I'd love to be a fly on the wall. Maybe that's something that could come out of this type of event. We need a really cool new method of experiencing these events as if we were there.

Revelation

Some scientists and mathematicians can have experiences that can be considered revelations:

Harris, Religion, Rape

2010-08-28T21:07:00.003Z

The Harris religion and rape issue is inflaming opinion, still. This particular storm is about the comment he made in an interview with Bethany Saltman in 2006, and this particular sentence:

"I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

The Beginning

But let's go back to where it started, with his book, Letter To A Christian Nation, 2006, which prompted the Saltman interview.

Naturally, for religious people that haven't read the book but who like to pick up on the nasty things atheists say on their journey to eternal damnation in the next life, then the whole concept of comparing their precious religion with rape is pretty shocking. And it looks like Harris has handed them a stick with which they can give him a damned good thrashing.

Trouble is, in their rush to read only the bad, they miss the point. Here's the section from the book where rape is first raised.

"As a biological phenomenon, religion is the product of cognitive processes that have deep roots in our evolutionary past. Some researchers have speculated that religion itself may have played an important role in getting large groups of prehistoric humans to socially cohere. If this is true, we can say religion has served an important purpose. This does not suggest, however, that it serves an important purpose now. There is, after all nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors. That religion may have served some necessary function for us in the past does not preclude the possibility that it is now the greatest impediment to our building a global civilization."

Here he is clearly using it to point out that because something has natural origins we don't have to think it acceptable behaviour now. It's used as an analogy.

But it's an analogy that many religious people don't get. And because they don't get it they've come over all of a froth, because of the dreaded word 'rape' - such a taboo word.

Analogies

My pop-psychology point of the day is that religious people are so used to selective reading when it comes to the holy books, so used to interpreting anything they read in order to give an affirmative bias towards their religion and a negative bias against anything that challenges it, that they are simply confused by analogies, not knowing when to read something literally and when to interpret it as an analogy, or even how to figure out what work the analogy is doing.

Here's a case in point. Suem wonders why there is so much outrage over Xola Skosana's sermon that included 'Jesus with HIV analogy'.

Suem asks, "Don’t people understand that analogies and metaphors are not meant to be definitive statements" - No they don't.

They don't get The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or fairy analogies. Here the point of the analogy is not to liken God to the obviously ridiculous FSM or fairies.

The FSM analogy is about the reasoning that gets you from some hypothesis, such as there is a God, or there is an FSM, to a full explanation, a theology, and even descriptions of characteristics of this hypothetical entity, without any evidence whatsoever.

The whole point of picking obvious nonsensical entities as the object of belief is to show that the same reasoning or faith that gives you God can give you these others; and so the reasoning and the faith is a flawed way of acquiring truth about the entity.

So, similarly, the point of Harris using 'rape' in this specific case in his book is to show that the analogous aspects of religion and rape is that because they had evolutionary advantage at some point doesn't make them beneficial now. Here rape is not meant to be analogous to religion directly.

Symbolically it's like this:

A has some aspect X
B has some aspect X

A is religion.
Where B is rape, X is the past evolutionary benefit of religion and rape.
Where B is the FSM, X is the poor reasoning about theology of religion and the FSM.

So, here's the argument.
A has aspect X, and is therefore good.
But B has aspect X, and B is clearly not good.
So, having aspect X is no indication of B or A being good.

The religious could save a lot of unnecessary argument if they took the trouble to figure out what the analogy is about.

The Harris - Saltman Interview

As if the religious hadn't got hold of the wrong end of the stick already, Harris gives them another excuse to fume. And fume they do.

Here's the 2006 article in which the next scene in the melodrama takes place. (Here's a pdf).

Let's have a look at what else he says before we get to the crutial point. Though many religious people might disagree with many of his points, there are some who do see his issues with religion when it comes to the more fundamental flavour. Here's how it goes towards the end of page 1 of The Sun web site version:

Saltman: "Isn't religion a natural outgrowth of human nature?"

Harris: "It almost certainly is. But everything we do is a natural outgrowth of human nature. Genocide is. Rape is. No one would ever think of arguing that this makes genocide or rape a necessary feature of a civilized society. Even if you had a detailed story about the essential purpose religion has served for the past fifty thousand years, even if you could prove that humanity would not have survived without believing in a creator God, that would not mean that it’s a good idea to believe in a creator God now, in a twenty-first-century world that has been shattered into separate moral communities on the basis of religious ideas.

Traditionally, religion has been the receptacle of some good and ennobling features of our psychology. It’s the arena in which people talk about contemplative experience and ethics. And I do think contemplative experience and ethics are absolutely essential to human happiness. I just think we now have to speak about them without endorsing any divisive mythology."

Note that both genocide and rape are given as examples. Clearly Harris is referring to the analogy, as I described it above. Being a natural human behaviour does not mean that it has any benefit now.

But Harris isn't saying benefit can't be derived from religion. To go back to the book, Letter To A Christian Nation, Harris knows full well that some people do derive benefit from religion:

"I have no doubt that your acceptance of Christ coincided with some very positive changes in your life. Perhaps you now love other people in a way you never imagined possible. You may even experience feelings of bliss while praying. I do not wish to denigrate any of these experiences. I would point out however, that billions of human beings, in every time and place, have had similar experiences - but they had them while thinking about Krishna, or Allah, or the Buddha, while making art or music, or while contemplating the beauty of nature"

So clearly, despite what some critics claim, he doesn't see all religious experience in the same light. But his main point is that overall it is detrimental to society.

I'll skip ahead slightly in the interview, past the offending words, just to make it clear Harris isn't a baby eater.

Harris: "Even Christian fundamentalists have learned, by and large, to ignore the most barbaric passages in the Bible. ...[some details about specific problems]...Now, these people are not evil. They're just concerned about the wrong things, because they have imbibed these unjustifiable religious taboos. There is no question, however, that these false concerns add to the world's misery."

Saltman: "If we were to eliminate religious identity, wouldn't something else take its place?"

Harris: "Not necessarily. Look at what's going on in Western Europe: some societies there are successfully undoing their commitment to religious identity, and I don't think it is being replaced by anything. Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, and Japan are all developed societies with a high level of atheism, and the religion they do have is not the populist, fundamentalist, shrill version we have in the U.S. So secularism is achievable... [my emphasis]

See, he recognises some religions aren't so bad.

"...I think the human urge to identify with a subset of the population is something that we should be skeptical of in all its forms. Nationalism and tribal affiliations are divisive, too, and therefore dangerous. Even being a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan has its liabilities, if pushed too far."

[page 3]

Saltman: "So you see Buddhist meditation not as a religious practice, but as something that can yield results."

Harris: "Clearly, there are results to any religious practice. A Christian might say, "If you pray to Jesus, you'll notice a change in your life." And I don't dispute that. The crucial distinction between the teachings of Buddhism and the teachings of Western religions is that with Buddhism, you don't have to believe anything on faith to get the process started."

Harris Hates All Religions?

Again I need to emphasise the fact that Harris does distinguish between degrees of religious fundamentalism and the associated harms. Remember that when we get to the crunch statement.

Saltman: "Do you think that there is such a thing as a peaceful religion?"

Harris: "Oh, sure. Jainism is the best example that I know of. It emerged in India at more or less the same time as Buddhism. Nonviolence is its core doctrine. Jain "extremists" wear masks in order to avoid breathing in any living thing. To be a practicing Jain, you have to be a vegetarian and a pacifist. So the more "deranged" and dogmatic a Jain becomes, the less likely he or she is to harm living beings.
Jains probably believe certain things on insufficient evidence, and that's not a good idea, in my opinion. I can even imagine a scenario in which Jain dogma could get people killed: I don't actually know what Jains say on this subject, but let's say they became unwilling to kill even bacteria and forbade the use of antibiotics."

...

Harris: "...They [evangelicals] have a great fear that unless we believe the Bible was written by the creator of the universe, we have no real reason to treat one another well, and I think there's no evidence for that whatsoever. It's just fundamentally untrue that people who do not believe in God are more prone to violent crime, for instance. The evidence, if anything, runs the other way. If you look at where we have the most violent crime and the most theft in the United States, it's not in the secular-leaning blue states. It's in the red states, with all their religiosity. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in Texas.

Now, I'm not saying that we can look at this data and say, "Religion causes violence." But you can look at this data and say that high levels of religious affiliation don't guarantee that people are going to behave well. Likewise if you look at UN rankings of societies in terms of development — which includes levels of violent crime, infant mortality, and literacy — the most atheistic societies on the planet rank the highest: Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark. So there is no evidence that a strong commitment to the literal truth of one's religious doctrine is a good indicator of societal health or morality."

So, just to emphasise the point again. Harris does not see all religions as being as bad as each other. Harris does see people gaining some benefits from religion, though he thinks there are better ways. Harris does not think religion is the cause of all evil. Harris does not think all religion is evil. Nowhere does Harris actually call for the forced curtailment of religious belief. In all of this he is making very straight forward arguments about what he finds wrong with religion.

The Evil Atheists

Of course no discussion about religion is complete without a comment on the evil that atheists do. And nearly every religious person gets this point wrong. Saltman is playing devil's advocate here of course.

Saltman: "Atheism doesn't always go hand in hand with reason and compassion. Look at the destruction and violence caused by atheist ideology in China and the old Soviet Union."

Harris: "What I'm really arguing against is dogma, and those communist systems of belief were every bit as dogmatic as religious systems. In fact, I'd call them 'political religions'. But no culture in human history ever suffered because its people became too reasonable or too desirous of having evidence in defense of their core beliefs. Whenever people start committing genocide or hurling women and children into mass graves, I think it's worth asking what they believe about the universe. My reading of history suggests that they always believe something that's obviously indefensible and dogmatic."

And just to re-state the point made countless times, none of this was done in the name of atheism. Atheism isn't a dogmatic belief system that anyone does anything in the name of. And atheists are not claiming religion is the cause of all ills, or that all atheists are whitere than white. So, can we drop this red herring.

The Magic Wand of Harris

OK. Let's get to the main point. The offending place is top of page 2.

Saltman: "Your analogy between organized religion and rape is pretty inflammatory. Is that intentional?"

Harris: "I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario. I think we do the world a disservice when we suggest that religions are generally benign and not fundamentally divisive."

Now, given the context in which the original analogy was used, this is just an extension of that. Here's the analogy:

A causes an amount of suffering.
B causes an amount of suffering.

Here A is rape, and B is religion. And on his assessment religion causes more harm than rape.

So, if he could wish away one of them he thinks the best option would be religion, as removing it would reduce harm the most.

Note that this is a simple thought experiment, wishful thinking, and as such has no specific bad consequences. For example, if it clearly was a magic wish that did the trick he'd no doubt want all the currently religious people to be simply non-religious - so it's not as if he would be causing more suffering by removing religion, the newly non-religious wouldn't feel they were deprived of religion. And we could still carry on trying to stop rape, so it's not as if Harris is condoning rape. It just happens to be an unwanted human behaviour that he uses in an analogy.

There really isn't that much to this statement after all, given the context. It's ridiculous how many religious people have tried to get mileage out of it since he maed it.

A More Literal Comparison

But what if he was to have meant it to be taken seriously. Is religion worse than rape? You'll have to ask Harris yourself, if you still think he's the son of Satan for uttering the words 'rape' and 'religion' in the same breath. But here's my understanding of what he said and how to interpret it, should you want to take it as a literal intention by Harris.

1) Individual rape can 'harm' one victim at a time. I'm not aware of any person being able to rape more than one person at once. This is basically a one-on-one act. Annually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics) it might be 500,000 a year, accounting for unreported rape.

2) Nuclear weapons or biological weapons can 'kill and harm' hundreds of thousands or millions at a time. It might take more than one person to achieve this, but the ratios are still pretty high: one-to-hundreds-of-thousands, or one-to-millions.

3) Extreme religion probably has the highest potential for (2) currently.

4) All religions, by setting faith above reason, are self affirming systems that can, under some circumstances, provide the right framework for (3), and hence (2). That framework of extreme religions exists now, and this has been a self-evident fact since 9/11. Some small number of people with religious motivations killed thousands of people, directly and in the aftermath. And 9/11 was the catalyst for a war that kill even more. 9/11 is still invoking religious hatred now at ground zero. That's before we get to the many conflicts around the world that are going on now that have a religious element, if not done in the name of religion. Harris covers plenty in his book.

Note to liberals: the extensive use of reason on top of faith is not a get out of jail card. Faith plus speculation is a poor move. It just happens to be a really bad move in the hands of terrorist fanatics.

5) The same applies to all dogmas that affirm their beliefs and aren't subjected to sufficient scepticism. So, it's not just religion Harris is objecting to. But currently religion is the most dangerous in his view.

Again, a note to easily offended moderates and liberals: just because you're pretty harmless doesn't change the fact that religion in the wrong hands is dangerous.

6) Bonus point: without religion there's no RC church, which reduces the number of rapes and abuses a little. And since many of the genocidal wars around the world also include rape, then if removing religion could reduce the number of such wars then there'd be less rape anyway.

7) Harris isn't calling for or expecting the abolition of religion - some people have mistaken his statements here for that. Harris believes in freedom of religious belief. His statement was hypothetical wishful thinking. His point being that if it were possible for religion to suddenly vanish, that would be a better outcome than if all men suddenly stopped raping.

Now I know some people don't like it when we try to evaluate relative harms, when we try to be objective about them. They find something distasteful and taboo about even considering it.

Here's a response to Harris, "I would like to ask Sam Harris what personal experience he has of rape." Why is this relevant? What is my experience of rape or being the victim of a suicide bomber? None.

Another question to Harris, "And I wonder how it would feel to have been subjected to rape and then to hear a statement such as Harris's?" - Or how it would feel to have your family taken by a suicide bomber or abducted and beheaded by terrorists, of kill leaving his place of work, or blown up in an Irish pub.

These are very one sided questions. Do we have to experience every suffering to have any regard for the sufferer? What do you think human empathy is all about? what do you think it is that has been driving your own morals all this time? God?

Conclusion

Having read Letter To A Christian Nation, and the interview with Saltman, I don't think Harris has said anything particularly controversial. Dispite that being my opinion, of course Harris may well have made the statements specifically to be controversial. Maybe his remark about being inflammatory was calculated. You'll have to ask Harris. But on first reading it I hadn't noticed anything particularly bad about it - just a rhetorical flourish. I'm often surprised how the religious, who survive on emotive language, don't particularly like it when their religion is the target.

We can take any version of his rape statements: analogy of natural evolved benefit no longer being beneficial; a thought experiment, a wish, that religion wasn't present; or a more literal calculation of least harm. Each interpretation of Harris's words are really not that controversial - except to the extent that the religious like to find fault with Harris.

Harris, throughout his book and interview is quite gracious about the people of religion. He sees their particular problem as being that they have been misguided by religion. He simply dislikes the principle of religion and faith that can provide a framework for fundamental atrocities.

So, here are the words again:

"I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Out of context I guess they could be misconstrued. And the problem is they usually are taken out of context - as seen in a blog from a blog from the original source. And comments are made on the basis of the sentences here, or the fuller paragraph given earlier. But I see them as quite harmless in context, particularly the wider context of the book and the interview.

Atheists Against Religion - Misconceptions

2010-08-18T17:26:00.000Z

Some theists seem to get the wrong impression about atheism and atheists, with regard to the extent and type of opposition to theism and religion. I think this occurs because several issues become conflated in discussions between theists and atheists. Some theists seem to think that atheists want to abolish religion or censor it; but they are confusion the following: genuine desire to stop some religious practices and privileges; the desire for a secular state; and intellectual disagreement on the validity of religious belief.

They are all issues that should be considered separately.

Opposition To Faith Schools
The objection to faith schools is because of indoctrination on young minds and the fact that one faith view is projected. Most humanist atheists want schools to be secular, which only means no religious or other world view bias (not even atheism), not the censorship of religion. We actually want education to include information about all religions and other world views and basic philosophy in a non-biased here-it-is make what you want of it sort of way. There's no requirement to impose the atheist or humanist world view above others.

My children attended a Roman Catholic school, which preached RC Christianity. Both my children said that when they compared notes with friends at a state school the coverage of other faiths was quite different. The Roman Catholic school had given feint acknowledgement to other faiths whereas the state school was more open about discussing the variations of the details of the different faiths. I don't know to what extent a difference in teachers played a part, and I've no detailed experience of other faith schools. But in principle I'm opposed to the promotion of a particular faith.

Faith schools breed division. This I know from my personal school experiences, where a predominantly CoE state school backed on to a Roman Catholic school - pupils were always at war, and though most pupils probably weren't particularly religious, the religious difference was a focus of difference. This inevitable divisiveness has also been commented on with regard to Norther Ireland many times. In Oldham there is currently a plan to form a mixed academy to replace the current Christian dominated school and Muslim dominated school in areas that resulted in race/faith/culture riots ten years ago.

Abolishing Religion
The wish by atheists that religions did not exist is just that, a wish. Not necessarily that they never existed - there is no requirement to change history. The wish is that religions would begin to fade away - starting with the most obnoxious elements of each religion, because we think in the long term society will be better when it has gone. Note that isn't saying atheist humanism is the cure for all ills.

And this wish isn't expressed in any political sense. There is no way in which humanist atheists want to censor or ban religion or religious thought. The very nature of atheist humanism, or in this context secular humanism, is that the state should not be involved at all in personal world views, and that everyone should be free to choose their own world view. There are many unknowns about the universe, regarding its origins and its makeup. The God hypothesis is a reasonable one, so given the free-thought imperative of secular humanists there is no requirement to stop people believing in God.

Secular State
The political desire for a secular state is not a request for censorship, it's the request for the removal of a religious bias and privilege that is already present. What's the alternative to removing bishops from the House of Lords as religious political posts? Add more bishops representing every faith in proportion to the faith adherents? Add atheists specifically because they are atheists? what about Wiccans and other belief systems? A Lord of New Age? No, the most equitable route is to remove all posts relating to religion and have people there on merit of by election - depending on the desired makeup. This then does not prevent religious leaders being members; they would simply be members for some other reason; hopefully, merit.

The wider issue of a state church is slightly less significant to me, though many British Muslims might disagree. We have a lot invested in our culture associated with our churches, armed services, state events, etc., that currently have a close association with religion. I'm in no hurry to see these go since they are quite benign, colourful and culturally of historic interest, in terms of the state. I don't, for example, have an issue with traditions that date back to more feudal times, such as the monarchy and knighthoods and so on. They just need disassociating from the executive branch of the state.

Intellectual Opposition
The intellectual objection to theism, as opposed to particular religious organisations that implement those theisms, is purely that, and intellectual one of the understanding of the philosophy and science of it all. Again the free-thought nature of secular humanism supports the unrestricted examination of all philosophical views and wants to engage freely in debates about these issues. Historically it has been religion that has wanted to censor views and interfere in the free thinking, free expression and free action of others that don't agree with them.

It's a bit rich for anyone associated with these ancient religions to accuse atheists of censorship - it couldn't be further from the truth for atheism, while at the same time most religions don't have a good record on censorship.

Anti-Religion
Anti-religion is the opposition to some or all religions. Personally I am strongly anti-religious when it comes to the more dogmatic religions.

There are many aspects of Islam, such as it's political desire to dominate that is such an important and freely expressed part of the religion, and the discrimination inherent in Islam against non-Muslims in Islamic state governance. These are inherent parts of Islam, given that they are stated in the Koran or Hadith. Islam would have to go through a radical change for me not to be anti-Islam. But there are many Muslims who would like to see such change, and I'd support them in that without wishing to have them give up non-political or otherwise humane aspects of their faith. If some Muslims think atheists have an unfair view of Islam then they need to start making their more moderate voices heard, not only by atheists, but by the more radical Muslims.

There are many aspects of fundamentalist Christianity that make me anti-those sects, such as the intense indoctrination of children into psychologically damaging beliefs about being sinners and being damned to hell. I am less anti-liberal-Christianity, though I do disagree with its ideas on intellectual grounds. Other atheists may have a more blanket anti-religious stance.

Summary
Atheists generally do want to stop faith schools, political privilege, any particularly unfair practices, and to work towards a secular state.

Atheists generally are willing to debate theism as opposed to atheism on intellectual philosophical grounds.

Atheists may also be happy to see the back of religion. But one of the main principles of free-though humanist atheists is the right to practice ones own belief system, and so would want to defend anyone's right to belief, as long as the practice of that belief is not contrary to the freedoms of other people.

My personal feelings is that I have no problem with self-funded religions and places of worship. I quite like some aspects of the CoE; I like to visit old churches; I enjoy some religious music, though I have no interest in the content of any songs or hymns; I like to visit grand cathedrals and mosques. I suppose my interest is atmospheric and historic. I have fond memories of some vicars from when I was young in the Boys Brigade - even our local tyrant was fair. So, other than the issues above I'm not that anti-religious.

And I enjoy a good argument.

So, in general atheists don't want to burn theists at the stake, stone them or decapitate them, or condemn them to hell or whatever the atheist equivalent might be (which according to some theists would be for them to become atheists). Live and let live - if only they all would.

Morality

2010-08-14T11:37:00.000Z

In the debate about Sam Harris on science and morality (links in this post) I want to side-step some of the philosophy, because much of it is influenced by the armchair philosophy of the past when science had nothing to offer at all, a time when philosophers plumbed the depths of their minds searching for something solid that indicated dry land in sight.

I see all moral codes as arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. They mean nothing outside a biological and social evolution. Prior to the evolution of consciousness, self-awareness and language what we think of as morals would have been biological imperatives. It's our self-awareness, empathy, language and the classification of ideas that has caused us to label behaviour as good, bad, evil, right, wrong, moral, immoral. It's our deep remaining biological imperatives that dictate which of these labels, and hence which behaviours, we prefer.

Within the contexts of separately developing cultures of the past there was still scope for moral codes to emerge as quite different from one culture to another. It may even have been possible to live by the maxim, "When in Rome do as the Romans do", particularly for travellers who relished variety. Minority congregations that have travelled to a different culture still live by their own rules, and this can cause serious conflict of cultures - occasional 'honour killings' occur in the UK within cultures that value family honour greater than personal freedom and life of loved ones; and you can still get a good whisky in The United Arab Emirates, which restricts the purchase of alcohol from a liquor store to non-Muslim foreigners. We can see the social development of morals on top of biologically evolved imperatives.

Pre-TV we relied on news media that were much more susceptible of political and cultural influence. It was still possible for news reports to be so heavily censored, either for political reasons, or in acknowledgement of the sensitivity of the readers (i.e. the newspapers had a great concern for the dear ladies, and a fear of the indignant religious opinion). We were spared the blood and guts of foreign affairs. Only genuine travellers, and often soldiers, really knew the reality of events taking place elsewhere that didn't fit our coy world view.

Innocent ignorance was real. During WWII my mother, 14 at the time, live near an aircraft factory in Manchester. During one attack a German plane strafed them in the street as she was walking to school, but it was soon shot down. She and her friends went to see the monster that had parachuted into a nearby field - they were expecting a real monster, a dreadful beast of a man, and were utterly shocked so see a very handsome blond haired terrified young man who looked not much older than them. The propaganda about the evil 'Hun' had been only words on a crackly radio, but those words had evoked vivid nightmarish images that had attributed evil to every member of another nation - every German was immoral.

The growth of TV was primed nicely for the Vietnam war. Horror came right into our homes. The Sixties and Seventies saw the dawning of a questioning of the morality of our own governments like never before. The threat of nuclear annihilation was real, and we questioned the immoral madness of it.

The subsequent rise of postmodernism awoke in us an appreciation of the arbitrariness of our own standards. Moral relativism seemed a logical necessity if we were to apply the Golden Rule to whole cultures - what right did we have to dictate to others how they should behave.

But as we've witnessed more of what goes on in other cultures, particularly with the rise of the internet, we've begun to question the soundness of the moral relativist argument. Do the Johnny come lately cultural customs of acceptable behaviour overrule our deeper stronger biological imperatives?

It's difficult to pin down where the fault lies when we intuitively know there's a fault. Many atheists have been quick to condemn Islam for it's barbaric practices, only to learn that the cultural influence of the religion of Islam has itself been influenced by cultural values - some of the practices performed in the name of Islam are specific to one culture.

We know instinctively that female genital mutilation is 'bad', 'wrong', 'immoral'. Our empathy tells us this. But note even here, when I'm trying to be rational, the judgemental term 'mutilation' rather than 'female circumcision', or 'female genital cutting'.

Is the Jewish practice of circumcision also 'mutilation'? Some adult 'victims' think it is. But some non-Jews don't want to interfere with this ancient tradition, and yet are outspoken about female genital mutilation because, to us in the West, it's news; most of us weren't really aware it happened. Cutting was OK for Jesus, but not for some young girl? Yes, there are differences in what is cut - perhaps there might be greater outcry against circumcision if the male glans were cut off, as the clitoris is cut off in girls. What are the moral implications? Should we address this imbalance? Cut the skin but not the clitoris/glans; cut the clitoris and glans; or stop the practice altogether. Would it be immoral to interfere in both cultural practices, or just one, or to not interfere at all? Our gut feelings are in conflict with our own Western postmodern cultural relativism, resulting in a moral relativist angst.

How arbitrary is all that!

We have many instincts trying to get the attention of our conscious minds. Our empathy tells us killing is wrong. But our empathy for the killed is in conflict with our empathy for the killer, depending on the circumstances. If it's self-defense against an aggressive assault we side with the killer. Some found it difficult to side with the killed when Tony Martin shot dead a fleeing burglar. Even within our Western culture we can't always decide. Why? If morals are God given or absolutes, why is it so difficult to be consistent?

Morality doesn't come from some holy book, and it isn't written in the foundations of the cosmos. We evolved with it and invent it's varieties. And my moral instincts tell me that we need to figure out where we stand with our morals before we pass judgment. We need to understand the moral implications of our moral behaviour. We need to stop being so parochial and arbitrary, because otherwise we are betraying our own commitment to one of our most empathetically driven moral codes - fairness.

I know what I think morality is, but others have different views. We need to figure out what morality really is. We need to decide which culturally derived morals, or customs, are acceptable to our evolved instincts. Various international human rights organisations make fair attempts, but are often thwarted by member nations with cultures where the cultural customs have a more powerful base than science and reason.

Using philosophy alone we've raised questions but provided no answers. So if Sam Harris wants to try going down the route of using science, then I'm all for it. And in defense of Sam Harris, I really don't think he means that the abstract process that is 'science' make decisions for us, or that it (science) will dictate how we should behave. That decision is ours, using our reason, along with the science that we perform.

The behavioural act of performing science on issues relating to how we make moral decisions and how we attribute value, and how we measure value, and what we do with the data we uncover, is a complete and entirely human process that can only improve our moral behaviour. I really think this is what Sam Harris means.

Moral Facts - Sam Harris

2010-08-12T12:47:00.000Z

In this post I plan to criticise some views, giving my opinion on where they go wrong, then ask some questions to which I have no answer, and then describe my particular view on the matter, without having the slightest confidence that I'm right. And, for good measure, I've every chance of contradicting myself on the way. It's not going to be short. This sounds about par for the course.

The Harris Problem...

It's all about what Sam Harris appears to be claiming in his TED Video. I blame Lesley for getting us into this mess, here, here and here. And now Gurder has turned this into a wider debate.

Sam Harris TED Talk...

I want to address the talk itself first,...

"It's thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value."

I think that's right, but with the caveat that it can give us data that can influence what we think we ought to value. I'm with the general agreement on Lesley's and Gurder's blogs and comments that science provides the data and that it's for us to form opinions about that data. At least I think I am.

There's a formulaic sense in which science can give us an 'ought', but it's the wrong sense of 'ought'. If I include in my ethics the 'least harm' principle, and then concoct some scenarios where there's a choice between harms - e.g. the Trolley Problem - then science could say I 'ought' to do such and such in a particular scenario to achieve least harm, then this isn't the moral 'ought'.

But for me this does then raise the questions, what is a moral 'ought'? Do morals exist, and if they do what are they?

Back to Harris,

"And, consequently, most people ... think that science will never answer the most important questions in human life: questions like, "What is worth living for?" "What is worth dying for?" "What constitutes a good life?" "

I think science can answer these questions, if we give science the goals that we want to achieve in the first place. Further more, I don't think these particular questions are moral questions. They may be personal judgements - a Royalist might think Prince Charles is worth dying for, a Republican might not. We need to be clear about what constitutes a moral question.

"So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion -- that the separation between science and human values is an illusion..."

Let's see if he does.

"Now, it's often said that science can not give us a foundation for morality and human values,"

Now that depends on what is meant by 'foundation'. ('That depends' is a theme of this post) If it's a foundation of data upon which we can build our morality, our ethics, then yes, as long as we have the other elements of morality to go with this foundation. The stronger the foundation of facts the more informed we can be in building our morality. But the foundation of facts is not the full extent of our ethics - maybe. Don't we need our moral goals in place to use these facts?

I think this is where Harris goes wrong.

"Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures."

Yes, they become facts in their own right, once we decide what they are - it is a fact that most humans believe murder is wrong. It may be a fact of biological and cultural evolution that has caused most humans to hold that view, and so on. But what is fact about why we should think that we should hold this view? - What makes this a moral question?

"Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks?...And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about."

Yes, it is a factual claim, that we do hold this view, and we might be wrong about it (as Gurder points out). Again, evolution can explain why we do - where 'why' here means 'how it came about'. It says nothing about why we should hold this view (or not).

"And we know -- we know -- that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space."

Do we? Really? Just because we agree with Harris on most of his scenarios doesn't mean they are moral questions, or questions that are only to do with morals.

"Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not." - Probably not? Why not just 'no'? Why not 'yes'? What is that turns this into a moral question?

"There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths." - First sentence, OK. Second? How and why? It relates in the sense that the more we know the more it can help us to construct morals - given we know what our moral goals are. Again, if least harm is a goal then the 'Probably not' answer is probably right - depending on other facts - but we do need to know our moral goals.

So, we must know our morals first, in order to decide what to do with the facts that we uncover. But is it that simple? How do we get to our moral codes in the first place? We observe them in ourselves? We feel them? But sometimes we feel we want to kill, so why do we choose non-murder as a moral code? Our morals often seem to be intended to overcome some of our feelings - our base instincts, or animal instincts. Why is love a moral good and murder a moral bad? Because of the Golden Rule? But what determines the Golden Rule is worth following? Our moral sense? But .... where do we go from here?

More from Harris. He gives some explanations, and then comes to this, "So, what I'm arguing is that value is reducible to facts -- to facts about the conscious experience -- of conscious beings."

This sounds sort of right - we can reduce some values to facts. But which values? All of them? The fact that this organism (me) puts a greater value on raspberry to strawberry can be reducible to the details of science - raspberry releases more pleasure signals (simplification) than strawberry does - I like raspberry more than strawberry. But what's happening in my nervous system when I attribute greater value to love than hate? I mean, it clearly is my nervous system that's driving that valuation (at least as a materialist I think it is). And that nervous system is as it is because of scientific facts - biological and cultural evolution and personal experience - whether we have all pertinent facts or not. What is the difference between these values that makes one a matter of preference and the other a matter of morals or ethics?

I'll leave that for now and get back to Harris.

"Now, let me be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that science is guaranteed to map this space, or that we will have scientific answers to every conceivable moral question. ..." - See. Caveats - for those who take this talk too literally, or who didn't hear this bit clearly enough. This is a common notion to materialists: just because we can't answer questions yet, or maybe can never answer them (at least in our currently evolved human form), doesn't mean we have the final answer on the matter.

"...But if questions affect human wellbeing then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them. And just admitting this -- just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish -- will change the way we talk about morality, and will change our expectations of human cooperation in the future."

And there it is! There's his moral goal. He's already stated this, but it's easy to let it slip by; and so from there he thinks that science can provide answers. This is the respect in which Harris thinks science can answer moral questions.

The fact that science can't do that for every 'human wellbeing achievement' question, yet, by using current science, is not to say it can't, ever. But even if it were the case that science can never answer every such question, then so what; maybe it can answer more than by not using science.

The remainder of the talk fills in the details. We can argue about some of the examples, and question some of his reasoning, as Chris Anderson does. But the general idea that if we can establish that human wellbeing is in fact a moral goal we value, and if we can establish what constitutes human wellbeing, then science can accumulate the data needed to make the judgement call - maybe.

But for me Harris isn't clear (maybe in his own mind, I don't know) about what we use to judge the value of the science he is talking about, because he doesn't say how science gets us to evaluating our values. He seems to assume one moral value, human wellbeing, as a given. Where's his science that gets us to this and other moral values? Maybe he gets to that in the future. Maybe all we can draw from this is that science can help more than we are accustomed to thinking since Hume gave us is/ought. Can we dispose of is/ought as we dispose of non-overlapping magisteria?

I don't think Harris convinces that it's all an illusion - unless he can tell us elsewhere how he's figured out all the problems of metaethics - see later. It's not illusory that science can't help us with all aspects of morals - as his own caveats attest.

Sean Carroll On Harris...

Sean Carroll criticises Harris here.

Well, I don't think this is quite right with regard to Hume's is/ought. See this post by Alonzo Fyfe. "Prove it.", challenges Alonzo. Of course Alonzo knows that can't be done, and isn't really expecting you to. It's a rhetorical flourish to explain his claim that Hume's argument is one from ignorance. The difficulty, the seeming impossibility, of getting and 'ought' from an 'is' doesn't mean it's not possible.

Carroll says, "Morality and science operate in very different ways." - Well, maybe. Maybe morals and psychology are as different as psychology and physics. Maybe we just don't understand morals too well - we may know them when we see them, but that doesn't mean we understand them. Surely Carroll isn't doing a Stephen Jay Gould on us - do science and morals operate in so different ways?

I'll come back to Carroll where I think he's right.

Where Does That Leave Me?...

Is the problem perhaps that morality itself isn't quite what we think it is - that it is some specific set of facts that determine what we do? This has a similar flavour to questions of what consciousness is, what free-will is - whether they exist at all, or whether they do exist but not as we know it; Jim. Could Harris be right that morals can be reduced to facts?

Maybe morality is, in fact, just another, fact, another data point, an emotional response that we experience. What is it, in fact, to say we have morals? After all, as I conclude that I have no evidence of God (I therefore become an atheist), at all, and so can't derive morals, whatever they are, from him, then God isn't a source - as far as I can tell. Further, as I have no evidence that there are moral absolutes in the universe, but also no evidence that I can know I have access to absolutes in order to judge that, then I can't claim that that's a source, or not.

So if my morals come out of what's left, the only evidence available to me, my biological and cultural evolution, then, in the great scheme of things they are quite arbitrary facts, aren't they? They could have been otherwise differnt facts. If we had inherited a propensity for infanticide of existing children of new mates, say from a common ancestor with some big cats, then any female divorcee might be reluctant to take on a new man - but the infanticide under those circumstances might then not be a moral problem. Maybe we would have come up with a 'moral' means of achieving this - like the debate over the method of death on death row in some US states, the death isn't the moral issue, but the method is. Our morals are only meaningful in our own human contexts.

Maybe, below our feeling that they are not facts, they in fact are - and being this type of fact are open to discovery, and statistical analysis (i.e. democratic voting), the result of which determines what we do. This doesn't mean we have to, as some fear, scan each other constantly to determine our moral values. The human genome project hasn't been quite the horror for insurance access that we worried it might be, because we took some more general principle fact (empathy), constructed a moral code out of it (fairness) and prevented the wholesale use of genetics as a means to insurance discrimination and persecution.

So, before we're too critical of Harris, maybe we need to think what our morals are first - I don't mean what our moral values happen to be. Earlier I distinguished between two possible meanings of 'ought'. But do we fully understand what the moral 'ought' is?

1) Is it (morally)right/wrong to murder?
2) Is it (morally or otherwise)right/wrong to make murder a moral matter?

What do I mean by 'otherwise'? I mean as in 'makes sense', or as in 'category error', or as in 'appropriate'...

If it's wrong to make murder a moral matter, then the first question loses its significance.

3) Is it (morally)right/wrong to like oranges?
4) Is it (morally or otherwise)right/wrong to make the liking of oranges a moral matter?

Q4 is easier to answer than Q2, so Q3 is obviously not a moral issue. Why is Q1 a moral issue? Have we clearly answered Q2?

Exactly why is murder a moral question and the liking of oranges not? You might think to answer 'The Golden Rule', or 'Least Harm' or whatever is your moral code. But why is that a moral code in the first place?

As Gurder says, "Ethics are not easy". Quite right. The whole subject of metaethics is testament to that. Try wading through this, through all the descriptive/normative stuff, and see if you can find a conclusion - you'll certainly come out of it with more questions than you took in.

So, where do I stand?

Yes, ethics is real complex. we're not even sure what it is we're talking about - yet we all sort of know what we're talking about, as if by magic (e.g. as if by God), when really it's just some complex opinion we have that comes about because of our biological and cultural evolution and personal experience and reason - or at least as my biological and cultural evolution and personal experience and reason informs me. All very flaky, tentative, contingent, arbitrary? Too true it is.

Should I be a moral relativist? Well, what an awkward question that is - I'm asking an 'ought' question about my 'oughts'. I can certainly observe a moral relativism - it's plain to see that everyone has a relative opinion about morality, even if there are more common features than differences. There are probably as many nuanced moral views as there are variations in the human genome - and why shouldn't that be so.

But we don't generally implement moral relativism (some post modernists excepted). We do make moral stands - i.e. we do make moral claims - and Harris points out some of these. Even if we can't justify how we come by them or why we hold them. We can't give a moral justification for all our moral views.

That means conflict. I think genital mutilation of baby boys and young girls is morally wrong. I can justify why - Golden rule, least Harm, Freedom to Choose, Self-Determination, etc. - but I can't justify those in turn on moral grounds. I am at odds with people who think those practices are acceptable. I could have, had I lived at the time of the Crusades, gone to war over an issue like this. Now I have to content myself with changing opinions through reason and law - if I, with others, can through reason persuade enough others that these practices should be proscribed through law, then I win that conflict; otherwise I continue to lose. This is what it boils down to.

So, I think Sean Carroll is on firmer ground with this:

"A big part of the temptation to insist that moral judgments are objectively true is that we would like to have justification for arguing against what we see as moral outrages when they occur. But there's no reason why we can't be judgmental and firm in our personal convictions, even if we are honest that those convictions don’t have the same status as objective laws of nature. In the real world, when we disagree with someone else’s moral judgments, we try to persuade them to see things our way; if that fails, we may (as a society) resort to more dramatic measures like throwing them in jail. But our ability to persuade others that they are being immoral is completely unaffected — and indeed, may even be hindered — by pretending that our version of morality is objectively true. In the end, we will always be appealing to their own moral senses, which may or may not coincide with ours."

I've emphasised the bit where I'd add something: by pretending that our version of morality is objectively true, whether they turn out to be objectively true or not, whether Harris is right or not. I'm back to my contingency of knowledge again. Epistemology is a bitch, even for a deity. But that's okay. When it gets very vague - at the limits of ability to figure things out, we just have to make the best of it we can - we do science.

The religious seem to dump this whole problem in God's lap. That doesn't seem good enough to me (do I find that an immoral failure of responsibility?). If I can't figure something out I'd rather admit it, and if I must, I make a choice, based on whatever I've got available. And that consists of my senses and reason. And the best we can do with our senses and reason is to use them as rigorously as possible - science.

So, to some extent I'm with Harris in his project. I don't think he's got it right yet. But give the guy a break, we're still trying to figure out lots of stuff, and philosophers and scientists are bound to make lots of mistakes. But how do we know what are the limits of knowledge; how do we know what we can't know, when it comes to complex issues like this, that are processed in our very peculiar brains, which we don't yet fully understand.

Let's give Harris some rope - see if he ties it all up nicely or hangs himself.

A Biblical Story

2010-08-04T17:18:00.000Z

The religious like their stories. Postmodern relativist theists love them. It allows everyone to have their own cuddly warm snug safety blanket in which to wrap themselves, without fear of someone nasty coming along and snatching it away - a gift from their father, God. There's nothing nicer than being wrapped up, nice and warm, being told lovely stories about their heroic father protecting them from evil.

But there's another part of their story that's not so nice, but just as necessary, because we all like scary stories. One day a bully arrives in the class, and his name is Atheist. His favourite wicked pass-time is to snatch their faith blankets away and make them cry. His second favourite is to tell a frightful story, of how his own father, Nietzsche, is killing their father God.

But I've got a better story, a predominantly western story (for their are similar stories elsewhere). And it goes like this.

Nietzsche is blamed for killing God. How can that be? There never was a God to be killed. Let's start at the beginning, or as near to it as matters for this story.

Long ago humans evolved along with other animals from some common anscestor with similar characteristics. Humans have many featues in common with all vertabrates. Even more in common with mammals. Even more with primates. Most with the remaining other apes.

They have a mix of traits, that include complex combinations of being able to love and hate, help and kill. Their social evolution has caused them to be mostly loving to those close, and fairly neutral and even co-operative with other groups, suppressing their baser inclinations. However, conflicting interests, fear, misunderstanding, jelousy, etc., all the nasty bits, are just below the surface.

It's difficult to know for sure what real evolutionary mechanism caused religion to come about, whether it confered some direct benefit, or whether it's a by-product of the evolution of the degree of self-awareness. It remains a mystery, but many facts fit one particular idea.

All mammals have a sense of 'other', as in other external creatures: to be eaten by, to eat, to fight, to mate. Few animals are self-aware, so when self-awareness evolved to a certain degree there becomes both 'other' and 'self'. The brain sciences have shown quite clearly that these are in different parts of the brain, but are linked; that the confusion of 'self' and 'other' can give a feeling of internal 'other'. This is very striking in various forms of brain damage - the type and location of the damage can determine loss of this internal 'other' or its acquisition. It can also be induced or inhibited in healthy brains at will, in a laboratory. Many humans have a 'self-self' and an 'other-self'.

There were no brain scientists around in ancient times, but there were a multitude of unexplained awful events. With a familiarity of the powerful capabilities of humans compared to other animals, it might have seemed obvious that there must be some more powerful external hiddden 'others' at work, directing nature, inlfuencing lives.

Put these internal and external 'others' together, and you have gods that are doing things for and to humans, and even invade their minds.

But, some humans aren't quite as dumb as they first appear. Over the millenia, as the population increases, and pouplations merge and compare ideas, as they record their ideas and they spread them, it seems obvious that there are some inconsistencies, competing gods, silly notions of what it is to be a god.

From the recordings of the Greeks onward philosophy and rudementary science bring some critical thinking to the table, which begins the whole process of rationalising and economising on gods and their capabilities. There emerges the most concise God, the Jewish God, with many of his awkward inconvenient inconsistencies explained away into the sky, or heaven or wherever - depending on how critical the analysis has to be to avoid arguments from those that tend not to believe or who have competing gods. God goes into hiding, and leaves the material world behind, and his interactions with us and our world have to be explained by miracles.

The religions provide great social cohesion in times that are still barbaric and brutal. They provide an authority that can't be matched by individual rulers. They help keep the peace mostly, but can still just as easily be invoked for war. Religions are used control the uneducated supersticious masses, for reasons of good for the theologians, for reasons of convenience for the godless powerful.

Despite the reconciling role of great religions there are still independent theological thinkers who challenge the various orthodoxies, causing many schisms in what had been the start of a grand religious project. Other religions emerged on the boundaries of western thinking, the most prominat being Islam which separated much of western thinking from its Greek routes.

Come the enlightnement even more events and wonders of the world, like the rainbow, become explainable as natural phenomena. The Greeks are rediscovered, and Islamic ideas on science filter through. Western Europe becomes the focul point for many revolutions in thinking, and discovering, of ideas, places, animals and peoples. God and his works recede into the distance.

From Darwin and others a unifying explanation develops that shows not only that humans are not special, but that evolution can remove the need for a God, or at least push him back to the moment of creation. Sophisticated theology is required all the more to hide God somewhere safe. The struggle between the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other mirrors the internal dichotomy of the rational internal 'self-self' and the feeling internal 'other-self'.

This vanishing act needn't be the intentional and aware response it sounds to be. It can be a genuine shift in the detail of belief in thologians that have as much access to the enlightenment ideas as any atheist. They have to reconcile what they know with what they feel, but what they feel has a strong hold and won't let go.

So, God remains the primary presupposition that in their cognitive dissonance must override all other ideas. They may even have a sneaky suspision that their beliefs are nonsense, but what can you do if the internal 'other-self' is so convincing? They even see the folly in other beliefs that are similar, or in those of their own religion that have a less sophisticated view of what God is. They know they can't explain their God really, but they can have faith.

Some become so close to atheism in their intellectual disposal of God's inconveniences, that they even confuse what atheism means - Peter Rollins, with his really odd twisting of words is so confused, hence and confusing. No doubt Rollins is sincere. I'm not accusing these theists of being charlatons, though some of the money making TV evangelists may be, I don't know. But many theists clearly have an eye for this world as much as the next.

And so here we are. Nieztshce didn't kill God. There never was a God, just an idea of a God accompanied by a feeling. Nieztshce and many others have been dripping slow acting poisons into the challace, causing a lingering and painful death for the idea that is yet incomplete. Though the feeling remains you can see the agony of self-realisation of the inevitable dawning on the likes of the Arch Bishop of Cantebury, as they struggle to reconcile their faith with the ultimate demise of the God that never was.

Rather than let the atheist kill their God they would rather do it themselves. They suffocate him in an act of kindness, they bury him in the safest place they can find, in the depths of their souls where he'll be accessible to them. He becomes a fully personal God. No longer the need to explain him away, he'll still be close by, feeding ideas through the inner 'other-self'.

They see the problems, yet they still feel God, see God, or see the need for God, or fear the lack of God. What must it be like to have this inner self, the 'other-self', ripped from their hearts?

Those that don't have it can only sympathise. Atheists who see a grand picture of the universe and beyond as a natural unfolding process have no need for God. There's a freedom to think the unthinkable without fear, to find what we find without judgement, to see what the science tells us without thinking it has a moral dimension, that the creation of moral codes are anyway just one more human trait. We can take what evolution has given us and build our moral codes on top of that, and make those moral codes do the best they can for everyone, because the predominant evolved characteristics are to love, to help, not to hate and to kill.

This is just a story. Many different stories can be told, and are told. This one is as close to the observed facts that I know of. Think of it as a docu-drama - a story made to fit the facts; or as a working hypothesis that has evidence to support it. This is a story told by humans, about humans using evidence accumulated by humans.

The predominant alternative story is one written by humans too, but where the main unobserved fictional character is supposed to have written the story himself. And as such, the authors can have the character explain away any inconsistencies by the magic of miracles, or by claiming not to know the mind of the unfathomable character the human authors have created. Now that's some serious imaginative just-so fiction. An incredible story. Really, it just isn't credible.

It's A Kind Of Magic

2010-07-28T23:03:00.000Z

Thanks to Lesley, and indirectly to The MadPriest, for a pointer to this Irish Times article, in which Canon Ginnie Kennerley puts magical thinking in its place, as eloquently and effectively as any atheist could:

"...is a demonstration of “magical thinking” at its most primitive, akin to ritual rain-making ceremonies and tribal rituals designed to control the uncontrollable" - Yes, even Christians are atheistic when it comes to some beliefs.

"While many of us occasionally indulge in magical thinking in small ways, if applied to serious issues it can become a major cause of injustice and handicap to general well-being."

"As I understand it, magical thinking relies on perceived (but un-confirmable) causal links between desired events and the phenomena that appear normally to accompany or precede them."

"It assumes that, by ensuring that there is no change in the supposed link of cause and effect, we can ensure the desired result every time – in effect, we imagine we can control the action of God."

"Those who fall prey to this style of magical thinking in the 21st century may deserve our sympathy and even a degree of respect, given that a high level of anxiety and desire for control, of which they may not be aware, is probably at the root of the matter."

I've a sneaky feeling Canon Ginnie Kennerley nodded off while reading some New Atheist book, and awoke thinking she'd been taking notes for something else entirely. I hope she doesn't mind if I keep these words in mind when I next argue with a theist.

Lesley's Salford Experience

2010-07-20T17:16:00.000Z

Lesley posted an interesting item today in which she described her experience of Salford. I know Salford quite well, though I grew up on Langley - another notorious area that suffered many of these same problems.

The post was mainly about homosexuality. But what I found more interesting was the type of society that exists in these places that, despite all the publicity, is still below the radar for most educated people. There are plenty of hard working decent honest people in these areas (that's right off a politician's crib sheet) who live side by side with troubled families.

We think the gulf of understanding between atheists and theists is great - it's nothing compared to the gulf between the educated middle classes and this under-class. Let's not mince words; there are very different segments of our society, and even though we no longer like to think in terms of classes, that's as good a term as any.

The recent Raoul Moat Facebook page comes to mind. I urge you to listen to this: Siobhan O'Dowd. What you hear is a severely uneducated woman being taken down a peg or two by a reasonably articulate radio presenter. All his points are reasonable. It's so endemic in these sub-cultures to be so anti-police that anyone who evades them is a 'legend'. Siobhan O'Dowd isn't condoning any of the harm Moat caused, but isn't the least bit sympathetic for the police efforts or the expense of mounting the police efforts. Her mind is filled with this screwed (to us) view of affairs, "I wouldn't say he's a legend for shooting people, but I would say he's a legend for keeping the police on their toes, like I've told you about five times."

If you don't get this 'other world' that they live in, then you don't get quite a lot about life.

Here's someone who misunderstands, who comments on the clip, "What a disgrace of a human being.. the chav whore." Another, "this stupid bitch should be steralized and lobotomized." Another, "Ian is awesome!? This interview is hilarious. Siobahn O'Dowd is fucking retarded."

Well, she may or may not be clinically retarded or otherwise biologically impaired, but she seems to suffer a psychological depravation that comes from a life of poor education, poverty, and being forced to mix with others in the same deprived environment.

If school doesn't catch you and inspire you, if you come from a poor home that offers you little, if you can't figure out that a 200% or 2000% interest to a loan shark isn't a good deal, if a good bargain is knocked-off tele or mobile from the pub, if you think the police are your enemy, if you think the social is out to screw you and you're entitled to crew them, then you are basically screwed for the rest of your life, and you are bound to repeat the whole experience for your own children.

To think the Siobhan O'Dowd's are in control of their lives to any great degree beyond instinctive short sighted responses to problems that come their way, is to be mistaken. To think the common notion of free-will is at work in many of these individuals is a mistake. I'd say it would be mistaken understanding of free-will, but that's another story - yet our misunderstanding of free-will colours our judgement.

This is our under-class, that includes the Siobhan O'Dowd's, the mothers who spend more on cigs that their kids' meals, and the women who learn that some of the men in this environment can't be trusted, because those men too grew up in the same environment, where their inherent worthlessness leads to the abuse of women and children. You have to get a feel for how lost they are to what we consider a normal life to appreciate how much beyond self-help many of them are.

This isn't a liberal lefty plea to let everyone off the hook. As members of a society we have a right (we invent this right and claim it) to have a say in how our fellow members behave, to some extent: Golden Rule, least harm, whatever your view is. We are prepared to say that some behaviours are intolerable, and so we avoid where we can, and criminalise where we have to.

We often hear kids say, "I didn't ask to be born." when trying to avoid their responsibilities. Well, many of these people didn't ask to be born into poor families in deprived areas that condemn them and their children to this perpetual cycle. They will not, cannot, break the cycle. They cannot live up to their responsibilities because they are not equipped to do so.

Only the rest of us can do that for them, if we want to. We can make gestures like Lesley's and help on the ground - but this only alleviates a specific problem for some people. If there is no political will to make bigger changes then we have to accept that this is how it will be.

Angela's Reasonable Religion

2010-07-16T11:41:00.003Z

This is a response to Angela's Reasonable Religion, which in turn was a response to my comments here.

Yes, there are some generalisations we can make. All theists are, well, theists - a belief in God. The fact that the generalisation covers a wide variety doesn't detract from the generalisation. If you don't believe in God then you are an atheist - though precisely how that is interpreted and used does vary.

The charge you make against Dawkins isn't unique, but nor is it true.

"Many will happily throw away all scientific objectivity to take a pop at religion..." - Can you give instances, or are you too making sweeping statements.

"as though 'religion' is a genus" - Well, it is sort of like a genus, with lots of species below it. Or maybe religion is the family, Christianity a genus, and the various versions of Christianity a species. But then, just as in our species there is a variety of individuals. And just as there are evolutionarily determined common features across species, such as some of the morphological similarities between humans and apes, then so there might be some similarities across Christian species. So, yes, some sort of taxonomy might well be used to describe theists.

Can you show me one piece from a Dawkins book, or site where Dawkins makes any such generalisation? The problem is that in context Dawkins may be speaking about one particular type of believer, or one particular aspect of theology, and he's usually clear about that; but it's the reading thesis who says, "Hold on, that doesn't apply to me. Dawkins is making sweeping generalisations." As I said originally - selective reading.

"...but most people are too willing to sacrifice reason on the altar of prejudice." - This is precisely what the religious do when they put their faith in their dogma above reason. Note I don't say all religious all the time. Wouldn't want you to make the same mistake again of assuming I meant that.

"What fascinates me is the way in which those more interested in blaming..." - Well, here's a quote from a reasonable theist:

"What has science actually done for us to date in this regard? Probably – on balance - exacerbated the problem rather than done anything to ameliorate it. Your faith in science is touching!"

You can find this here, for context (Mike's 23 June 2010 18:39 comment).

Science or atheism are often blamed for the ills of the world, sometimes in the context of, "You can't be good without God.", or, "Look what atheists like Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot have done."

Sometimes we do blame religion for certain problems. With good reason. In the case of abusing Catholic priest it's actually individual humans to do this, not the religion as such. And the cover ups that have occurred have been performed by individual or collectives of humans within the church, so again it's not the religion as such. But it is the religion that sustains the authority that allows these things continue. It's religious authority that allows religious fanatics to manipulate the gullible into acts of terrorism. It is the religion that helps to maintain a sectarian division in Northern Ireland.

Sometimes science, or at least scientists deserve blame too. It's an impartial view. The difference is that science doesn't hold itself up to be following the perfect word of anyone. All science claims is to be the best method we have of acquiring knowledge, and even then it has specific means of dealing with the fallibility of the humans that implement it.

Science is just one more system invented by humans. It's the best we can do, given our limited access to knowledge and all our fallibilities. This isn't to say science is perfect. But science is the best we can do.

"The Social Sciences may have proven..." - The social sciences haven't proven anything of the sort. They have acquired some supporting evidence. We have to be careful how we use the term 'proof'. It has a very specific meaning in logic, and is generally inadequate for describing scientific 'truths'. And 'truth' is another word we have to use with care - it's something we strive for, but not something we can be sure we have found.

"You [God] have repeatedly shown us that the violence that really destroys this world begins in ourselves." - We're nearly on the same page here. The scientific atheist view is that there is no evidence for God. Everything we worry about, all our problems of morality, come from us, as an evolved species that has developed innate and culturally evolved behaviours into a moral system. Given both the common ancestry and individual variety it is to be expected that there will be a some common features and plenty of variety in the belief in God - which is what we see. If there really was a God that revealed himself to us, either he made a very bad job of it, or he created us so that to us it looks as if belief is a human invention that comes out of our evolutionary and cultural history - how else would you explain the variety, inconsistency and contradictory nature of belief.

This isn't to say categorically that there isn't a God (and Dawkins is specific about this too: there might be, but there's no evidence.) The problem with all theologies is that they start with this basic unknown - is there a creator agent or is it all non-anthropomorphic cosmic fluctuation?; pick one of them, that there is a creator; and then go on to create all fantastically unsubstantiated theologies, without the slightest bit of evidence.

Theists are keen to tell us what God wants. "You [God] have repeatedly shown us..." - How do you know that? All your claims about God are based on what one particular branch of a whole group of societies made up: ancient superstition. Even the most basic attempts to verify any of this (such as experiments on the power of prayer) have failed utterly.

"Thank you [God] for the gift of reason..." - If you're using reason, and we know reason is fallible (that's why we need science, to compensate), how do you come to reason that there is a God? The only difference between those people who believe they are Napoleon and the faithful is that the Napoleon's are adamant they are in the face of irrefutable contradictory evidence, whereas the religious are relying on the fact that there is no data whatsoever, and also relying on the momentum that the organised religions provided.

"We may have mapped the human genome, but to the best of my knowledge, we have yet to find a way of accurately and predictably mapping the thoughts of a single human mind.. Even though we know this, even though we know that we cannot really know the mind or heart of another human being, we persist in pretending that we know enough to identify, label and blame.." - Even though we know we can't know the mind of God, and can't establish there is a God, some of us persist in pretending we know what he wants of us.

Violence with Violence

2010-07-15T09:23:00.000Z

Talk about selective reading. This is a joke. It's a bit of religious promotion based on some scientific studies that are confirming common sense. And for some it's too good an opportunity to pass up.

"You can't fight violence with violence" doesn't require detailed science, or God. It's common sense that some members of most societies have figured out is a good general rule, and that goes back well before Jesus. So, it's hardly as if it was a new idea - but fair enough, Jesus and some of his followers have made a significant contribution to the popularisation of that view and are to be congratulated on that.

And it's not as if science was around to figure this stuff out. As a science psychology is still relatively new, has many methodological problems, and the detailed thorough science is difficult to do. So, no surprise that science is late in the game.

But hold on, who is it that creates wars, and on what basis do wars begin? It's usually based on ignorance about differences and dogma, and religion has had a great input here (as have non-religious dogmas). It's religious politicians, like Bush and Blair that have wanted war on terror; it's religiously motivated political divisions that have caused conflict, from the Christian crusades to Northern Ireland and former Yugoslavia, to the continuing tribal, racial and religious divisions in Africa.

It certainly isn't to religion's credit that it has not sorted these problems out so far, and it is to religions discredit that it has contributed so much to the problems. Perhaps the question should be why has it taken science to step in and provide rational reasons to explain the complexities? It's because ignorant politics and religion have failed, and reason and science have had to come to the rescue to provide a less biased view that can be taken on board whatever one's politics or religion (dogma permitting). Science is for everyone everywhere. It doesn't matter if you're black or white, Muslim or Jew or Christian, Roman Catholic or Anglican - there are no divisions in science, and no dogma (except when fallible humans screw it up and become dogmatic about the science).

Thorough science isn't easy. The scientific method is used to overcome the foibles of the human mind, by trying to account for biases, such as those that religion and politics is likely to enforce. It's thanks to sciences like anthropology, sociology, psychology, and the engineering sciences and technologies like print, radio, TV and satellite that have provided a greater understanding of the natural variety of human nature and culture and education, and the dissemination of that knowledge, that has led to slow but positive progress in lifting the veil of ignorance of a non-scientific view.

But "You can't fight violence with violence" is a general rule. We are not that good at science yet; or more specifically we are not that good at listening to science yet. We still get ourselves into some serious fixes, through political gaffs, intolerance of the religious and non-religious alike, through ignorance. And sometimes we are left with no choice but to defend ourselves, even if it's our own fault that got us into the mess.

We are dumb apes - which is what science tells us, and helps explain quite a lot, but which many religious deny. This denial, and the ignorant notion that we of some particular religion or other are chosen in some way fuels the ignorance.

Science fails often, in the hands of fallible humans, despite attempts to develop a scientific method to overcome our fallibilities in seeking truth. Religion fails far more. So, less of the back slapping, a little more humility, and get on with promoting the views of Jesus the peace loving mortal man, and less of the religious dogma.

The Kneeler's post is typical of the selective reading that the religious have to develop as second nature if they are to make any sense of the Bible. And of course they always apply it to science. Science is great when it's curing ills - though it hasn't been beyond the religious to thank God for those cures. But where are most of the religious on evolution? Still in the dark ages. It's also typical of the religious to claim prior credit for scientific discoveries - though Muslims seem particularly good at this as they often claim the Koran said it first, no matter how vague the reference, and no matter that they got it from the Greeks. No, it only requires the holy book to come up with some common sense notion, like 'thou shalt not kill', which anyone can now see is an evolutionarily driven survival strategy, for the religious to claim with self righteous indignation that it's God's law, and
they, by association, are the righteous ones.

The Bible is just a book, written by men. Genesis has as much scientific validity and truth as The Flintstones - sure there were dinosaurs, but not at the same time as man (tell that to the curator of the Creationist Museum); see the similarity (talking snake?). The whole Bible is an invention of minds that today would be considered uneducated - not in language, not unintelligent, just ignorant of very basic science and the methods of science and critical thinking that would have debunked many of their ideas in their own day had those methods been available. So there's no shadow of disgrace on them - they were working with what they had.

The Bible bashers of today have no excuse. It doesn't take much to pick holes in most of the theological crap. We don't know how our particular universe started, so we remain ignorant of many things. We have no idea whether there is some ultimate intelligent agency behind it all, or if it is really all soulless fluctuations in nothingness - the metaphysics is beyond our data, just not beyond our imagination. But it's foolish to build whole systems of belief on that one speculative imaginary idea about the metaphysical inaccessible, and to pile theological bunk on theological bunk on top of ancient books that have to be deciphered in ever more obscure ways to make the theology fit reality (or not).

Science is the best we can do, for now. Ridicule it viciously when it's wrong, by all means - that's what it needs, that's part of the very method itself. We must be challenging our knowledge all the time, because we are not capable of being certain. We don't have the equipment, whether it's equipment we've invented or that which has evolved between our ears. But for God's sake don't rely on religion to tell us anything useful - and I mean 'for God's sake', for if there really is a God, he's going to be very disappointed in his own creation, if he's endowed us with brains, and we refuse to use them, to paraphrase Galileo.

BBC Mythos and Logos

2010-06-21T17:44:00.001Z

The BBC programme
Something Understood - Mythos and Logos (h/t Lesley) discusses the roles of Mythos and Logos: Mark Tully explores the difference between a scientific understanding of the world and a mythological understanding; between the rational language of science and the poetic language of myth.

My view is as follows:

Mythos - Myth, fantasy, didn't actually happen. Fine for fictional novels. Some fictional novels are intended to portrait philosophical or sociological metaphors or allegories, from which we can learn stuff, so okay on that too - but care is required not to read too much into it (as is done with the Bible).

Mythos had a greater place in the past because there was less logos. The mythos of the ancients is viewed retrospectively with rosy tint of modern theology and myth. My guess would be that if you could go back in time and offer some of the ancients a bit more of our logos so that they didn't need so much of their mythos, then they'd bite your hand off. There's a tendency to over glamorise the past.

There's also two categories of mythos in the current post modern mind. I don't know if it was present in earlier ideas, but it's here now, and it does cause confusion. There's (a) the mythos that is really just creative imagination, and there's (b) the mythos that is believing fantasy to be true; and they are confused at will by theists. It goes like this: the theist makes a claim (b), and the atheists says there's no evidence, to which the theist responds with (a), which obviously the atheist didn't intend to dispute. Angela Tilby gives fine examples below.

But first Tully introduces words from Karen Armstrong.

Karen, "There were regarded as complementary ways..." - Not surprising. if you had little logos available, what else did you have to turn to in your uncertainty?

Karen, "myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning..." - Because they didn't have the logos to tell them that there was no meaning, as they understood that to be, and as I think most theists still understand it to be.

Karen, "Logos...it must work efficiently in the mundane world. We use...when we have to make things happen, get something done, or to persuade other people to adopt a course of action."

Karen, "Logos is practical, unlike myth..." - What price pragmatism? - "..to elaborate on old insights" - i.e. correct the mistakes of the myths - "...achieve a greater control over our environment..." - our only known environment.

Tully, "We may have regressed spiritually, because of our suppression of mythos." - Note the negative defensiveness. Alternatively we may have progressed, not by suppressing, but by outgrowing mythos. Lucretius sounds as though he was onto it. Can you honestly say that the old mythos was reasoned? Wasn't it just more of the same nonsense you might attribute to some of the crazier believers of today? Trouble is, once you mistake mythos for truth all bets are off - you are capable of believing anything; or sometimes more significantly, you can't deny someone else's right to believe their crazy mythos.

Tully, on Peter Gabriel, "...overcome by the power of music and ritual, the mythos" - No. Just hypnotised by it. A brain state. Many animals can be lulled into these states too. Think of it as your computer freezing up momentarily for no apparent reason - it's doing something, it's just not obvious to consciousness.

Angela Tilby, and Anglican Priest and theologian...

Angela, "You might think ... scientific..is logos... clearly right in the way science practises itself. But it probably isn't right in way scientists sometimes use their imagination, use their instincts, use their sense of adventure to inhabit the whole enterprise; mythos carries on even when it's denied." - Bollocks. This is not the same mythos at all. This is an attempt (maybe unintended) to conflate mythos as myth with straight forward human emotion, personality, involvement - all potential for scientific explanation in themselves. Scientists don't pray for guidance in their work, unless they're scientists who happen to be religious. They don't look to ancient books for eternal truths, they look to older evidence and challenge it, or reproduce it, they question older truths, mythos or logos - all is up for questioning.

Has logos won? Not entirely, on two points. The first, is that if logos itself implies that mythos is nonsense as a route to truth, then there's no room for complacency, mythos is still influencing irrationally. The second, the very nature of logos (certainly now) is that it's an ongoing quest for truth, and so again there's no room for complacency - there is no winning, there is only progress. Winning implies the job is done. There is no know reason to think we will ever be able to say, job done.

Angela, "Mythos does continue to hold great sway" - Only for those that believe it. There's not inherent place for mythos. I see it as a temporary fluctuation in the evolution of one particular species - think evolutionary time scales, where will we be in 1,000 years, 10,000. There's no reason to suppose the remaining elements of mythos, the Rollins view if you like, won't go the same way as sacrificing to Gods. As protestant Christians, do you really see RC transubstantiation surviving as a credible truth? The resurrection?

Angela, "We delight in story telling, in narrative..." - Yes. That's how we came to grow into our language, to be able to make connections with each other, reporting non-local non-current events, transmitting knowledge - all when logos was particularly scarce that it was indistinguishable from myth.

We know soaps and novels are fiction, but yes, we can relate to stories that they tell. We do not really think that Gail McIntyre actually spent time in prison, but some of us do really think Jesus arose from the dead. The problem isn't the stories, the fantasies, the myths, it's believing they are true - and the more literally we take them, the more danger they pose as falsehoods.

Angela, "Mythos doesn't die just because logos is in the ascendancy..." - Conflating mythos (believing fantasy to be truth) with fantasy again. This really is a mistake the Mythos crowd make. They see both the pleasure and the practical value in telling stories, using them as metaphor and allegory - this is fine. But they lump that in with truth claims about ridiculous fantasy.

We put too much emphasis on logos, underestimating mythos?

Angela, "I think there is an imbalance ... live in a world of pure fact ... if you do that you end up in a very impoverished way." - Again, the mistaken conflation of wrong headed fantasy as truth, with the very commendable use of story telling, emotional involvement, and all the other fluffy stuff that scientists are equally (more so says Feynman) capable of appreciating - not impoverished at all.

Angela, "Truth doesn't contradict truth..." - Another problem. The issue, from the logos point of view is that it's difficult to be sure when we have got at the truth, particularly any ultimate truth. Science refuses to make that claim. It's only theism and other mythos adherents and pos modernist woolly thinkers that use this move. In essence it relies on 'stories' (the mythos kind not the soap opera kind) to entitle people to their own versions of the truth, as they see fit. It demands respect among the mythos crowd for each other's myths, and prevents any serious questioning from the sceptical logos community - or at least the mythos crowd think it should.... Angela, "I think that's absolutely true" - which becomes true since all truth claims (stories) are true, by the mythos principle. Bollocks of course.

Angela, "As a person I believe [1] thoroughly in the scientific method and in evolution. I want to use antibiotic drugs, I'm interested in space exploration; [2] I'm interested in the strangeness of new physics. At the same time [3] I want to respond to the world as God's good creation and to live in it a creative and ethical life that has meaning and fulfilment beyond myself and physical death." - The mythos team think [3] is made compatible with [1], but they really mean there's no conflict between [3] and [2] - and many theists are comfortable with science processes. But [1], if followed to where it leads, through whatever evidence there is - and [1] relies on evidence - then they are not compatible: there's nothing that leads a rational scientific mind to [3].

Angela, "It isn't a problem to live with those two truths." - I agree. It's not a problem to live with the truth that London is in France, as long as you don't try to visit London. You can even visit France, without visiting London, and still believe that false truth, while believing the truth that you are in France. And so it is possible, that if you don't think clearly enough about what you're, well, thinking about, you can make incompatible beliefs co-exist in your head quite comfortable - even though some of them are myths (the fantasy kind).

Angela, "I don't think they contradict each other." - Set theory: A and B are independent sets. 1) x is a member of A; 2) x is a member of A and B. Statements (1) and (2) don't contradict each other, but (2) happens to be false. Again, woolly thinking. Contradiction isn't the issue. Mythos being the route to truth is the issue.

Angela, "I won't choose. They're both valid ways of being a human being." - I agree. Logos is a valid way of being a rational human being; mythos is a way of being an irrational human being. Don't get me wrong. In backing logos I'm not saying we must always be perfect rational human beings - the whole point of my argument is that we can't be, and that recognising this helps us to realise that mythos is one of our more dramatic failures - particularly in the hands of fundamentalists.

Angela, "I think I would be less human if I wasn't trying to hold the two together." - Well, such low self-esteem seems to be one of the attributes of the religious. They seem to need the God mythos to validate their lives. Note the inherent insult to non-believers - we're less human. That's a clear message that's been spelled out to the irreligious for centuries - sinners destined for hell - and it's no less clear simply because it's disguised in woolly post modern terms. Thankfully we've got broad shoulders - or maybe it's just that we know there's no weight, no mass, no substance to this nonsense, so it doesn't bother us. But there are times when it matters.

Angela uses Bach as an example of mythos and logos coming together. She points out the rigour in the maths and the precision behind his work, "...and yet he produces this astonishingly heart rending music." - Conflating mythos with music now? The creativity of human beings is a distinct imaginative skill, facet, characteristic, whatever you want to call it. There's no logical attachment of imagination to believing fantasy is truth.

Angela, "..[Bach] goes right to the soul and speaks of realities far greater than that of the scale itself." - Well, no. It says nothing at all about other realities, greater or otherwise. What music does do is resonate. It may do this literally and physically, in that it does cause resonant conditions within the brain, particularly if it's loud enough to feel more physically through the body rather than just through the ears. It can also do it psychologically, in that it invokes emotions, sometimes associated with events and experiences, or even with fantasies. This latter is less well understood, and requires much more from brain science disciplines to understand more fully - but that current gap in our knowledge is not one for a God of the gaps, or in this case a mythos of the gaps, to fill in. Of course that's the tradition our ancient much-mythos less-logos has left us with, so it's understandable some are easily persuaded of this.

Angela, "...[Bach's music] says something about how Western civilisation can bring these two things [logos mythos] together" - Only because Angela wants it to, and because she categorises creativity and human physio-psychological responses to that creativity as an element of mythos. Now if she wants to do that, if that's how she wants to define mythos, great. Except that then causes confusion in debates about theism and mythos, about the mythos of Genesis, and so on. Not very helpful.

I find it curious that the mythos team seem to think that if they can only give us on the logos team good examples then we'll get it. They read us poetry, excerpts from the Bible, sayings of wise some wise sage, or maybe play us some music - as Tully does here with Bach. we get it. We are moved by the music and the poetry too. What we also get is that what the mythos team lump together with their fantasies we see as something distinct. No amount of reading poetry and playing music is going to make us magically lose the logical difference.

So, there are four distinct topics recognised so far here: logos, creative-mythos, fantasy-story-mythos, and fantasy-truth-mythos.

Logos is compatible with creative-mythos. We recognise the blend of art and science in many of our most creative polymaths. We can also accommodate fantasy-story-mythos, using the vehicle of story telling, narrative, to show us allegorically the many twists and turns of human nature. the Bible is often quoted in this respect, and it does have some good human stories that strike a chord. Shakespeare does it better for me personally, and often with a damn site more humour - always a bonus.

What isn't compatible with logos, and what goes against the grain of any sort of rationality that we humans are capable of, and what flies in the face of science's greatest efforts to understand this world, this universe, ourselves, is the make-believe of fantasy-truth-mythos. There is no evidence for a God, no matter how much some people would like him to be there - wishful thinking does not make it true. The miraculous appearance of Adam, and the use of his rib, transubstantiation, resurrection - all fantasy by all rational standards.

Tully on Kant: Reason has it's limitations and philosophers can be too dependent on it. Quite. So, why does Kant reason, quite reasonably, that we can't go beyond what we can know, and then go on to describe in some detail things that are beyond his reasoning capacity?

Listen to this Philosophy Bites. Kant is okay, up to the point where he recognises the limitations of our perceptions. In Kant's terms we can never take the spectacles off - okay. We have to put to one side all metaphysical question that are beyond us - including any deity. We can ask the questions - that isn't the problem. But we can't know what is out there. We can speculate. We are at liberty to have faith, but you can't have knowledge of whether that's true or not. This is the atheist logos position and offers nothing to the mythos.

In supposing noumena exists Kant goes too far - beyond our fallible human capabilities.

Kant is motivated to maintain faith. And he's prepared to give up all his hard work in order to sustain this. Like many philosophers, he can't stop himself going beyond his own claims.

Spiritual Mumbo Jumbo, or Hypnosis?

2010-06-19T09:10:00.003Z

I wanted to give an example of religious wooly thinking, and here's one. You can watch the video here (h/t Lesley), and you might want to do that first to get the flavour of it. Or, you could read this first, and then go back and listen with some of these questions in mind. By the time you read this the full video may have been taken down, so here I'm working on the part-transcript I took while it was up.

This piss-take video gets right to the point (h/t Lesley again).

Rob starts off criticising what he sees as obviously ridiculous 'signs', as if he's the rational one, appealing to you too as rational Christians, not prepared to believe what are clearly nonsensical claims. This is the psychological technique of inclusion whereby he invites you into his circle of knowing believers that aren't fooled by false claims of miracles and prayer. Little pauses and glances aside for dramatic effect always add to the performance - and Rob is a performer. Is it me, because I don't get it, or does he come across as really insincere to you?

"...old man...long white beard..." - He's setting up his own straw man to show how he can knock it down.

But from here on in, it gets really woolly. So much so that it's hard to critique in it's entirety. It's hard to pick out any meaningful idea to criticise because the way it's presented is in a dreamy hypnotic style that drifts in and out of sense. There's nothing for it but to dive right in and comment as it goes. From here on the words are Rob's - my comments are italicised in square brackets - I'm going to have a quiet word with Rob, by interjecting in his consciousness, just as God does. I'm not entirely sure if this will work.

Rob continues with his observations on and criticisms of an existent God...

"..concept of God is a God who is outside of everything; a God who is essentially somewhere else. A God who made the world and who then stands back, and then, like, watches it from this other vantage point. A God who's there [Pointing dramatically helps, Rob?] and then from time to time comes, here [Overdid the theatrical pause there Rob - looked a little fake (but this is quite muted compared to your Resurrection video)]. But the problem with this concept of God is you end up you haven't even proved that this God even exists [That's right, you haven't; and nor do you ever prove, or give evidence for, or even a rational reason to accept, any of the bullshit that you invent to replace this God]. And so what happens is we start with real life, we start with existence, this, what we all agree actually exists [This is a good start]. And then people end up arguing and debating and discussing whether there's a God somewhere else who has something to do with this [Well, some Christians will persist in believing God exists as an entity, and some will come back to it some time after denying it. But note what's really happened here, Rob. You've managed to distance yourself from any requirement to define an existent God, without actually denying that God actually exists - which comes in handy later when you allude to God's existence by saying what God 'is' or what God 'is like', or when you talk about why we were created, by God. Rob, I accuse you of woolly thinking, but really it's quite an astute move - you been reading up on hypnosis techniques on how to confuse the listener?].

But the writers of the Bible seem far less interested in proving whether God exists, and far more interested in talking about what God is like. [How would you expect to find out what something is like when you're not even sure it exists - or do you really think God exists, but you just choose to skip that bit because it's an inconvenient problem? So, Rob, have we forgotten Genesis then, God as creator; you're sure?] Like in the book of Exodus, a man named Moses wants to know God's name and God responds "I am"['I am', as in I exist? Confused Moses? You will be.], and then later God reminds Moses that when Moses heard God's voice he saw no shape or form [Moses wouldn't see God if Moses was hearing voices. When people 'hear voices' it's real. Though the ear isn't receiving any sound the auditory cortex is actually active, just as if they were really hearing a voice. So, we've established that the religious are hearing things. But, if God doesn't exist, what is it that's actually speaking to Moses? Couldn't be Moses's own sub-conscious could it? No, that's way too straight forward for a Biblical story; heaven forbid - and apparently it does forbid the bleedin' obvious. But, let's continue Rob.]

God is beyond anything our minds can comprehend [But, Rob, theists are still keen to tell us God is love, etc., as you do later. So let's keep this incomprehensibility in mind for when you get round to comprehending him, which is what you do when you describe him.] What does it mean to have a personal relationship with this kind of God? [Good question, let's see how it goes.] That's, like, hard to get your mind around [Well, it would be, Rob, since you haven't told me anything yet, except there's a non-existent God, or a God that exists but you don't want to get into that, or a God who's beyond comprehension - it is a tall order when you don't appear to know what it is you're talking about. Could it possibly be you're inventing a relationship with yourself as a duality, as if there are two Robs, or is this friend completely imaginary?]

But you know I believe that God listens and God cares and God's involved [Why? Given what you've just said, Rob, this statement is right out of the blue. Here's an idea, why don't we give this 'out of the blue' unsubstantiated belief that doesn't rely on any reason whatsoever, why don't we give it a name, like...'faith' - oh, you already have? OK.], but I find the whole relationship idea hard to comprehend [You should, Rob! And you should be asking yourself serious sceptical questions, not trying to affirm it, not trying to use flaky pshyce techniques to influence your audience into falling for it too. But, so far, all you've said is you believe that God does a few things. But why do you believe that?]

And then, loving this kind of God [Whoa! What kind? You haven't been able to comprehend him to say what kind he is.], what does that look like [You mean what does love look like, what does a relationship with a non-entity look like? What are you really asking Rob?], what does it mean [That's a better question. No answer due any time soon.], and ... how do you do it? [Another good one. No Answer coming.] Well when I think of God I hear a song [Nutty attempt coming up, but no real answer. This is semantically okay, but meaningless, unless you take it literally, that when he thinks of God he does actually hear a song. But, let's take it that you're about to use the act of listening to a song as a metaphor for constructing a relationship with God, or of hearing God. Doesn't seem like a great metaphor to me - there's supposed to some way of tallying the metaphor to the target, but this seems a little flaky. But, I forget; the whole point of this babble is to cuase confusion in the mind of the listener; sorry Rob. ].

It's a song that moves me, it has a melody and it has a groove. It has a certain rhythm. [So, it's a relationship that moves you? Is the metaphor really necessary for this bit? I would expect any good relationship to be like this, so the metaphor isn't really meeting it's objective, which is to explain a relationship with an incomprehensible being.] And people have heard this song for thousands and thousands of years across continents and cultures and time periods. [All Christians, or other theists too? And is the song we're hearing now God, or is he saying many people have had relationships with God, which seems like a song? Confusing.] People have heard the song and they have found it captivating [So far this is song as a metaphor, not for God, but just what it feels like to those who have a relationship with God - they've had a captivating experience - okay, but again, this could be any relationship, not one specifically with an incomprehensible entity.] and they've wanted to hear more [okay, they are hooked on the song, but really they are hooked on the experience of the relationship. Got that].

But there have always been people who say there is no song and have denied the music, but the song keeps playing [Why don't you just say there have always been atheists, or if that implies too much non-existence that you don't want to get into then just say non-believers. The metaphor isn't doing much work - but you've started it Rob, so you're stuck with it I guess. But, yes, we atheists say your 'song' is only in the heads of those having the delusion]. And so, Jesus came to show us how to live in tune with the song [How to remain deluded? How to continue to fool yourself? How to convince yourself that the song inside your head is real in some sense, or that the relationship you have constructed is a real relationship with something real (yet incomprehensible) and not just like a relationship with a child's imaginary friend?] ..way and the truth and the life [What does this mean? These are favourite meaningless tropes, rhetorical devices use for hypnotic effect. They are nonsense].

This isn't a statement about one religion being better than all the others. The last thing Jesus came to do was start a new religion [Oops! What have those damn Christians gone and done? But, good point. How does that work with religions, Rob? A Jewish man comes along with some neat ideas, but not wanting to start a new religion, but inadvertently does, based on him (through no fault of his own). Would he reject Christians as idolaters?] he came to show us reality at its most raw [What? In what way did he do this, and what does it mean anyway? Was he explaining evolution red in tooth and claw? Don't think so. And what has that to do with the song as metaphor for relationship with God? Don't forget the song Rob.], and came to show us how things are [We didn't know already? What did he actually show us? He had some nice cultural ideas, which were great, but that's about it. Is this meant as in the hippy 'tell it like is man' phrase, was Jesus merely a hippy?] Jesus is like God [But we don't know what the incomprehensible God is like yet, so what's the point of saying Jesus is like him, unless Jesus is incomprehensible too?], and in taking on flesh and blood [Thought Jesus was God? He was like God in taking on flesh and blood? But God only took on flesh and blood in Jesus? Confusing meaningless hypnotic rhetoric], and so in his generosity and in his compassion, that's what God's like, in his telling of the truth, that's what God's like, in his love and forgiveness and sacrifice, that's what God's like [So, now we are defining God, through Jesus, as a simile? Hold on. I thought God was incomprehensible. Or is this another metaphor, Jesus's behaviour as metaphor for God? The only incomprehensibility here is you Rob] That's who God is, that's how the song goes. [Utter bullshit. This has turned into a definition of God - remember the incomprehensible God that can't be explained? And I thought this song was about one's relationship with God, not a declaration of what this non-existent incomprehensible entity is].

[Something I've noticed here Rob, is how the sentences aren't always complete, how the subject switches subtly from what is, at one moment, clearly a concept, to later being assumed to be fact. Admire your grasp of hypnosis Rob Oops, hold on, you're back to the song.]

The song is playing all around us all the time [Just in your head, Rob, but you can't tell the difference] the song is playing everywhere [No it isn't Rob. Honestly. Unless you mean everywhere to you - which it would if it's constantly playing in your head]. It's written on our hearts [you mean you really feel the experience that you have just self-induced. Fair enough]. And everybody is playing the song [I thought we were listening to it, just hearing it, but now we're playing it too. But, no we're not Rob. Honest. I don't know who's supposed to be the most confused, Rob, you or the listener (I mean listener to you Rob, not listener to the song - sorry, I'm just confusing you/me/them all the more).].

See, the question isn't whether or not you are playing the song [You just said we were! but now that's not significant?], the question is are you in tune? [So, are we all playing, but some not in tune, or are some not actually playing the song but only hearing, in which case how can they get in tune if they aren't actually playing?].

Like it's written in the book of Acts ...God gives us life and breath and everything else. God is generous [which is easy for a non-existent entity who relies on the faithful to not only to invent Him, but to invent his generosity]. So when I'm, like, selfish and stingy and I refuse to give, I'm essentially out of tune with the song. Later, in one of John's letters he says that God is love; unrestrained, unconditional love [Another definition of that which is beyond comprehension - so you learned this trick from John?] So when you see somebody sacrifice themselves for another, for the wellbeing of somebody else, it's like they're playing in the right key, that's why it's so inspiring and powerful; they're in tune with the song [Not just in tune, but also in the right key, ok. In tune with the person they are helping or in tune with God or in tune with the relationship with God? And suddenly sacrifice is related to the tune - I thought the tune was about a relationship, with God. Well, if any of your audience are having trouble keeping up with this, then good, they're supposed to, right Rob?]

Now some people know all sorts of stuff about music, and they'll talk about pitch, and modes, and keys [yes, you just did] and instruments, so they can hear things that maybe other people don't, they can hear subtlety and nuance in the song, they appreciate things other people might miss, but it's also possible to be so caught up in the technical aspects of the song that you miss the simple pure enjoyment of the song. [It's also possible to be so caught up in the bullshit of presenting the message that there ends up being no discernible message - you might be stretching it a bit here Rob.] And there are people who talk as if they know everything about being a Christian, and yet they can seem way out of tune[Nice one Rob, distancing yourself from those Christians that claim to know, without acknowledging that through this message you are sort of claiming to know yourself. You are so slick]. And there are others who would say they don't know much at all about the Christian faith, and yet they can see very in tune with the song[i.e. you Rob? - Say it Rob, don't be bashful. Okay, so this snippet is just using the same ongoing metaphor, but this time to conjure up how some people may be interpreting scripture wrong, or God wrong? It's so confusing it's difficult to determine what the real point is. Does it make the audience feel in-group or out-group? If they're in already they feel warm and cosy, if they're out they're missing out and want to get in? More rhetorical psyche trickery - excellently performed Rob].

I've met lots of people who struggle with what it means to have a relationship with God, but they haven't lost faith and love and hope and truth and compassion and justice and generosity [They haven't lost their faith, love, hope, etc., or they haven't lost faith in God's love; but then is it God's hope they haven't lost faith in or their hope...? This is yet more syntactically correct but semantic hypnotic nonsense Rob - your audience must be fully entranced by now]. They maybe have this sense, like, you have no relationship with God because of all these ideas about what that means, all these things that you've been told about what it is or what it isn't [And Rob, you think you're helping?]. And an infinite massive invisible God, that's hard to get our minds around [Yes it is, but you're skipping that bit, or are they okay to continue to believe the existence of the incomprehensible? All that's left is the song in your head that isn't heard by anyone outside. Your own auditory cortex, your God module, is convincing you that you're hearing things and your pushing at it, willing it to be true. And all the while you're sort of telling the audience to forget the big God issue, though avoiding actually saying it]. But truth, love, grace, mercy, justice, mercy, compassion, the way that Jesus lived; I can see that, I can understand that, I can relate to that [So you can relate to human emotions and feelings - well done. Why the God bit?] I can play (in) that song [Don't you mean you can hear it, in this context?]"

Okay, back to reality. Thanks Rob, that's as clear as mud.

When we talk of mixed metaphor it's usually that someone has tried to relay a concept using elements of two or more metaphors, so it sounds a bit silly. But this is a more obscure mixture. The metaphor is the same throughout, but it's use changes as it appears to be applied to a relationship with an unfathomable being, as a notion for this being, for some human actions of love, or maybe sacrifice, for the misunderstanding of scripture, for what Jesus came to do, the way Jesus lived, or as a definition of God, etc. But not only that, the metaphor switches so that to be in the game you have to hear the song, or to play the song, or to play in tune with the song - and I'm not sure if it's any of those or all.

Encountering a theist like Rob is like receiving the Chinese Whispers, where every time you pin down a point with a question the answer doesn't quite seem to match the case being questioned; so you ask another question, and the answer has moved on to yet a different meaning - until eventually, as if by magic, the very first statement you were questioning is stated again as if it answers the last question. There you are, right back at the beginning, with nothing learned, and nothing really said. There's no temptation to feel as if you've lost the debate, as if your objections have been shown to be unfounded, because you can see they haven't; but there is a frustration that comes from knowing that no matter what you ask, the theist is locked into their own self-deception that what they are saying is actually meaningful.

So the question remains, does God exist or are we knocking Genesis on the head? Are we relinquishing the idea that this God actually exists as some entity, either 'out there' or in your head, or in any respect by which he is the creator God? I don't think so, and this is where the muddle headedness comes in. Theist will say, or suggest, or imply, or sidestep, as Bell does, that it is wrong to take the creation as literal, in the sense that some powerful entity created the universe and us, and that the notion that God exists as an entity out there isn't of concern, as if they don't need it. But, you can guarantee that somewhere along the line Genesis will be mentioned, and in that discussion there will be no reasonable way of taking it other than literal - that God actually created the world (though they may not read it literally in the six days Adam and Eve young earth Creationism sense - there are obviously grades of literalism). In fact it's hard to get a theist to commit to anything along these lines, which is odd, since commitment and faith are supposed to be big pluses.

Given that these ideas are developed and dispersed in the theological institutions of the church or colleges it's not surprising that the search for a common understanding results in something that is difficult to explain for the faithful and difficult to refute for the atheist.

I've often asked how you tell the difference between the delusion of being Napoleon and what I see as a delusion of belief in God. Rob Bell's explanation just seems like self-induced delusion, and I guess that's how I see the difference between a mad man who is off in La-La land, and the theist who appears to have their madness under self-control. And because it is self-induced, under the influence of the particular religion a person holds to, it is also well controlled, with affirmations for like-minded self-inducing people.

Note I'm not saying the theists don't believe in their God, that there is intentional underhandedness - just that the belief is so strong and so intricately supported by the church that they are incapable of willfully applying reason beyond the point where it starts to seriously challenge their faith.

Some get past this point, and become atheists - the internet has plenty of ex-theists who now pave the way for others.

And some are on the cusp - they see many of the problems with their faith, but still maintain it. They question their faith seriously and have moments of doubt. But if you suggest that they have in fact reached the point where they can let go of their faith, they are likely to backtrack and re-affirm many of the points that they have otherwise put up for questioning.

And they rely on the likes of Rob Bell to help them maintain their faith. Have I already said this is woolly thinking? Well, it's also a psyche trick to make the audience feel left out if they say no to any of this stuff. It's meant to draw them in, isn't it? It's a standard hypnosis technique. It starts off with ordinary language, slowly calmly yet still lucid, but then introduces babble that the brain can't quite focus on and draws you into the hypnotic state - the mind, in confusion, looks for someting to hang on to. Can't remember who said it, but, "A drowning man will clutch at a straw; so hold him under water, then offer him the straw", but it does describe the way this video is supposed to work. Listen to a Paul McKenna CD, or get a free DIY hypnosis download, or any relaxation CD. They draw you in with babble, slowing the pace of the words, not quite enunciating them, whispering in parts to make to lose mental focus.

Look up the definition of a cult and tell me it's different from plain old religious belief. Look of explanations for hypnosis and tell me that's not what's going on in Rob's beautifully scripted video. Welcome to the world of religious language.

Religion has nothing to do with science – and vice versa

2010-05-29T16:29:00.000Z

Thanks to Alan's comments for this link, where he say's "Just found this story with which I agree.":

Religion has nothing to do with science – and vice versa, by Francisco J. Ayala

Well, though I agree with some points, there are many specific ones with which I don't agree, and I don't agree with the general notion that Ayala makes.

Let's start with this:

"On the other side, some people of faith believe that science conveys a materialistic view of the world that denies the existence of any reality outside the material world. Science, they think, is incompatible with their religious faith."

and within that, this:

"denies the existence of any reality outside the material world.

First, that's false. Many don't deny it. They say there's no evidence to show it. Why? Because we are material creatures. We have senses that detect the material world. We have a material brain that operates in the material realm. How the heck are we supposed to detect or otherwise see something that is non-material? Do the religious magically have access to a realm that all of science, including religious scientists, has been unable to detect in any way. Our instruments are designed especially to extend the scale of human experience - but nowhere, never, has there been evidence of supernatural forces. Everything that has been discovered has fallen within the bounds of natural laws.

"If they are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters." - Only to the extent that the religious want this to be the case, along with the odd atheist exception, such as Stephen Jay Gould, who just wanted to let us all get on.

"The scope of science is the world of nature: the reality that is observed, directly or indirectly, by our senses. Science advances explanations about the natural world, explanations that are accepted or rejected by observation and experiment." - This bit is right.

"Outside the world of nature, however, science has no authority, no statements to make, no business whatsoever taking one position or another." - This bit is right too. But what the religious don't get is that it applies to them too! Science uses reason and the senses - exactly the same faculties available to the religious. There is nothing the religious can get at that scientists can't. In fact it's the other way round. Science has given us access to the brain - albeit we're still in the early stages - so that there are many examples of the brain doing weird things that one particular example, experiencing God, is really no big deal. We have no examples of anything that confirms that an experience of God is actually that and not some trick of the brain.

"Science has nothing decisive to say about values, whether economic, aesthetic or moral" - Simply not true. Science has plenty to say about all these.

"...nothing to say about the meaning of life or its purpose." - Simply not true. Results of science suggest that there is no purpose or meaning in the sense that religion would like there to be.

"Science has nothing to say, either, about religious beliefs, except..." - No exceptions. Science can say quite a lot about beliefs, and I'm sure will be saying more and more as the various branches of brain science expose more.

"People of faith need not be troubled that science is materialistic." - Only if they want to ignore it and pretend it doesn't have anything to say. Wishful thinking will not make science go away.

"The methods and scope of science remain within the world of matter." - True. Same applies to you.

"It [science] cannot make assertions beyond that world." - And neither can you or anyone religious. Well, not quite true. You can make the assertions - and often do, but based on nothing at all.

"Science transcends cultural, political and religious beliefs because it has nothing to say about these subjects." - Warning! Pseudo-intellectual postmodern claim! What the hell does it mean by 'transcends' in this statement? The word is usually the reserve of the religious, to say what they know of is above or beyond, bigger and better (e.g. Lesley's Rollins video). The word is sometimes used to mean 'encompasses', as in Venn diagrams when one encompasses another: the outer includes all that's in the inner but 'transcends' it by encompassing more than is in the inner.

"That science is not constrained by cultural or religious differences is one of its great virtues." - True. It can address anything the human mind and senses can address, because it is an instrument that expands the human mind and senses. If science can't get at it then we can't.

"Some scientists deny that there can be valid knowledge about values or about the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life." - This is true, but curiously this isn't the point he then goes on to describe with regard to Dawkins. He's confusing the point about what we have access to, what we can know, which this statement is about, with some things that we actually do have ideas about: the denying of purpose (in the religious sense) (not values - Dawkins isn't denying that)

"There is a monumental contradiction in these assertions. If its commitment to naturalism does not allow science to derive values, meaning or purposes from scientific knowledge, it surely does not allow it, either, to deny their existence." - This totally misunderstands the point. The point is that science shows there is no inherent purpose in the universe, not even the characteristics that give rise to us (essentially issues regarding Entropy - it all just happens as the universe 'winds down', to give a simple expression). This in no way prevents us, as organisms with brains that evaluate our surroundings and our selves (echoes of the free will issues here), and to derive values and purpose for ourselves, based on non-teleological evolutionary directives.

"In its publication Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences emphatically asserts that religion and science answer different questions about the world..." - And this is supposed to tell us what? With all the kerfuffle in the US about religion, evolution, ID's 'teach the controversy', etc., this is just a conciliatory nod to the religious that evolution won't step on their toes if they don't step on science's. other than that, the specific issue of evolution doesn't cross swords with liberal religion, since liberal religion accepts evolution and evolution doesn't address ultimate origins; but it does very specifically deny Creationism's young Earth claims.

"People of faith should stand in awe of the wondrous achievements of science. But they should not be troubled that science may deny their religious beliefs." - Of course they should. Science, like any common sense approach to life, demands that we have evidence for what we are being told - otherwise you will be conned all to easily, by email scammers for one. The fact that these scams succeed is a testament to the gullibility of the human brain when left to it's own devices. Belief in religion is another.

"Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and human life" - for all it tries to do that, for all it makes claims, it has nothing to back that up. basically, even when you dress up liberal religion in postmodern 'opinion' truths, it says nothing more than, "What's our purpose? Go is our purpose, or gives us our purpose, or demands our purpose, or loves us so we have the purpose to be loved, ...", and on and on with all sorts of unsubstantiated drivel that basically means they don't know either, but they'll have damned good fun making something up.

"[Religion concerns] the proper relation of people to their Creator and to each other" - Whoa! Hold on. "The proper relation of the people to the creator" - More postmodern bollocks. Without any evidence of a creator, or without the capacity to access the creator in order to establish there is a relation (remember, we are material beings. We don't have access to the supernatural) Note how this grammatically reasonable but nonsensical sentence is given some semblance of meaning, "make sure we include something human, our relation to each other, just to give this nonsense some grounding in reality."

"[Religion concerns] the moral values that inspire and govern their lives." - Only because the religious make that claim, and then espouse morality as if they are the only ones with access to it.

"Science, on the other hand, concerns the processes that account for the natural world: how the planets move, the composition of matter and the atmosphere, the origin and function of organisms." - And, one of these concerns is the workings of the human brain: neuroscience and evolution and anthropology suggest that internal personal 'religious experiences' are just brain anomalies, even if within normal bounds of variation; psychology and sociology and anthropology and evolution all suggest that external religious experiences and organisations are cultural memes that satisfied some requirement in the past.

"Religion has nothing definitive to say about ..." - Well, about anything really. Religion is made-up stuff.

"According to Augustine, the great theologian of the early Christian church..." - And therein lies another problem. Augustine and other theologians concerned themselves with explaining what pertains once a belief in God is given. This puts anything else they have to say into doubt.

"Successful as it is, however, a scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete." - Incomplete, yes, of course. It's work in progress. Humans first appeared about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago - and this might be the point when we really began to use our brains, but the details are unclear. The first human markings on pottery go back about 5500 years. What we call science now had it's base in Greek thought, but really took off just over a thousand years ago - about 1% - 2% of human existence? So, yes, we are still in our scientific infancy. We have no real conception of what science will be telling us about the brain, about religious belief, in another thousand years.

Because religion has been around for a while and science is so young, the religious seem to have the conceited view that theology has and continues to have access to great insights into the makings of the universe. But given that most of our current religious systems are not much different that those of two thousand years ago, give or take a bit of theological jiggery-pokery in the middle ages, I don't see that religion has had anything to offer.

"Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions and illuminate the significance of life and the world, but these matters are outside the realm of science." - No they are not, because that would put them outside the realm of human beings, when it's human beings that create both science (the process) and these perceptions (in our brains).

Ayala made some similar statements at the Buckingham Palace reception where he received his Templeton Foundation prize. Probably is best statement was this:

"Properly they cannot be in contradiction because they deal in different subjects. They are like two windows through which we look at the world; the world is one and the same, but what we see is different,..."

My response to that is that they could be. If religion stuck to it's organisational and pastoral care roles then it has a lot to contribute to human affairs. It differs from science in this respect in that science is best at finding things out, telling us how the world is - even though through understanding the brain and human social issues it can contribute data to be used by religious organisations. This also seems in accord with what Alan has said on his blog - he sees the pragmatic value in religion, what it can do for us.

But if religion wants to tell us how or who created the universe, what interaction the personal brain is having with as yet unknown agents (i.e. God), then these are real questions of science. Cosmology and particle physics tells us much more about how the universe actually is, and as much as we can yet know about how it began, and no amount of theological navel gazing is going to improve on that. The branches of brain science are examining how the brain works, and how it doesn't, how it fools itself, how gullible it is, and no amount of theological navel gazing and introspection is going to tell us anything better.

The religious need to move on. I haven't read anything by some of the more liberally religious, such as Richard Holloway, recommended to me by Lesley. Though science can't yet answer many of our questions about our origins and our interactions with internal agents, neither can religion, and science is in the best position to get those answers, eventually.

The Populode of the Musicolly

2010-05-29T16:15:00.001Z

Terry Sanderson's Guardian article discusses the issue of theological language, which I've been trying to interpret without success: Theology – truly a naked emperor (h/t http://richarddawkins.net)

First things first, it helps if you know what theology is about...

"What is theology? I think one of the best definitions was given by the sci-fi writer Robert A Heinlein:"

Heinlin, "Theology ... is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."

...
Down to business, the language...

"They can twist the language, invert the meaning of words, tie themselves into logical knots and then get admired for it."
...
"Take Rowan Williams, for example, who is lauded far and wide for the vastness of his theological knowledge. He is said to have a brain the size of Jupiter because he can produce convoluted writing that nobody with their feet in reality can comprehend. And because no one can fathom it, it must be very important, right?"

Sanderson treats us to a few words from Williams...

Williams, "The word of God is not bound. God speaks, and the world is made; God speaks and the world is remade by the word incarnate. And our human speaking struggles to keep up. We need, not human words that will decisively capture what the word of God has done and is doing, but words that will show us how much time we have to take in fathoming this reality, helping us turn and move and see, from what may be infinitesimally different perspectives, the patterns of light and shadow in a world where the word's light has been made manifest. It is no accident that the gospel which most unequivocally identifies Jesus as the word made flesh is the gospel most characterised by this same circling, hovering, recapitulatory style, as if nothing in human language could ever be a 'last' word."

"But when he has reached the very depths of his profundity what does it amount to? I can do no better than HL Mencken, who said:"

Menken, "For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing."

"Theology is an excuse for grown men to spend their lives trying to convince themselves, and others, that ridiculous fairy tales are true."

And Sanderson's view of TV evangelists...

"Five minutes after tuning in to such a session, you will begin to wonder whether you've had one of those strokes that make your native language incomprehensible to you. You recognise individual words as English, but they have no meaning. ... This is theology."

"Theology is a completely and utterly useless pursuit. It is self-indulgence of the first order."

Sanderson finishes by treating us to a use of language that is intentionally obscure, yet far clearer and easier to follow that the clip from Rowan Williams...

"If you wish to hear a really brilliant theologian at work, here's a great one."

Good Books and Pervasive Ideas

2010-05-28T18:49:00.004Z

I watched Michael Mosley's BBC Story Of Science (Episode 5) yesterday (get it while you can).

There were two messages I took from the programme, mainly because of the debates I've been having over on the blogs of Lesley and Alan. Those messages are:

The fallibility of the good books

The power and pervasiveness of science

Good/Bad Books

The story starts with Galen, the Roman physician and philosopher who mad remarkable progress in understanding the human body, its structure and it's processes. He created what became the 'good book' of anatomy and physiology. This work was revered and studied for over a thousand years and became the 'Bible' of medicine.

The analogy with the Bible I want to draw out is the conviction with which its anatomy was held to be a true representation of the human body. The flaw lay in the fact that it was based on animal dissections. So despite it's value it contained many inaccuracies that were propagated from teacher to student for centuries. But because of the authority of Galen's book, and that of the teachers, the mistakes were believed to be truths.

Galen wasn't challenged and further significant progress wasn't made until Andreas Vesalius at University of Padua. Because the university wasn't affiliated with the church the dissections of the human body, of criminals, as opposed to animal, at last began to give up its detailed secrets. Another break with tradition was that Vesalius got stuck in and found out for himself - where traditionally the teacher would have guided the demonstrator to do the dissecting by reading from Galen, describing, prescribing, what would be found, rather than what was found by the demonstrator, and all the students would nod and agree, they would bow to the authorities of the teacher and Galen's good book.

Only when traditional boundaries and authorities were challenged would the good book's flaws be exposed, and only when reality was dissected was the truth discovered. This should be a lesson for the religious. But sadly, for many, the old authority still rules. Even for the liberal Christian the Bible holds sway and influences their interpretations of what are personal experiences. That's why there is no reasonable response to the charge that one good book, the Bible, is no better, no more true, that any other good book, such as the Quran. It's all a matter of faith.

The Pervasive View of Science

The other message from the programme is one I've been trying to express in several ways. That is that science is not a completely different way of looking at the world.

It isn't a new World View against which traditional Holy views must be rallied. It's the same view we've always had. Science is, if anything, just a process of looking at the world more rigorously, in more detail and with finer precision, and with greater reliability.

Science does no more than account for and compensate for our own limitations, which it does through its methods for devising experiments and observational techniques, which are repeated by different people at different times in different places to rule out any local or biased influences, using instruments that extend the range of our natural senses.

This isn't a magic against which we should be fighting. It isn't telling us anything that is unbelievable. In fact quite the opposite, because it raises our confidence that what it's telling us is true, increasing our trust in what it is showing us. We trust science every time we go under the surgeon's knife and the anaesthetist gases; every time we take a trip in a plane; every time we type a blog post; every time we use a phone. We know science is the best use of the only tools we have of accessing knowledge: our reason and senses.

There is no other World View to be had that isn't make-believe. If we can't reason about it and sense it then we don't know much about it - effectively nothing at all. If we can't apply science to it, from our basic reason and senses to any of the specific methods that make up the scientific method, then what can we know about it? We have nothing else! Everything else that we make up just in our minds is fantasy. Our ideas, concepts, our nightmares, dreams, our monsters, goblins, unicorns, witches and gods - they are all fantasy; unless we can back them up, corroborate them, with our reason and senses. And the more strange our ideas the more confirmation we need before we should believe them.

If you believe you communicate with God; if there is an inner experience that is so convincing that you really believe it, if you have faith in it, I can't offer more than say that the human brain sees and hears plenty of things that aren't there, and we all know that this is the case. If you can't review these examples and see that this might apply to you in some way, then what more can I do? If you think the vague paradoxical nonsensical irrational mystique of religious language is offering you an explanation for what you can't otherwise demonstrate to be true, if you are prepared to be bamboozled into your faith, then I think you're stuck with that.

Only the sceptical application of our reason and senses, most rigorously at work in science, will be able to set you free from the strangle hold of tradition. This isn't some other way of knowing; there is no other way of knowing.

Free Will

2010-05-27T22:03:00.001Z

The concept 'free-will' can be considered as one model for how the human organism operates in its outer environment. But this doesn't show that free-will is not part of the causal framework in which the organism operates. A specific "act of free-will" is simply a model we use to describe what is still basically a causal physical response. It's the notion of free-will as something independent of all the physical processes that all physicalists are disputing, and in this sense I think autonomous-free-will can be described as an illusion, or at best as a conceptual model.

I say free-will is a 'model' of response because thinking in terms of models allows us to accept a level of abstract detachment. We regularly use models for systems - conceptual ideas that represent something on a manageable arbitrary level. We do this probably because we have to - it's how our brains manage external perceptions as patterns and memories, one of those perceptions being the self, another, free-will, being a model of how that self responds. It may be natural for the organism itself to feel that free-will is something the organism does actively and autonomously simply because of the proximity and complexity of how an act of free-will comes about.

If you accept causality and the level of physicalism that has been discussed here, then I don't see how free-will in its religious and autonomous senses has any meaning. And without free-will what is religion, other than one more conceptual abstraction of the physical environment of the organism. All religious ideas come to us through reading, listening and seeing - all part of physical environment acting on the organism as a whole, and through layers down to the brain; the brain that already has a history and hence existing interconnections and chemistry that is amenable to these inputs, or not. Even an internally occurring "sign", a revelation, can be explained as a religious event only in the context of pre-existing knowledge about religion.

For any individual, how does their brain respond to a religious idea (or any input)? As an excited, inhibited, or conditioned response (utilising yet another model of behaviour)? Probably in some complex combination. The emergent response to a religious idea may be whatever the organism's brain does internally, plus how that operates on the outer organism. So a theist response might be to offer a supportive argument. This particular organism (me) might respond with a criticism. The fact that the response may be complex does not detract from the fact that it came about from a complex interaction of components within the organism, albeit with externally sourced inputs, many of which have been consolidated over time. We call that a free-will response, using the free-will model. But that's all it is - it is a caused response (still assuming causality).

In this context the only difference between a person performing an act out of 'free-will' and one who has been induced into performing the act, say through hypnosis, is that the most influential and most recent causal events that preceded the act came from within the organism for the former, but from outside the organism for the latter.

One of the main objections to physicalist non-autonomous free-will comes about because it's difficult for some to accept this point of view - but this in itself is a response, to prior physical activity. When you "feel" free-will must be real, that feeling itself is merely a response with a physical base.

The next paragraph is long winded because I've gone out the way to put it in terms of a non-agent mechanical reaction. We're not used to doing this. It's possible our natural language that describes us as agents that interact is a convenience, and efficiency that has evolved naturally, just as we naturally and conveniently attribute agency and free will to inanimate objects sometimes.

Other objections are associated with justice and culpability. You might ask me, "How can you justify locking up that 'criminal' organism, when on your model he didn't 'willfully' carry out the crime?" My response would be, "Well, this organism's response is to do just that." All organisms tend to avoid self harm, and through evolved empathetic responses we generally try to avoid harm to others. That particular criminal organism caused harm, albeit indirectly and in a non-autonomous free-will caused sense, so the complex collective socially constructed response of this set of organisms, this social group, is to prevent further harm by locking up that criminal organism. The notion that this sequence of events might act as sufficient causal input to that criminal organism that in time it's caused actions might be to no longer cause harm to others, is also compatible. Similarly, the desire for retribution can be considered as another physical response. The complexity of these interactions is not evidence against physicalism.

A physicalist view of free-will as an illusion or a model does not entail the collapse of society and morality. It may even inform us better than some of the many arbitrary and conflicting reasonings of the various religions.

Irrational Science Denial

2010-05-26T16:30:00.002Z

TED Video: The danger of science denial:

People wrap themselves in their beliefs, and they do it so tightly that you can't set them free. Not even the truth will set them free. And, listen, everyone's entitled to their opinion; they're even entitled to their opinion about progress, but you know what you're not entitled to? You're not entitled to your own facts. Sorry, you're not.

There are questions and problems with the people we used to believe were always right. So be skeptical. Ask questions, demand proof, demand evidence. Don't take anything for granted. But here's the thing: When you get proof, you need to accept the proof, and we're not that good at doing that.

Now, we love to wrap ourselves in lies. We love to do it. Everyone take their vitamins this morning? Echinacea, a little antioxidant to get you going. I know you did because half of Americans do every day. They take the stuff, and they take alternative medicines, and it doesn't matter how often we find out that they're useless. The data says it all the time. They darken your urine. They almost never do more than that.

Well, I think I understand, we hate big pharma. ... So we run away from it, and where do we run? We leap into the arms of big placebo. ... But, you know, it's really a serious thing because this stuff is crap...

And you know what? When I say this stuff, people scream at me, and they say, "What do you care? Let people do what they want to do. it makes them feel good." And you know what? You're wrong. Because I don't care if it's the secretary of H.H.S. who's saying, "Hmm, I'm not going to take the evidence of my experts on mammograms," or some cancer quack who wants to treat his patient with coffee enemas. When you start down the road where belief and magic replace evidence and science, you end up in a place you don't want to be. You end up in Thabo Mbeki South Africa. He killed 400,000 of his people by insisting that beetroot garlic and lemon oil were much more effective than the antiretroviral drugs we know can slow the course of AIDS.

Watch for more.

Truth Matters

2010-05-25T21:33:00.002Z

A liberal believer may claim that their faith is benign. They want to get on with their own faith, want to do good, want to enjoy the community and other perceived benefits of their faith. It may be a personal faith, where they at least doubt some of the contents of scripture. If challenged about the evidence that supports their faith they might debate some of the details, but in the end both sides have to acknowledge that for many believers, the faith, the belief, in the end need not be justified by rational argument. Such a benign faith is distinguished from 'fundamental' faith, in that there are elements of rationality to it. An atheist might agree with such a person in many ways about what should constitute a moral society, for example. Though the atheist might attribute his moral code to evolutionary and cultural developments, the liberal believer might attribute theirs more to God, even if there is some agreement on the role of evolution and culture.

Given this view that it is personal and benign, a question might arise, "Does it matter?" Or, "What's it to the atheist what I believe or not?", Or, "What harm is it doing?". Or, "Given all the good that religion does, provided it's a benign religion that isn't 'fundamentalist', doesn't do harm, what's the problem?"

For me it's the truth that matters, and the only route to truth we have as far as I can tell is reason and the evidence of science.

One problem as I see it for any benign faith is that it's a mix of reason, evidence and faith. The reason helps such a believer to dismiss all the nasty and down right obvious crazy stuff, but it stops short with the basic belief in a God of some sort. To give up on reason and evidence at that point seems to have negated much of the benefit put in it up front. But it's not always obvious where the reason ends and the faith begins. The reason melds seamlessly into confusion as religious reasons merges into obscure religious language.

Confusion and obfuscation are arguably the best way to go. Obfuscation is legal, it's easy, there's always an abundant supply and it often does the trick. The more unclear it is exactly what one is arguing, the more trouble one's opponents will have in refuting one's claims. [1]

It's also arguable that obfuscation is what postmodernism is all about. Clouds of squid ink in the form of jargon, mathematical equations whose relevance is obscure, peacock displays of name-dropping, misappropriation and misapplication of scientific theories are often seen as postmodernist 'discourse'. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Gödel, Wittgenstein are hauled in and cited as saying things they didn't say - sometimes as saying exactly the opposite of what they said. ... The tactic doesn't work with people who actually know something of Einstein, Heisenberg or Gödel - but what of it? How many people is that? And it does work with many who don't. [1]

I'm not out to criticise the ignorant simply for being ignorant. None of us has the capacity to know all that has been discovered - we may be limited by time, access, interest or intelligence. The problem is that those making great claims for their world view that use these references should really check with those that have a better understanding before jumping straight in and acquiring this knowledge in the construction of their pseudo-knowledge.

The confusion of course raises it's own questions for the believers.

Asking unanswerable questions is an inconclusive but useful tactic. ... "But why did all this happen? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there Mind? Why is there order? ... The fact that no one can answer such questions is taken by the pure of heart and limpid of mind to entail divine explanation. The fact that such explanation allows the questions to be asked all over again seems not to trouble the divinely inclined. [1]

i.e. God answers nothing.

Of course if the questions are allowed to continue, the contortions of explanation become greater and greater, more obscure language is employed. It is more important that the faith is maintained, at the expense of clarity and reason.

In fact, the contortions are a giveaway not only that the explanation is not the right one, but that something is badly wrong with the method of generating the explanation, that things are back to front, that the enquirer has started, not with a desire to produce an explanation, but with the desire to produce a particular explanation, or a particular kind of explanation. [1]

What is necessary to get at truth?

What should trump what? Should rational enquiry, sound evidence, norms of accuracy, logical inference trump human needs, desires, fears, hopes? Or should our wishes and beliefs, politics and morality, dreams and visions be allowed to shape our decisions about what constitutes good evidence, what criteria determine whether an explanation is supported by evidence or not, what is admissible and what isn't? [1]

How much do we want the truth?

The truth is important to us, but so are our needs and desires and hopes and fears. Without them we wouldn't even recognise ourselves. Without them, we think, we would merely be something like an adding machine. An adding machine can get at the truth, given the right input, but it doesn't care. We want the truth but we also want to care - wanting the truth is indeed inseparable from caring. We want it, we care about it, it matters, and so do various other things we want and care about, some of which are threatened by the truth. ... But we have to choose. ... If we've never bothered to decide that truth matters, and that it shouldn't be subject to our wishes - that, in short, wishful thinking is bad thinking - then we are likely to be far less aware of the tension. We simply allow ourselves, without much worry or reflection, to assume that the way humans want the world to be is the way the world is, more or less by definition - and endemic confusion and muddle is the result. [1]

The muddle and confusion is so obvious in the Alice in Wonderland nonsense of much religious language - the desire to believe in the impossible (or at least un-evidenced) things manufactures incomprehensible language about incomprehensible beings, agents that interact yet don't exist, that we can't know of yet we know what they want from us.

Religion and related modes of thinking such as New Age, Wicca, paganism, the vaguely named 'spirituality', are where this outcome is most obvious. Public discourse features talk of God-shaped holes, of a deep human need for 'faith', of the longing of transcendence, of the despair and cosmic loneliness that results when God is doubted, and the like ... without apparently stopping to notice that there may be reasons to prefer true beliefs rather than false ones. [1]

What reasons? There are many. One is truth is something of an all-or-nothing proposition. It is intimately related to concepts such as consistency, thoroughness, universal applicability, and the like. If one decides that truth doesn't matter in one area what is to prevent one deciding it doesn't matter in any, in all? [1]

It's surely the nature of truth that it has to be all of a piece. It's norms have to apply here as well as there, if they are to apply at all. That is why relativism about truth is always self-undermining. If we say, 'there is no truth, truth is an illusion, a myth, a construct, a mystification' then that statement is not true - so there is truth then. [1]

Does it matter that we kid ourselves?

Our internal private thoughts might not matter at all. ... But how we influence each other, how we teach - by writing, by journalism, by talking on the radio, on platforms, in churches, in mosques, in classrooms - it does matter. If we are going to influence people, it's important we get it right. [1]

This is crucial as far as I can see. There's enough fog, lack of clarity, confusion, in transcribing thoughts from one mind to another as it is. The last thing we need is the obfuscation of falsehoods. But it doesn't have to be lies. There doesn't need to be intentional dishonestly. The transmission of unsupported ideas, non-truths, non-facts, sold as truths, or alternative truths is an easily acquired skill.

It might seem like there are good reasons to hide from truth. When it's trivial, when it's short term, then maybe we can excuse it. It might be a useful coping mechanism that allows us to avert pain, to concentrate on work, to withdraw from anger. But this isn't to deny the truth, it's just to postpone it, compartmentalise it, to push attention to one side. But this shouldn't become the rule, if we want to avoid living outside of reality. Truth isn't subject to our whims, our wishful thinking. But it's possible to live that way if we get into the habit.

If we minimize true facts that we dislike too often, we may lose sight of the fact that it is our reaction and degree of attention that is subject to our wills, and start to think that the facts themselves are subject to our wills. But on the whole they're not. [1]

Religious scholarship, theology, seems to me to be worst of the search for the answers. What kind of search for truth is it, when the truth is declared before the search begins, when search is directed at affirming what is already believed to be the truth? This isn't the discovery of truth; it's rationalising away the evidence to affirm the truth. Religion is often explained as a journey of discovery. This is the poorest form of journey of discovery; it's a journey through the front door that ends on the doorstep, where the 'truth' is already packaged up neatly into a three letter word, God. The only remaining work to do is to go back inside and rationalise about how this might be, or what it might mean, or how it can be applied to persuade people to conform to it. No evidence is required; in fact evidence has been a nuisance for religion from the start. As soon as someone asked, "How do you know that?", religion was on the defensive.

Religion is a big part of our lives, even if we are non-believers, because it is so ingrained in our history. But religion is supposed to be an honest affair isn't it? Don't we have enough to contend with?

There are fields where indifference to truth is no handicap - advertising, PR, fashion, lobbying, marketing, entertainment. In fact there are whole large, well paid, high status areas of the economy where truth-scepticism, wishful thinking, fantasy, suspension of disbelief, deletion of the boundary between dreams and reality, are not only not a handicap, but essential to the enterprise. ... We need our dreams and stories, our imaginaries. They are good for us. We need the cognitive rest from confronting reality all day, we need to be able to imagine alternatives, we need the pleasure of fantasy. But we also need to hang on to our awareness of the difference between dreams and reality. [1]

The more we realise both our fallibilities at knowing, and the more we realise that our only route to knowledge is through our fallible reason and senses, and the more we realise that the best we can do is repeat and repeat, thrash out what we think we know, hammer it into submission to our inquiry, the more religion, mysticism and other 'ways of knowing' has to retreat into the obscurity of mystical language.

Given religions penchant for morality, why isn't it the most rigorous of our philosophies? How wrong can we be in our search for alternative realities, alternative truths? It's not all religion's fault, though religion is often happy to jump on the bandwagon of unreason.

There is a profound irony in the situation - in postmodernist epistemic relativism. It is thought to be, and often touted as, emancipatory. It is supposed to set us all free: free from all those coercive repressive restrictive hegemonic totalizing old ideas. From white male western reason and science, from the requirement to heed the boundary between science and pseudo science, from the need to offer genuine evidence for our versions of history, from scholars who point out we have our facts wrong. ... Take away reasoned argument and the requirement for reference to evidence - by discrediting them via deconstruction and rhetoric, via scare quotes and mocking capital letters, and what can be left other than force of one kind or another? ... This is emancipatory? Not in our view. It is not emancipatory because it helps emotive rhetoric to prevail over reason and evidence, which means it helps falsehood prevail over truth. [1]

Even for benign religion? Well, precisely the same mechanisms, the same poor reasoning, the emotive language, the same style of faith, is used to justify a liberal believer's opinion as is used to justify a fundamentalist terrorist's opinion. The subsuming of reason and science to faith is the same in both cases. If you have faith in a benign God, from what stance to you argue against faith in a vengeful God? No matter how much you think you might reason it will do you no good, because you have already abandoned reason yourself - it's clear to all concerned that any reason you apply is only a token gesture, because to you your core is faith, not reason.

So, why does truth matter? It's hard figuring out what 'truth' is and how to get at it. We have only limited means at our disposal. I'd rather all our efforts go into finding the truth for what it is, not inventing 'truth' for which there's no evidence, no matter how cosy it makes us feel, no matter what the short term pragmatic value.

[1] http://www.whytruthmatters.com/
Why Truth Matters - Ophelia Benson, Jeremy Stangroom

Dan Dennet's AAI 2009 Talk

2010-05-20T00:14:00.002Z

This is a reponse to comments on Lesly's post on Rollins.

In a comment there I posted a video by Dan Dennett to which Lesley responded. My response in turn is a bit too long for a comments section, so here is is...

Hi lesley,

I'll cover each of your specific points, starting with this one...

"he is called a philosopher, but he adds practically nothing"

Reverse engineering - seeing how thinks fail in order to understand them. Standard scientific process, used in his case in understanding the brain, psychology, etc. Dennett does know a lot about how the brain works, and how it fails to work. And much of this is about how it fails to work when applied to religious belief.

There is the assumption in the religious community that theologians who think about human behaviour in the context of a religious belief have a real grasp of the human condition, as if they have an insight that religious thought and belief brings to their understanding. Dennett's purpose here is to point out that they don't. Rollins and Bell are prime examples of believers who maybe don't appreciate how their stories and their methods are pure snake oil salesmen tricks. Dennett probably finds it hard to believe that many serious intelligent theologians really believe some of the stuff they come out with; and added to that the experiences he's had with religious believers you yourself might classify as 'nutters', simply because their belief is more literal than yours; then this is why Dennett is appears not to address your position on many of the pints he makes.

The part of the video that's about non-believing preachers is a genuine attempt to understand what is happening. It's a real psychological investigation. As someone interested in psychology I assume you can appreciate this. Even in this small initial study he classifies then as three liberals and three literals - so already he's naturally covering a range of beliefs.

"why does everything always revolve around the most extreme form of American evangelicalism?"

First, because that's a pretty prominent group he encounters, so no surprise their views are tackled often.

Second it tackles issues raised by the great variety of faith, so no surprise that more literalist views are sometimes tackled.

Dennett's talk was prior to the study. This paper, http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP08122150.pdf, outlines the study. If you think it's only about 'nutters', it isn't.

Some of the clergy interviewed express very similar beliefs to your own. Just because all the examples don't match your own doesn't invalidate them.

i>"at college... there was no sense of not believing what we were taught because it challenged preconceived ideas"

This may have been your experience, but if you read the experiences of those interviewed you'll see it's not always like that.

"as far as I know vicars are among the happiest and most satisfied people, and they live longest too."

That may be the case for many who get through. But on your blog there are often comments about struggles with faith.

But I don't think anything controversial has been said that can't be backed up. Much of what he covers comes from religious people who have rejected faith because they have seen problems with it.

Having said that...

"Prior to that I was in a certain mindset, where I didn't really question, I was too scared to question, and those who did question were looked on as apostate." - from your Hotel California post.

"There was so much to scared of, top on the list was Liberal Theology which was the slippery slope to unbelief"

"So we all huddled together in the Hotel California for security, we sounded the same, we acted the same, we looked the same. We looked to the Bible to save us from false prophets and various perceived evils."

"In this stage, our former views of God are radically challenged. The disruption can be so great that we feel like we are losing our faith or betraying loyalties." - From stage 4 of The Critical Journey, as quoted in your Abyss post.

"Our aversion to stage 4 is increased because of the very real dangers that accompany this stage. 'Sometimes people drop off the journey totally at this point. Overwhelmed by pain or crises in our lives, we absolutely cut ourselves off from God'." - Ditto.

These sound so much like the quotes from the clergy that took part in the study:

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP08122150.pdf

"regularly uses the words subversive, willful, cunning, trick, liars etc."

"He suggests that we learn spin when interpreting the Bible. Not true."

he's not implying it's that open, or necessarily intentional, "There isn't a course [at seminary college] called how to put a spin. It's taught by example....They're sort of the truth." - And this is the point he is making. It's the mode of religious language that's deceptive.

In the examples he cites it's hard not to see it that way. Again, this might not match your experience, or how you see it.

But much of the work of Bell and Rollins for example does sound like the willful misuse of terms; there is trickery in the language an production that is intended to persuade.

Some of the clergy in the study have said they weren't telling the whole story:

"I knew I’m not going to make it in a conventional church. I didn’t believe the conventional things, even then. I mean, sure, I’m studying theology with Paul Tillich --- and Bultmann who says we can’t know much about Jesus, and Paul Tillich’s philosophical stuff about 'God is the ground of being'. I’m not going to go into a church and talk like this; I’m not going to, I’m not going to - I did not believe the traditional things even then."

In the cases he cites of those clergy who have to effectively misrepresent to hide their own degree of disagreement with the doctrine, then it is applying spin. And there's no way that some of the works he cites by religious authors, such as Spong is not spin.

"He suggests that those who lose their faith at college 'get out while the going is good'... as far as I know vicars are among the happiest and most satisfied people, and they live longest too. What does he mean?"

he's referring to those like the ones in the study. Read the quotes.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP08122150.pdf

It also ties in with this:

"He suggests that theology is to answer 'awkward questions'.. not true."

But that's the history of theology, and it's been going on for centuries, trying to address the awkward questions. This is what Augustine, Aquinas etc. put so much effort into building a more robust doctrine.

You often comment on versions of the faith that you don't agree with, and you've said yourself that much of what you read is disagreeable. Dennett simply finds it all disagreeable.

"He suggests that we try to stop people having inquiring minds.. not true."

we? - not you. The hierarchy, the establishment of the church.

You've said yourself that the there's a resistance to inquiry that you feel you struggle against yourself.

"And he says that either you believe God has existence or you are an atheist.. why?"

Because to believe in God as expressed by Christians is to believe in an agent. We have no experience of agents that do not have existence.

We can conceptualise God as an agent, just as we can conceptualise pink elephants and unicorns. But you really want to say God IS, and yet claim he does not exist, then you are reducing him to a mere concept, not an actual God.

In this sense God can be a metaphor for something - but then Dennett says, in that case he too can believe in that God, because he too believes in metaphors, he knows what they are.

This is what the 'History of God' reference was about. Many religious explanations describe the history of the religion - which is fine, because religion does have a history.

But in saying it's a history of God implies that there is a God to have a history about, when really it's a history of the concept of God, not of God.

Dennett says that he too believes in the 'concept of God', i.e. he understands what concepts are, and he gets what this specific concept is. He just doesn't believe in the content of that concept - i.e. God.

This is related to the Use-Mention Error - next.

" 'History of God' ... And he relates God to the Easter Bunny.."

First, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot, or God, are all examples used to demonstrate the idea that having a concept of something isn't the same as that something actually being real. All the inexplicable attributes of God, his incomprehensibility, can all be applied to these other examples, but it doesn't make them any more true. The argument here is about the similarities with the type of claim being made, and not actually equating God to an Easter Bunny.

"The example he uses for his deepism is lousy 'Love is just a word'" - This is to with the common use-mention error, which he explains clearly. Here's some details on it:

This is what it means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

And here:

http://www.critical-thinking-tutorials.com/if-the-brain-is-a-computer-does-that-mean-its-designed/

The specific History of God error:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

It's a point I've picked up on in Bell and Rollins. It's a way of conflating ideas, where the obvious and literal meaning of the sentence is easy for the brain to accept, and primes the brain for the more profound intention, even though the more profound intentional interpretation doesn't actually make any sense as a sentence.

So, (as I commented on your Rollins post) Rollins (and Bell) provide many examples of what Dennett calls a 'Deepity':

- A proposition that seems to be profound because it is logically ill-formed.

- It has (at least) two meanings, and balances precariously between them.

- On one reading it is true but trivial.

- On the other reading it's false, but would be earth-shattering if true.

And it's the failure to recognise the U-M error that allows these double readings to be conflated.

When this usage is mixed in with lots of other emotive sentences and vague notions they're easy to just absorb as if they have meaning. Dennett expresses something like, "Well, sounds okay, but?....well, I suppose I get it..." With repeated exposure this sort of stuff takes on a life of its own as if it actually means something.

Whenever a theist is asked to explain the detail of what is meant, then the simple claim that it's too deep, beyond our language to express, is what the rationalisation of the problem resolves to.

"I am honestly appalled...so sickeningly prejudiced...I am shocked that Richard Dawkins...you are better than this, I can't believe you can stomach it...anything racist or anti-gay or politically obnoxious...I find it distasteful...it seemed at the level of the Sun newspaper to me...It is just appalling...If he said these things about black people you would be rightly outraged and liken his propaganda to Hitler...these vile things...I think that is similar to racists equating black people to apes...as unpleasant as him. He represents for me the worst sort of bigotry."

I can only put this down to you being genuinely disturbed by it. Yes, he's preaching to the converted and does use some humour, which if you're on the receiving end could be considered puerile.

But your response raises another issue that is problematic - there is no right of the religious not to be offended, simply because what's being said is distasteful.

These are serious challenges to claims of ways of knowing things, and religious claims about what is known and how it is known do not stand up to scrutiny. The fact that you genuinely believe what you do does not make it any more viable, and Dennett is under no obligation to pull his punches when criticising ways of thinking that bamboozle so many people.

There are two topics covered seriously.

One, treated second, is the issue of religious language applied to the explanation of religious belief that has been adapting to criticism of literal meaning for centuries. He clearly shows up some of the flaws in the religious language that is used. he bases much of this on his understanding of philosophy, linguistics, psychology and the study of the mind, and the ideas are consistent i=with many leaders in those fields.

The other is the study that is underway to look into the effect of this religious language. In this particular case how it is used in a situation where clergy who struggle with the disparity in types of belief, the range of literal to metaphorical meaning, from traditional fundamental theism to near or actual atheism, to the extent that they have to deal with

I'm sorry you find much of Dennett's video so distasteful, but I think the arguments are fair, even if you don't like the presentation.

Ron

Atheist Label

2010-05-19T15:02:00.001Z

Atheists generally accept we can't prove or disprove the existence of God - basically, given our contingency of knowledge we can't really 'prove' anything without relying on premises that themselves aren't proven.

The hypothesis that there is a God - some agent that we are not aware of, that might have created the universe, that might interact with us in some as yet unknown way, is a reasonable hypothesis. There's just no evidence to support the hypothesis.

So, shouldn't the term 'agnostic' be used instead?

Well, the total lack of evidence for the existence of God, and the more than adequate evidence for natural explanations for what is often attributed to God, leaves little room for supposing there is a God.

Similarly, we have no evidence for many other gods of old, or of the efficacy of astrology, homeopathy, etc.

So, to all intents and purposes the label 'atheist' fits better than that of 'agnostic', given that the latter label is usually reserved for those that suspect there might be a God, but who just remain less convinced than a theist.

This form of atheism is usually termed weak or implicit atheism.

There's also strong or explicit atheism. This atheist explicitly denies the existence of gods. This is a strong claim, and should require supporting evidence. Sometimes an atheist may give the impression of being this type of atheist, when in fact they are not. If in doubt, ask.

Though Athesim ends in -ism, it isn't referring to a specific doctrine, and so shouldn't be confused with being a religion, a philosophy, or a belief system - though it could be part of any one of these. There might be a religion which doesn't have any gods, and therefore might be an 'atheist' religion.

When I refer to myself as an atheist I usually mean that this is a point of view regarding gods - all gods, which is a conclusion reached as a consequence of my understanding of what we can and can't know (see Contingency of Knowledge and Human Fallibility), and what evidence there is or isn't to support the hypothesis that there is a God (or gods).

Belief in Belief & Practical v Factual Realism

2010-05-18T18:22:00.002Z

I seems to go unsaid by 'believers', most of the time, but occasionally on blogs it might be admitted to explicitly, that there might be no God. Or it might be said that it doesn't matter if there is no God.

To some extent this is a step in the right direction. But I can't help but feel it smacks of being ungenuine; there appears to be a dishonesty there, buried somewhere deep in the otherwise honest view that faith is good for us, even if it's a faith in something that doesn't exist. If faith developed by some evolutionary mechanism and had some purpose in the past, is it okay to go on believing now, even if you feel there's nothing there, or if you feel it doesn't matter if there's something there of not?

Dan Dennett, in his AAI 2007, Good Reasons for "Believing" in God talk covers a number of reasons for believing, and addressed this particular notion.

He identifies a self-censorship by preachers, who wouldn't dream of saying openly that God does not exist. Maybe some are more open in their true beliefs - certainly enough to say it on a blog, and for those this might turn out to be a brave move. Fessing up to this hidden truth is something Dennett concedes is courageous in his talk.

Dennett says the God of old, Yahweh, is like Mount Everest - it's there for all to see and exists without question. But, he explains, God has been watered down, until it has become like low rolling hills - not quite so obvious. But in the minds of the modern theologian it resembles more of an insubstantial mist, a fog.

What follows is some of Dan's talk. Towards the end Dennett includes words from David Sloan Wilson's book, as if in debate. In what follows the two parts are identified by DD and DSW.

DD - Gradually, over the years, the concept of God is watered down. These personal revisions are passed on without notice. not just from preachers, but from parents talking to their children. Gradually, from what started out as a Mount Everest type concept of God, becomes a sort of amorphous cloudy mysterious concept that nobody really knows what it is. Mystery is itself elevated and considered to be wonderful. And we get the privatisation of the concepts - this is particularly true in the cases of the mega churches in this country [USA] where, "We don't care what your concept of God is, just so long as you're One With Jesus and you come to the church." So they're actually allowing to freelance and come up with your own concept of God. It doesn't matter what concept of God you have, "[whisper] because nobody believes it anyway."

DD - So we get the almost comical confusion of today. It's very important this happened [the change in what God is] imperceptably. If it was sped up it would just be hilarious; the revision piled on revision; and all in one direction.

[...]

DD - Here's a quote:

"It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us"

DD - Now, that's a wonderful joke by Peter De Vries in his hilarious novel The Mackerel Plaza, back in 1958. But...

"God is so great that the greatness precludes existence." - Raimon Panikkar in The Silence of God: The Answer of the Buddha (1989)

DD - That is not a joke. That is said in all po faced seriousness.

[...]

Dennett finally addresses one of the ways of treating this God that isn't there, as a myth, as another form of reality. He tackles David Sloan Wilson's account of ways of believing, form Wilson's book, Darwin's Cathedral, 2002, in which Wilson uses the terms:

Factual Realism and Practical Realism. He quotes from the book...

DSW - It's true that many religious beliefs are false as literal descriptions of the world, but this merely forces us to recognise two forms of realism: a factual realism based on literal correspondence, and a practical realism based on behavioural adaptiveness. An atheist historian who understood the real life of Jesus but who's own life was a mess as a result of his beliefs would be factually attached to and practically detached from reality.

DD - So he ought to believe a myth even at the expense of his factual knowledge in order to keep his life not a mess? That seems to be the implication.

DSW - Rationality is not the gold standard against which all other forms of thought are to be judged. Adaptation is the gold standard against which rationality must be judged, along with all other forms of thought.

DD - If this were a philosophical audiance and it weren't so late at night I'd take issue with that, but I just draw your attention to these passages.

DSW - It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective. If there is a trade off between the two forms of realism such that our beliefs can become more adaptive only by becoming factually less true, then factual realism will be the loser every time.

DD - So he seems to be giving what he thinks of as an evolutionary endorsement for practical realism over factual realism.

DSW - Many intellectual traditions and scientific theories of the past decades have a similar silly and purpose driven quality once their cloak of factual plausability has been yanked away by the hand of time. If believing something for its desired consequences is a crime, then let those who are without guilt cast the first stone.

DD - I want to point out the fundamental difference betwee factual realism and practical realism is that the truth or faslity of factual realist theories is always an issue. Imagine if a priest were to say, "of course there really isn't a God who listens to your prayers; that's just a useful fiction, an over simplification." No, even the Unitarians don't just blurt out the fact that these may be useful fictions, since it's quite apparent that their utility depends on their not being acknowledge to be fictions. In other words, practical realism as recommended by David Sloan Wilson is paternalistic and disingenuous.

DSW - It appears that factual knowledge is not always sufficient by itself to motivate adaptive bahaviour. AT time a symbolic beliefe system that departs from factual reality fairs better.

DD - At what? At motivating behaviour. Well, you know I think he's right about that. Is this a recommendation that one should lie when it will lead to adaptive behaviour? Does Wilson recognise the implication of his position?

[Dennett shows a photo of the Bush Adminsitration team: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld]

DD - Let us consider, practical realism of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. In a chilling article several years ago by Ron Suskind, White House correspondent, we get the following quote, "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

DD - There's practical realism for you. It seems to me that David Sloan Wilson hasn't thought this through. He maybe though actually saying that we are confronted with a sort of tradgedy. It may be that our quest for scientific truth has somehow trapped us: It's too late for practical reality, that was for bygone days, we're stuck now with factual reality, which some times won't motivate us. We just know too much. We can never again act honestly, and honestly follow the path of practical realism.

DD - I don't believe it. But that might be the position that he holds. Well if so we will just have to do the best we can guided by our knowledge. We will have to set 'practical' realism aside; it's too late for that. there's no going back.

DD - But, I'm actually optimistic. here we see the Vatican [picture]. Twenty years ago If I had stood up and said in a few years the Soviet Union woill evaporate, it will not exist any more, people would have laughed. If I'd sai Aprteid will be gone in just hew years, people would have laughed. Sometimes institutions that seem to be massive and have tremendous inertia can just pop like a bubble. So, how do we know until we try? Maybe within our childrens' lifetime the Vatican will become the European Museum of Roman Catholicism. And maybe mecca will become Disney's Magic Kingdom of Allah. If you think that's funny just bare in mind that the hagia Sofia in Istanbul started off as a church, then it was a mosque, and today it's a museum.

Of course Dennett is seeing the possible consequences of the lying that is implicit in this position of holding to a fictional practical realism over a less comfortable factual realism. It's no good simply saying that continuing to believe in belief, while knowing that the belief you're believing in is false, is okay because if makes people feel good, or behave well. Those you incite to believe false beliefs have a habit of interpreting those beliefs for themselves.

So, no matter how stupifying the belief is, I don't think it's worth it in the end.

According to Dennett, "it's quite apparent that their utility depends on their not being acknowledge to be fictions. In other words, practical realism ... is paternalistic and disingenuous."

It's also dangerous.

God Speaks

2010-05-08T11:57:00.000Z

In the previous post, Psychology of Belief, perhaps the most interesting of the videos is this one: Psychology of Belief, Part 6: Hallucinations.

One of the believers in the video said, "God speaks in a whole bunch of different ways", and there's the rub. For the believer who avoids inflicting some of the psychological influences on others, do they check to see if they've been influenced that way? I think this particular psychological effect is probably the trick that holds it all together, the self-affirmation, the self-reassurance, that all the other psyche effects are in fact valid, because we've experienced God speaking to us. But have we?

Being told to listen and God will speak can lead us to interpret that in any way that seems to fit - confirmation bias - and so maybe our own intense feelings are interpreted as God speaking. When we think of how our brains work, using what little we yet know, we have a mechanism that consists of neurons, chemicals and electrical impulses, and out of that come feelings, sub-conscious events, and conscious awareness and thoughts. The latest thinking is that the conscious thoughts we have are the outcome, the awareness that comes to the fore, of other events in the brain; so that conscious thoughts are post-event stories that we use to monitor what the brain is doing and to plan and feedback down to the sub-conscious and the motor areas. This is a mechanism that builds from birth and is something we take from granted as much as speaking - when in the full flow of free conversation we have no idea how the vague notions that we want to express are formed into grammatical words and syntactic sentences, it just happens.

Using this model it seems plausible that we could mistake rising awareness of feelings and sub-conscious thoughts as being from elsewhere. We have so many instances where thoughts just pop into our heads, and if we have the time to consider we sometimes wonder, where did that come from. We notice it most when we're with someone and we've been trying to remember a name but can't quite get it, so we forget the search, and sometime later up it pops, and we wonder, where did that come from? This particular type of event is so noticeable that we even comment to each other - if I suddenly say the name, 'out of the blue', the other person will ask, where did that come from?

Some pop ups have an obvious cause. If I'm thinking about a topic in full concentrations and something comes into my field of vision, or the phone rings, it's clear that the interruption, the pop up, has an external source. If I suddenly get an itch, or a stomach ache, I know the noticeable has come from my body. But how do we judge were subconscious thoughts and feelings come from. The sudden intense rush of inspiration or insight or overwhelming awe or a divine intervention such as words from God, I think, are all events that occur in the brain through the stimulation of intense thought, the power of stress, or any number neurological stimulations.

That the brain is capable of intense feelings from neurological events is indisputable - that is how the brain works after all. But to put it in context we can think of the images of brain seizures, such as epilepsy, as an extreme case of brain event that is out of control. I'm not say that clinically these inspirational events are the same in any way - I don't know the neurophysiology of what's happening - but as an extreme model it seems plausible. The fact that epilepsy has been speculated to be the cause of many recorded events in history is an indication of the similarity, whether it be possession by demons, appearances of visions or words from God.

This video is one in a series on epilepsy. Though this series is focusing on the clinical condition of epilepsy it does give some insight into how the brain can have extreme events; and it's something like this I'm speculation could be the mode of operation of inspiring brain events - as opposed to real words from God or possession by demons. Which seems more likely? Video #1 is also of interest in this context.

Having a feeling that we are in touch with God, or that we experience God does have a possible neurobiological explanation. There's the notion of the 'God module' in the brain. I missed this Horizon programme. I don't know to what extent Dr Daniel Giang, neurologist and member of the church, is right in his medical opinion, or to what extent he has confirmation bias. The important point is not that is a module that is specifically for seeing or hearing or experiencing God, but that it is one area of the brain that has several functions, and one apparent effect, possibly a side effect, is that it causes or interprets brain effects as divinely inspired and generally cause the subject to believe in the divine.

The brain has the ability to convince itself of something, even when on another level the subject knows intellectually that his own brain is mistaken. This is a well know example of a woman experiencing a man behind her. Other direct brain stimulations have been recorded as causing familiar songs to be hear in the brain, even though the subject knows there is no music playing. And in another case it has been possible to cause out of body experiences. Out of body experiences can also be induced with VR.

Also, to figure out whether a divine event is real, consider: are you measuring the misses as well as the hits? Or is a cognitive bias persuading you you're hearing God speak, when it's your own internal experiences, of yourself. Watch for the auditory illusion towards the end - "You can't miss it when I tell you what's there." To what extent are interpretations of inner messages influenced by religious priming, so that just a 'feeling' can be interepreted as divine?

Hearing God speak, either as an auditory signal in the audio cortex, or as a deep emotional experience, doesn't seem to need divine intervention - the brain can do this all by itself, and convince the subject that it is a divine intervention. If the subject is primed for this it might even be inevitable that the subject is convinced.

Psychology of Belief

2010-05-07T10:39:00.002Z

I've been discussing the relative merits of a scientific world view versus faith, with Lesley over on her blog. To clarify my view, basically how I get to my world view, I've added a couple of posts on this blog:

Contingency of Knowledge - How I get started, about what I can know.

Human Fallibility - Why we have to be careful about what we conclude.

Lesley has responded today with this post on Human Fallibility.

The distinction I would make, between our two positions, is as follows.

What Lesley is describing are the effects of actually believing, some of which are good, but others bad. The problem is that choosing to believe on faith leaves people open to persuasion or even indoctrination, and the way that goes, good or bad, seems to be the luck of the draw. If it goes the wrong way then faith can be used to justify awful behaviours.

The other side of the distinction between religion and a scientific approach is that the critical thinking that is promoted on the science side encourages self-analysis to an extent that faith doesn't - some Christians being exceptions rather than the rule.

As a result of this, another bad effect of faith is that it provides justification for avoiding the effort to think too much. This can be carried over to other areas of human interaction, where it's easy to let a view on marriage, sex, law, education, or politics, be so guided by one's religion that it's natural to just decide on the basis of what your own religion or you local or personal spiritual leader says. But this is often disguised by the fact that some critical thinking does go on, but only within the framework of the faith - the faith trumps reason.

Further, though each religion may recognise the existence of other religions it tends not to scrutinise them too publicly, too critically, particularly in a multi-cultural society like ours, because, I think, that there is genuine apprehension about exposing it's own inconsistencies. This leads to an odd form of cultural relativism within religions that is somewhat like the left wing secular cultural relativism - where for the latter, you say anything goes, and for the former, you keep quiet about uncomfortable differences because of the uncomfortable similarities. We end up with daft compromises, like Rowan Williams on Sharia, in order to maintains one's own privilege.

Here is a guide that demonstrates potential problems with thinking processes, with particular reference to belief in God. It's a little bit geeky, but if you can get through it, it should shed light on what I think is wrong with religious thinking.

Psychology of Belief, Part 1: Informational Influence

Psychology of Belief, Part 2: Insufficient Justification

Psychology of Belief, Part 3: Confirmation Bias

Psychology of Belief, Part 4: Misinformation Effect

Psychology of Belief, Part 5: Compliance Techniques

Psychology of Belief, Part 6: Hallucinations

And, here's another quick guide.

Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

Like all theories based on psychological research there are often controversies and new research results, but generally these modes of influence on thinking are well recognised, and identifiable in much religious discourse. Some of the above are also associated with logical fallacies in reasoning.

Of course this requirement for critical thinking applies to our side of the debate too. We too are human and not immune to error, and have to listen to criticism fairly.

Human Fallibility

2010-05-03T21:57:00.001Z

From here I've arrived at the point where our working model is that we think with our minds and we have senses to sense the natural world.

But on closer examination, by our minds, these senses appear to be fallible, so we concoct methods for gaining confidence in particular sense experiences. On even further examination we discover that our reasoning and other cognitive faculties can also be fallible, so we take steps to account for that observation too. So all we can do is construct experience and look for multiple ways of confirming what we experience to gain confidence in it, to give credibility to it, to compensate for the fallibilities. When we do this rigorously we call this science. Science gives us the best and most reliable explanation of our cognitive and sensory experiences, accounting for and accommodating for our fallibilities the best it can.

Note that this is an entirely inductive experience, from the particular to the general. Induction lies on top of no firm and absolute foundation, it is true. An inductive argument indicates some degree of support for the conclusion but does not ensure its truth. So, just to make it clear, none of this is offered as a proof! Of anything.

For any of the detail along the way we might use deductive reasoning, which is often thought to be more thorough, more concrete. This does not mean that deduction is always the better choice. Deduction is fine if you construct a valid argument; and if you have true premises then you have yourself a 'sound' argument, the most sure argument there is. But it's an illusion to think you can have a sound deductive argument at the limits of philosophy, in metaphysics - you can never be sure your premises are true! Why? Because all we have are our thoughts and our senses - we have no prior premises and arguments upon which to build our starting premises. So, if someone tells you they have a proof that, say, God exists, it's baloney, because it always relies on presupposition, and the presupposition can't be guaranteed to be true. If someone wants to offer you 'evidence' for God, that's a different matter and should be treated seriously.

We are fallible human beings. The very best we can do is accumulate data, examples, lots of them, and compare them and subject them to any tests we can. We create hypotheses, of which Richard Feynman said they could just as well be guesses. Any old random guess won't usually do - we could be here forever checking every possible hypothesis - something some theists think atheist are claiming (and what Pirsig mistakenly thought was a problem, in ZAMM - more of that in another post). Of course we base hypotheses on prior experience that appears to work. This is induction and science in action.

Science concludes (this means best explanation so far, not we're absolutely certain) that according to our senses and reasoning there is a physical world out there. It gets a bit quirky sometimes - e.g. quantum physics - but so far nothing has been found to refute this tentative conclusion. I mean, really, nothing! You have to consider what it would mean to refute this. You would have to find something that isn't physical. This is a tall order. Before sub-atomic particles were figured out the world was still physical. Discovering the sub-atomic particles didn't introduce some magic into the universe - it was simply that we discovered something we didn't know was there before, but is still considered part of the physical universe.

This is what will happen with any 'paranormal' effect or 'energy' that might exist. If it exists, then when it is found, that is when there is evidence of it, then it too will become a part of our physical description of the universe. The reason the paranormal is ridiculed so much isn't because we know it to be false absolutely, it's that fantastic claims have been made, but no evidence has been found to support them. Astrology? No evidence.

Evidence is the route to discovery and the support and maintenance of ideas and theories and facts. No evidence? Then it might as well not exist. Not, you note, that it doesn't exist! Science is not saying anything in particular does not exist. It only says to what extent there is evidence to support an idea. If we can't see it, taste it, feel it, etc., then we might as well act as if it doesn't exist, even if it does, for how can we tell the difference. We can happily go about our daily lives as if the speed of light does not have a limit, because in our daily lives we never reach that limit.

We can also ignore God as an entity because whether he exists of not makes no apparent difference. This means that despite the fact that theists can't prove God exists and atheists can't disprove it, it's irrelevant, because there is no evidence, and that's sufficient.

Many theists realise this and no longer require the existence of God as an entity 'out there' - See Rob Bell (h/t Lesley's Blog). But that doesn't mean theists have dealt with the problem of human fallibility in relation to faith. I'll get to that in another post.

Contingency of Knowledge

2010-05-03T21:53:00.001Z

I'm an atheist who is an atheist as a consequence of where science leads me - my atheism is a working conclusion rather than a presupposition, and certainly not a faith. I'm occasionally asked how I get to that point, so this is where it starts.

I like to take the track credited to Descartes and his Cogito[1] - I think therefore I am; or, if I'm thinking I can only conclude that something is doing the thinking, and that something I'll call 'me'. I'm not claiming this as a proof that I exist, but I am saying that it is the only evidence available to me that I exist. Feel free to criticise this; but it would be helpful if you could provide an alternative that is as all invasive as the experience that I am having of thinking.

I'm not sure what it would mean, what the consequences would be, if I were to say I am thinking but it's not me, it's something else thinking these thoughts, or, that my thoughts are an illusion (but what is it that is having the illusion of thinking), or that there is no thinking going on full stop.

So, based on this thinking experience, I accept the experience that is 'thinking', i.e. I think. I've had some people tell me this is my presupposition, but I don't think it is, I think it's a direct experience that I can't refute.

Next I notice some senses, some apparent external inputs from some apparent external world - I see objects and people, I hear them, they appear to respond when I talk to them. Is this a phantom world created by my mind? Is there only thinking? This solipsism is a distinct possibility, I can't deny it. Trouble is I can't for the life of me tell the difference between the solipsism of imagined senses and real actual senses. Since that's the case I'll continue from here by choosing the arbitrary path - that my senses are real inputs from the external world, external to my thoughts. It's important to realise that this is an arbitrary choice because I can't tell the difference, I can't refute solipsism.

Form there, through these senses, imaginary or real, I accept the discovery of other people who appear, according to my senses, to have the same experiences - at least that's what they tell me. Not being able to refute any of this my basic working model, my working philosophy, is that we all exist and interact as our senses show us and our cognition (mind) understands us. This experienced world is the one we know as the physical world, or natural world, that applies to all of us.

At this point we can't say to what extent our mind and senses report on the real, actual, universal, ultimate reality (or whatever you want to call it) that's out there. We can't even be sure there is such a thing. So note again the contingency of our position: we only think that we have a mind, and with this thinking mind we think that we have senses, but can't be certain, and if we do have senses we think that they show us something of reality, but we're not sure, and we don't even know if this reality exists. But despite how contingent, how flaky and inadequate this position is that we're in, it's all we've got!

Next, I want to cover how humans deal with thinking about stuff in the light of these limitations.

[1] Cogito - Note I don't consider too many of the options that Descartes does, because I can't figure out what to do with them. And since nobody else takes us any further than this I am left to take from it what I've stated above.

Secret Agents

2010-04-22T22:56:00.002Z

In many of the arguments about God and mind-body dualism there is the underlying notion of agency, or of an agent - an entity that has some autonomous control of its actions, some intent (i.e intentionality). If we can challenge the notion of agency then we can take a different view of the universe.

Dualists have an appreciation of the mind as something distinct from the physical brain. This dualism may be adapted to create the similar notion of the soul, as used by religions. The mind or the soul is the agency that to some extent or another exists or emerges out of the human brain and body; and familiarity prevents us accepting that we are totally physical entities.

This notion of mind, soul, or even self, conscious self, identity, seems to be a natural instinct that on the face of it appears difficult for the physicalist to explain. What seems clear to a physicalist, particularly one that also accepts Darwinian evolution as a satisfactorily explained process, is that this notion of agency has been projected, extended, by human creative imagination, to hypothesise the existence of gods. But from the physicalist evolutionary point of view there seems little doubt that this God is made in man's image, not man in his. God is a construct of the human imagination.

If we imagine and follow the developmental and evolutionary path, from physical inanimate objects, to the first replicators, through simple life forms, lesser animals, mammals, primates, and on to man, it is clear that there is no evidence of any mechanism, or any intervention, that suddenly switches on or enables agency. Agency, like free-will, and consciousness, are illusory, so the physicalist hypothesis goes. They are simply hypothetical models of complex systems in action. The fact that we, in the complex biological process of responding to our environment and our current inner physical (chemical and electrical brain system) state, respond as if we are agents, as if we have free-will and consciousness, is merely an efficient mechanism that helps us to operate.

Watch the video clips of the 'insects' created by Robert Full's and other teams. I challenge you not take an inner or explicit gasp as you inevitably look on these machines as being alive in some crude sense - that is your agency recognition system kicking in and recognising agency where there is none. We recognise agency in ourselves, in other animals, in some robots, in cartoon characters, in toys. We are built to perform this recognition of agency.

Did I say "We are built to perform this recognition."? See? "We are built..." We are not built, in the active sense that someone built us. That's precisely the point. We can't help but think in this way. Richard Dawkins did the same throughout his book The Selfish Gene - his actual words, the title, imparted apparent agency upon genes, when of course this is precisely what he didn't intend. We use phrases implying agency all the time, even when that's exactly what we are arguing against. The phrase "We evolved (intransitive) to do ..." itself could be interpreted as "We actively, through our own will, evolved (caused) ourselves to do ...", or as "We were evolved (transitive) by the agency of Evolution itself to do ..." Our language is so evolved to inherently assume agency we have to resort to quite contrived language to describe the physicalist view without agency. So, when talking about something I do, to make it clear there is no intention and free-will in my action I have to resort to words like, "This complex responding organism (me) responded in such a way..."

Agency is a vehicle that gets us through the journey of life efficiently and quickly. But we need to get out of this vehicle now and then and ruminate in the grass, stroll through the woods, take in the view. Once we park agency on the road side we can proceed to walk carefully through life examining in more detail the arguments that tell us that agency is all there is, and just suspend that notion. Simply review the arguments as if there is only physical stuff; put agency to one side.

Some theists will happily tell you how necessary God is to explain the physical universe - he's the first cause, he's infinite, etc. But let a physicalist propose that the universe might be infinite, or that there might be multiple inanimate universes, with no agency, and the theists will ask how this is possible. They will raise paradoxes that physicalism appears unable to explain. But there really is no difference between any hypothesised cause of the universe, whether it be theistic or physicalist - except for the presence or absence of agency. Both theists and physicalists have to struggle with the fact that they don't know what lies beyond the known; we don't know if it's infinity all the way or not; it's hard enough to be sure that the concept of infinity has any significance, any reality. So, the only difference between any proposed God creator and an equivalent non-theistic beginning is the presence of God as the agent.

But if there is no concrete evidence for agency's instantiation, no evidence of it springing into existence, then there is really no argument for it existing outside the universe, as God. And since we are the only agents we do have evidence for, if we figure we are complex stuff but not agents, then there is no known concrete evidence of agency anywhere.

Now, having said all that I'm still happy to use terms like agency, free will, consciousness, mind, etc., as creative notions, as convenient models, for complex physical systems and processes, like ourselves. I'm happy to say "evolution built us this way" without any teleology implied. It's how I've evolved to think, so i can't help it.

Wager On An Atheist's God

2010-04-22T00:08:00.001Z

Getting bored with arguing with theists, I thought it might be easier if I just give up and join the club. I've been trying to find a God hypothesis that comes close to working for me. There are none out there that completely satisfy my needs.

Though I'm not prone to believing God stuff without evidence, from my point of view it is legitimate to concoct hypotheses and check them against what my reason and senses tell me. Here's one.

There is a God. He created the universe as we have come to know it through our senses, reason and science. He wanted nothing more than to create a universe to see what would happen. He is not omniscient, so he was curious. Being alone, but otherwise a good scientist, he is very hands-off and observational.

He has seen humans evolve with no input from himself other than the initial conditions. He looks on with amusement at all the speculations, guesses, hypotheses about how the universe started. He is amused that some, the theists, guessed right, but went overboard in speculating about him. Basically, other than the guess that there was an agency, him, all religions got everything else totally wrong. He has no interest in morality, that is in making decrees he expects us to adhere to. He pays no attention to prayers and certainly doesn't answer them.

In fact, since he has left no trace of himself, and has made no communication with us, he is amazed and amused by the great intelligence of the atheists who suppose he does not exist, knowing that if he were in their position he'd conclude the same. In fact, given he has left no evidence of himself, he's surprised there are beings still dumb enough the think he exists.

He's so pleased with the atheists that, despite having no former plans, he is considering taking up one of the theists' wrong beliefs - that of the afterlife. But, the twist is that everyone who has died a thoughtful reasoned atheist, he will recreate as equal partners to himself, as gods - thinking it would be nice to have some intelligent conversation. As for the theists, he wouldn't in all eternity want those freaky dictatorial idiots around with any godly powers - he'd have religious wars on his hands that would put the vindictive ancient Greek gods to shame. No, the theists can be left to return to other forms of matter - to go up in smoke or be eaten by worms.

Now on the surface this seems a dumb hypothesis to me, because there's no evidence to support it. Buut hey, hold on! There isn't supposed to be. Perfect! This overcomes some of the problems with the usual theist hypotheses - that God intervenes. And I can say God is unknowable - this is only my hypothesis, I don't know if it's true, and I'm not claiming it is, so I don't have to justify it. It can't lose.

Still, to be on the safe side, in case this is the truth, I'd still be better consigning it to the bin like all the other divine hypotheses - I wouldn't want God to think I think he's there. But on the whole this is a far better bet on which to use Pascal's Wager.

If you can find any flaws with this hypothesis, then by all means contribute. But don't expect an argument from me, I'm an atheist.

God On My Mind - BBC

2010-03-25T09:54:00.000Z

This new programme from the BBC pulls together some strings from evolutionary biology and neuroscience to attempt to explain religious and other beliefs.

I think these programmes will only be available to UK listeners, but if I can find a transcript I'll put up a link.

From the programme information...

Part 1: Evolution:
"We are programmed by our genes to believe in supernatural powers and to obey moral codes. Is this because it gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage? Iranians, Scandinavians, Papuans, chimpanzees, twins and wedding rings offer some startling answers."

Part 2: Neurology
"Almost half the population claim to have felt the presence of a power beyond themselves. But what happens in the brain during religious experiences? If magnetism can produce visions, then what price mysticism and meditation? What's the difference between sainthood and schizophrenia? And why are many believers convinced that God speaks to them in their dreams?"

Political Islam

2010-03-23T08:34:00.001Z

There may be plenty of British Muslims that are perfectly peaceful, want nothing more than to be allowed to follow Islam on a personal basis.

But that isn't where the trouble for democracy lies. This Telegraph article, and this Channel 4 Dispatches programme, show the real intent of many 'politicised' Muslims. But it's not as if being 'politicised' is restricted to a few fundementalists. Islam is both a religious and a political movement, and it's long term intentions are made clear over and over again. And the concept of infiltrating organisations that have views or policies that are incompatible with Islam (i.e. with Sharia) with the intent of taking control and applying Sharia wherever they can, is perfectly compatible with the long term aims of Islam.

Pay attention!

Thin Blue Line

2010-03-22T10:52:00.001Z

Are you worried you know nothing at all about our environmental problems? Do terms like Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change and the like have you concerned, but you simply don't understand how basic atmospheres work and how important they are to life? Then check this programme out while you can.

Thin Blue Line, Brian Cox, BBC iPlayer

This is probably one of the best popular explanation of why we need an atmosphere that's appropriate for life, and how fragile atmospheres can be. There's no doom mongering, just pure unadulterated enthusiasm for how our planet's atmosphere works. In the context of other planets and moons you get a real feel for how special our planet is, and why we should consider, at the very least, what we are doing to it.

The God Illusion

2010-01-08T00:10:00.002Z

Some people see God, where others see a cardboard cut-out.

Jesus and Mo

2009-12-20T22:14:00.001Z

Spot on, again: J&M, with good comments fro Ophelia Benson.

They're Up The wall

2009-11-22T17:11:00.001Z

The BBC news report on Women of the Wall shows the hypocracy of the religious mind, and the lack of a sense of humour that makes them fail to spot irony.

"...rabbi Ovadia Yosef denounced women's prayer groups that wear the tallit at the Western Wall as acting to promote a feminist cause and not out of piety." - A well-put pious argument rabbi, and not at all promoting male domination of the relgion, eh?

And, don't the women get it? They're claiming unfair treatment on religious matters in a society dominated by dogmatic relgious males? Why bother. Pick a relgion where women are already treated as equals - granted you're going to have to skip all the mainstream religions. Sod it, become atheists.

Storm

2009-08-23T18:26:00.001Z

Pretty good poem

The Zombie Problem, by Robert Smith?

2009-08-18T13:11:00.002Z

At first I thought this BBC News item (paper here) might be a reference to the David Chalmer's Zombie Problem, but apparently not.

And the Prof's name, Robert Smith?? You really do need two question marks, as in, "Who is Robert Smith??!

Some Notes on Theism

2008-10-08T17:41:00.001Z

I'm prompted to write this post as a general account of my opinions about the existence of God in response to an exchange with Aaron on Sam's blog: Comments. In particular I wanted to respond to this comment by Arron: "At the very core, Christianity is nothing more than following Christ. The word itself means simply one who follows Christ's teachings. All of the sacraments, all of the ritual, all of the dogma is man-made artifice that is at times either helpful or harmful to a given individual or even to the world at large."

There's nothing new in what follows; it's just a summary of my views on the subject of theism in the above context.

I don't find anything wrong with following the teaching of any particularly wise person, but is it really likely that all the professed teachings of Jesus were all his own work? Even if it could be shown that many of the teachings of Jesus were attributable to his followers and biographers that wouldn't necessarily diminish the wisdom inherent in the teachings.

But anything in addition to this is where my problem with Christianity, and theism in general begins.

First, to make Jesus anything more than simply a mortal teacher requires the presupposition of God. This presupposition is at the heart of all the main monotheistic religions. Without an initial God everything else fails, theistically. Theists sometimes argue that atheists aren't in a position to comment on some aspects of theology that they haven't studied, but without the presupposition of God the theology is worthless.

I find no rational reason to presuppose God. I have not seen one single argument supporting theism that doesn't presuppose this, for any of the God religions. And this brings me to the degree of my 'agnosticism' or 'atheism' as discussed with Aaron. The metaphysical idea that a God is one possible cause of everything is fine, but that's all it is, an idea, a concept, with no more weight than any other metaphysical idea. I could equally presuppose two Gods, and infinite number of Gods, or no Gods, a single once-only universe from nothing, a cyclical single universe, multiple parallel universes, metaphysical ideas that have mathematical support and those that don't, and even pure fantasy universes - metaphysically, anything goes. So, in response to Aaron, I am 'agnostic' to the extent that the God hypothesis is one of many, and I am 'atheistic' to the extent that I don't find the God hypothesis a particularly convincing one. I'm so unconvinced I'm prepared to accept the label 'atheist'.

Without presupposing God it becomes necessary to say why one would think there is a God.

All the so called proofs of the existence of God, the ontological, teleological, cosmological, and other 'logical' arguments are all based on some unsupportable premise, that is usually based on some human intuitive requirement that there should be some cause, that it should be intelligent, and that it should be loving. God is made in the image of the best of what we would like to be, not we in his image.

Terms such as 'infinite' and 'perfect' are often used in relation to God. These are mere concepts that are useful in describing something beyond what we can see, measure or reach. There is no reality to them, as far as we know. There's no good reason that they are attributes of or have anything to do with God.

Discussions about the 'probability' of any of these possible ideas, and in this context that there might or might not be a God, are metaphysical speculations and have no mathematical basis to take them any further. In order to calculate probabilites about God's existence we need information we just don't have.

Some theists don't require proof or evidence or probabilistic likelihood, since they find some ideas 'obvious', when considering these issues. For example, it's 'obvious' there must be a 'loving', 'intelligent', 'omnipotent', ..., creator. To such a theist I'd ask the following. How would you know that? How many universes have you witnessed being created to come to that 'obvious' conclusion, deductively or inductively? What experiences do you have, on the scale of universes, that make you think this or any universe requires a creator at all? An as for 'His' attributes, how would you know what they were? Revelation? Well, revelation presupposes there's a God to do the revealing, as opposed to there having been a number of fallible humans through the ages that have misunderstood, willfully lied, or been deluded about revelatory events - that presupposition again?

Another approach theists sometimes take is with respect to what might be called 'ways of knowing'. When all the rational arguments have been put forward - basically saying there's no evidence or proof that God exists and so we should act as if he doesn't - theists have been known to question the appropriateness of these arguments, by questioning the ways in which we can know things. All I want to say for now on this is that the best and most useful ways of knowing consist of supporting our personal experiences with rational critical and sceptical thought and, when appropriate and possible, employing what is commonly know as the scientific method. I accept that when we follow this path the best we can hope for is the accumulation of common experiences that give us some grasp of how things work, and to a limited extent why they work; but I also accept that in no way does that lead us to any ultimate and absolute truth about anything; it only provides us with a degree of confidence. What about meditation and other 'spiritual' ways of knowing? As far as I can see, moving to what is essentially a different mind-state is no different than chewing on magic mushrooms - anything goes; and there's no reason to suppose anything valuable or real is being revealed.

Yet another idea that theism embraces whole heartily, and which is also a necessity for some non-theists, is the requirement for purpose or meaning. I think this idea is often behind the 'obvious' discussed above. But there is no requirement that the universe, or any part of it (i.e. us), should have any purpose or meaning. This need that some people have for there to be purpose and meaning in the universe at all is a quirk of human nature, akin to the need to bite ones nails or pick ones nose or scratch an itch. Can I prove this? No, but the parallels are sufficient to explain it without conjuring up an agent such as God.

Now, I can accept a 'concept', call it God if you wish, as an aspiration, a goal to which we would like to aim; but it's entirely a human construct - it certainly isn't theistic in the usual sense, and not even deistic. In that respect it's a form of Humanism. I think that this is what some versions of Christianity have come to be, though I can't understand why there remains the insistence on the truth of, say, the resurrection, or even the continued association with Christ.

Much of this aspiration for the unreachable perfection is fine. But because we can't actually reach it we have to settle for less. And that 'less' that each person settles for is subjective. I don't have a problem with different individuals or groups of people deciding that they think they should live by certain rules, constructing their own morality - I've seen no evidence or good argument for objective morality. And I think it makes sense that as a society (and collections of societies) that we should agree that compromises have to be made - we can't all have our own particular moral codes enforced just as we choose. The problem with religion in this respect is that it has aimed for the heady heights of the infinite and the perfect, and has decided there is a real God, and has then interpreted its own subjective moral codes as being determined by this fictitious character. All theistic religions, and sects within religions, and individuals within sects, all have their own take on what God is, to what extent he interacts with us, to what extent he commands us, or requires us to worship him, etc. Religion is probably the most variable and subjective of human enterprises, in terms of what is believed, and yet often its adherents claim to have access to absolute and invariant truth. This is pure nonsense.

Take any individual, whether it be Jesus, his apostles, Mohammed, the Pope, or anyone claiming to be divine or to have been in touch with some divine being, or to have received a message, a revelation; take any of them; any claim they have made can be accounted for by down to earth explanations. But, you might say, at least some of the claims could be true. Well, how would you know? How, in fact, do you distinguish between a truthful claim about the divine and any of the many consequences of simple human frailty: mistakes, dreams, delusions, lies, intuitions, group-think, etc. There is no known way of making such a distinction, and since ultimately all supposed sources of divine information result from such claims, one way or another, they must all be seriously suspect, at the very least. Add to the shear variety the fact that no matter which religion you follow, and no matter how dedicated you are and to what extent you submit yourself and obey the commands and pray, there's not a damn bit of difference made in this world. From the most pious to the most 'sinful' - not a jot of difference that anyone has demonstrated.

All that pretty much takes care of my view about God. I think it's a strong case. I'd be happy to expand on any individual points, or to consider any angles I haven't already. I'd even believe in God if I thought there was sufficient reason.

Expelled

2008-04-03T07:36:00.002Z

This is a link worth following, as a follow up to the Expelled movie: Expelled Exposed.

For associated story see here,... and here.

The Power of Extremist Prayer

2008-02-17T19:46:00.000Z

Perhaps extremists of other faiths could learn from controversial Southern Baptist Pastor Wiley Drake. Why bother going to the trouble of organising terror campaigns when you have God on your side in the first place - employ imprecatory prayer!

The ABC Of Putting Your Foot In It

2008-02-16T15:53:00.000Z

Lot's of coverage of ate ABC's comments this week. I think Julian Baggini got it wrong on this one. Funny comment though, "People often say how intelligent Williams is, but I think they confuse intelligence with being thoughtful, well-intentioned and in possession of a fine beard." You can imagine Blackadder delivering such a cutting line, which is coincidental since Sky News attributed the ABC's comments to Rowan Atkinson (ht:The News Quiz).

Most of the other contributors on the Baggini blog topic made the case well enough.

Test For Thesim

2008-02-05T00:57:00.000Z

In the spirit of falsifiability you might want to check that all the chit-chat with theists isn't corrupting you. Take this test.

ht: Rational Mom.

God Releases Linux (Unsubstantiated)

2008-01-25T11:57:00.000Z

I could quite easily fit my understanding of science into any religious view - God can do anything, so he made the world this way, and even made atheists to challenge my faith. Once I believe in magic I can invent anything. It's all down to the premises; so that a valid argument can be claimed to be a sound argument, or I can simply claim that it's beyond reason and the premises stand alone unchallengable.

I could quite justifiably, by the absolutist religious view, believe that in fact there is a God. But my God isn't omnipotent, though he is omnibenevolent. He spontaneously came into existence about 20 billion years ago, came up with a plan for our universe, and currently we are its latest enhancement. He's really sorry about the crappy mess he's left us in, and has wanted to atone - that's why he created a representation of himself as Jesus, but he hadn't anticipated our design flaws, so we screwed that up for him. He tried again with Mohammed, but that was a real cock-up. Eventually he settled on the Enlightenment. It was always going to be difficult - unlike his future creation Microsoft he decided to avoid any pretence at compatibility with previous versions - it was his Linux, and it had its own flaws, but did have certain benefits in that it wasn't proprietary, it was open source! Anyone could contribute and everyone could benefit. As with all good projects the Enlightenment is an ongoing development, new anti-religious security patches are being contributed by many sources. He hopes to eventually convert all customers. And there's an incentive for existing and upgrading customers alike - a free pass to heaven, where you'll be met by Steve Jobs with some great gifts.

I suppose if I believed the above I could be aspect blind, in that I don't see how my premises upon which it all stands can be at fault. But I'd KNOW I'm not, wouldn't I? Any objections?

Aspect Blindness and Personality

2008-01-25T10:17:00.001Z

I wanted to note these points here following the reading posts by Ibrahim and Sam on the following blogs:

Sam:
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/01/muscles-metaphors-mysteries-on-grokking.html
http://celticchimp.blogspot.com/2008/01/wittgenstein-and-aspect-blindness.html

Ibrahim:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/01/latest-response-to-ibrahim-lawson.html

The charge that atheists suffer from Aspect Blindness regarding religion can be just as easily, if not more so, directed at the religious.

I think part the absolute commitment to the religious view is part of one's personal makeup, but put more generally it is a consequence of certain personalities.

I have had experience of religion. I was raised a Christian, I had doubts in my teens but wasn't fully aware of the strength of the atheistic alternative (I was agnostic), and eventually came to realise the flaws in the religious view. But, I've been around enough religious people to recognise several types. Some are religious by default, as JustBrowsing describes. Some really are strong unquestioning believers that simply reject any alternative, with some element of fear, either of the spiritual consequences, or simply of the unknown. Many are what I'd class as 'troubled', in that they desperately want to find something spiritual as a source of comfort and guidance because they have some sort of difficulty with the basic physical world and what they see as all its nastiness - such as crime and 'evil', or natural disasters, things that from my point of view I can classify simply and naturalistically as "some people aren't nice to each other" and "shit happens". I'm not troubled by the world and its problems and the fact that I can't fix them all. I'm not saying I'm heartless or fearless - I feel deeply disturbed to witness human and animal suffering, and I'd be as scared as the next person if I were mugged; but I can put these things into context so that I'm not fretting every minute of the day. I don't become depressed with the state of the world or my personal life. I do have a driving need to learn new stuff, but I'm not disturbed by the lack of answers.

In some cases the religious view is one of 'blind faith', the outright unquestioned denial of the possibility of an atheistic view. But in many case I'd describe faith more as 'tunnel vision' or 'aspect blindness', rather than simply 'blind', as a consequence of personality, where critical reasoning is accepted and used, but sufficiently distorted and abused to affirm the religious view.

Maybe I have personality issues that drive me towards a critical questioning and a general scepticism that results in my atheism, and maybe it's difficult for me recognise it in myself. I'm open to analysis, by professionals or amateurs.

It might be said that I'm this way because I haven't had a religious experience, and that if I had I'd know. I can't refute this categorically, but by the same token how am I supposed to know? And how would anyone else know what I have and haven't experienced? Maybe I have similar 'spiritual' experiences, but just as people have different thresholds of pain I have a low threshold of the 'spiritual' experience. Maybe that's all it boils down to, different strengths of 'zap' in the brain, and that the brains of those that perceive a stronger 'zap' interpret it all anthropomorphically as some superior presence. How would you tell the difference between that and a real religious God invoked revalatory event?

Knowledge

2008-01-22T09:04:00.000Z

In response to Barefootboom I tried to figure out my take on 'knowledge':

I've been struggling with this for a while. I can't really get a handle on knowledge with regard to truth or justification. My mind tends to work in the concrete rather than the abstract, so maybe that's why.

So, what I can get a handle on, or at least I feel I can, is information (e.g. Shannon). Information is merely laid down in the brain, using the physicalist view, in patterns that vary according to person, time, current brain state, etc., acquired through the combination of genetics, development and sensory input and so on.

Sticking with the physicalist view that consciousness is a manifestation of brain activity that gives an appearance of the 'mind', then the processes of the mind consist of the manipulation and regurgitation of an individual brain's information at any particular time - outwardly, to others, an external representation of the internal information.

So what we call individual 'knowledge' is nothing more than continuously changing pattern of transformed information. Add into the mix other brains all trying to perform the same task, each with their own internal mix of this 'knowledge', then it's no wonder we struggle to find agreement on what we understand any particular piece of knowledge to be. If there is any 'truth' out there beyond human experience then we're unlikely to acquire or agree on any 'true' interpretation of it.

Why do we want to search for a truth of any kind? Why must we agree? I don't know what the biological driving forces might be, other than it could be viewed as yet another manifestation of the consequence of housing selfish genes. But it's pretty clear we are motivated to question, to understand, and to agree on 'truths'.

In this model there is no absolute truth, at least not that we can get at. There is only knowledge as information. What we make of it and how useful it is determines whether or not it is 'justified true belief', though I've never liked that phrase (because I couldn't understand it). And I think this is how such variety in understanding can be explained; how we arrive at such a debatable position about what 'truth' is, what god is, if god exists, what morality is, etc. In some respects this is a utilitarian view, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

If this interpretation is the case then it also explains in some way the success of science and its methods and why we find them useful: the use of repeatability to establish knowledge as a consistent set of information over time, space and environment; the use of logic to establish what we can conclude or at least what we can use as a working model. Science even goes to great lengths to iron out the noise and the vagaries of human fallibility by using double blind tests and performing statistical analysis on the data to make sure, as much as we can, that the results actually represent useful knowledge/information. In other words science helps us to get as good an agreement on any 'truth' as we can reasonably expect.

Beyond this view of knowledge I struggle with much of the philosophical contemplation of it. It seems to me that it's quite easy to analyse yourself until you vanish up your own ass, and I feel that that's what some philosophers do when considering truth and knowledge. Maybe it's just my ignorance of some of the finer points.

Crush on Christ

2007-12-20T16:48:00.000Z

Read Possum's Essay for the first time today. Very inspiring, and a fine example. Weren't those Baptists weird though - so manu un-Christan Christians around.

On the same blog, a later post got me thinking about crushes. I'm 54 and remember a crush from when I was 5-6 very vividly, except for the girl's face - remember the place, the occasion, even her dress. I don't think of it often, but, as with many deep rooted feelings it is a clear memory - though perhaps it's the feeling that's the lasting memory and not the girl herself.

I can only imagine that religious types have similar deeply embedded feelings for Christ, or whoever, created by all the positive hype and threats of damnation that some churches instill in kids; and that that makes it so difficult to give up the faith and the 'love', against all reason. Especially if it's re-enforced every Sunday. I was Church of England, so it wasn't too strong an indoctrination, but I had a Catholic female cousin of a similar age to me and I remember when we were about 12 she used to admonish me for my evolving doubt and wonder how a couldn't 'love' Christ.

I swear she had a crush on Christ.

A Journalist Apologises

2007-12-04T13:15:00.000Z

It's not often it happens. I suspect many in the UK feel the same way, about Bush and Blair. Link

Is Religion Dangerous?

2007-12-03T13:05:00.000Z

This is a response to Stephen Law's
"Is Religous Dangerous":

I would agree with William Hawthorne that it is not 'religion' in and of itself that is dangerous, but the following combination (including and paraphrasing some of Stephen's points). The first two conditions might apply to many situations, but it's the third condition that's the clincher for religion:

1) People with an uncritical mind are extremely gullible and open to persuasion by charismatic unscrupulous, or merely misguided, people, or by weight of numbers, about some 'truth' X.

2) People of a critical mind are not completely immune from this persuasion, or may not be able to refute X, for many reasons: they are not as charismatic as some of the proponents; the arguments for X are so tortuous, or rely on fallacies that are difficult to put across to those without the training; the arguments are not even real arguments, but statements that can neither be proved or disproved; there is insufficient data, or the problem is too difficult to refute currently; etc.

Conditions (1) and (2) allows for the propagation of X through whole communities, and it may continue and grow over a period of time. However, given enough effort and time it can be established that X is not a worthwhile 'truth' and can be discarded. Even then some people will continue to belive in X. Crazy 'truths' can sweep the blogosphere in this way.

Condition (2) can result in 'experts' believing X for some time, but later finding flaws in the original reasoning that supported X. This is the case with the early adoption of nuclear energy, where the arguments for it failed to account for the true cost of decommissioning. The war in Iraq might also have been permitted as a consequence of condition (2).

The solution to this problem is more critical reasoning and the promotion and teaching of critical reasoning, as Stephen has suggested.

But, religion comes into its own with condition (3):

3) Faith, and by inference the rejection of critical reasoning. Note that critical reasoning might be used, up to a point, but then only to the extent that it supports X. The main principle here is that if reasoning fails, then faith applies, but if reasoning can be used, no matter how invalid, if you can get away with it use it to bring some apparent credibility to X.

One of the benefits of having faith in your arsenal is that it makes it very easy for those of a non-critical mind, or those struggling with a difficult argument, to simply accept X on faith, and particularly on the word of the leaders of the faith.

4) Hysteria. This isn't absolutely necessary, but it helps. If you can whip up your followers into a frenzy, then it becomes more difficult for followers to reject X. If you've been discarding all reason, chanting and throwing yourself about in the name of X, calling for the death of apostates and non-believers, can you suddenly see yourself turning round and saying "Oops! Sorry folks, I think I may have been mistaken there." Such a sudden change of heart not going to happen is it? It rarely happens in policing, politics and business, so why should we expect it to be likely in religion.

So, religion is dangerous because of the combination of all these conditions; and there may be more.

Stephen Law's "Sleight of Hand With Faith" blog

2007-11-23T15:49:00.000Z

See Sleight of Hand With Faith

Another good blog from Stephen Law. One of the pleasures of his blog is the level of interaction he permits. Some good stuff and good responses. I don't entirely agree with his points of view on some aspects - particularly the use of the 'problem of evil'. It's quite a long post, so my comments here are a bit lengthy too. I've stuck pretty much to Stephen's headings.

Reasonable belief
The tree, Japan, 1066 examples are particularly useful, in that they show there are varying degrees of reasonableness to believe something. The whole of Christian, Jewish and Islamic religious faith is based on ancient scriptures, but these old documents should be considered less reliable than more recent beliefs, such as the existence of a visible tree, the existence of Japan, and the historic records of 1066. And even if we accept that some original ancient document is genuine, there's no reason to give the same weight to its content as to the authenticity of the document itself.

Getting back to the 'faith' position, it's possible that some atheists believe god doesn't exist from a 'faith' position - they have the same degree and quality of faith that the 'stong faith' theist has, the atheist just believes the opposite.

But this isn't the 'science based atheism', or 'empirical atheism', or 'rational atheism' that most proponents of atheism argue for. It may be a position that is strongly believed, but it is borne out of reason and evidence, not pure blind faith. See Problem With Faith for more detail on my point of view on this.

And while we're on the subject of blind faith, I haven't yet been convinced by those theists who say their faith isn't blind faith. The argument goes like this:
A: You have no evidence and reason to suppose God exists.
T: No, we don't need it, we have faith.
A: Ah! Blind faith!
T: No, it's not blind faith. We believe based on scripture, etc.
A: So, you do need evidence. Let's examine that evidence...(atheist examines this evidence and concludes it's very flimsy and lacks any reason)...and so the scriptures aren't very good evidence and so don't provide good reason to believe in god.
T: No, we don't need it, we have faith....

A similar point is made by Stephen, where theists switch meanings of 'faith'.

Arguments for the existence of God
I think Stephen is here far too generous on the reasons for believing God might exist. The arguments are fatally flawed, but then he says...

"By saying that the arguments are fatally flawed, I mean not that, while the arguments do provide good grounds for believing in God, these grounds fall short of being conclusive. Rather, I mean that these arguments actually provide us with very little, if any, reason to suppose that God exists"

The first five points provide no good reason at all, they are so poor: (i) childishly poor; (ii)delusion - no there aren't any miracles - show me some; (iv)Jesus - he is qualified and reliable why?; (v)it only appears to be designed, but that doesn't mean it is.

Only the sixth is reasonable, to the extent that we have no knowledge of why the universe exists at all, and the proposition that there might be a god that created it is one possibility. But then it's a far cry from that basic proposition to conclude that this god has all the religious baggage attached to him, particularly that he has any interest in us, that he occasionally allows or causes miracles, that he allows or has any interest in what we call evil.

This 'source of the universe' proposition could suggest nothing more than some entity, which we might call god, created the universe. One might as well suppose that this god consist of some phenomenon of super-physics, outside our understanding of physics as it applies in our universe. But, again, there is no reason to suppose any of the religious trappings.

The reasonableness of the belief in god is often compared to the reasonableness of the belief in fairies. Pretty convincing to atheists, but apparently not to thesists.

Perhaps another comparison might be more realistic. An entity 'god' as a source of the universe is a reasonable proposition. But then so are many other cosmological theories, such as the cyclical universe, the multiverse, and so on. But how do these other theories impact on our daily lives? I don't worship a multiverse, or expect it to judge me on my death. And all these theories still suffer from the same 'first cause' problem. And, we have no reason to suppose any one of them is a more likely candidate than another. This is the level of reasonableness upon which the existence of god should be assessed. It doesn't provide much ground for religion does it?

The problem of evil
If the theist can conjure up god based on the flimsy reasons already given, then it's not too difficult to rationalise away evil.

If god is so all knowing and we understand him so little, who are we to dispute his reasons for including evil in his plans. This is where faith comes to the rescue again. If as a theist I believe evil exists, then my faith would tell me to accept that and deal with it. As an atheist, if I can't successfully refute or give good reason against the existence of god in his religious form, then I won't be able to refute the existence of evil. Stephen's final paragraph on evil beginning "It seems that, if the universe does have a creator ..." isn't then so powerful an argument.

Direct religious experience of God
Consider Stephen's comment, "...an orange on the table in front of me..." and then "I don’t infer that there orange is there on the basis of evidence".

Of course that's evidence. What does evidence consist of if not human responses via the senses - isn't that empiricism in a nutshell? And so one does infer it exists from that evidence. If I told you there was an orange there but you couldn't see it, you'd certainly ask for evidence that it is there, because the evidence you are receiving through your eyes says it isn't.

"We also have powerful evidence – in the form of the problem of evil ..." No we don't. This is a circular argument: that god does not exist because of the problem of evil, so revelatory evidence doesn't exist, therefore god does not exist.

In fact my preferred argument is as follows.
a) - God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to suppose he does (with the possible exception of some indeterminate god as a consequence of the source of the universe problem).
b) - Without god this leaves evil as a purely human interpretation of events: natural disasters, illnesses, human actions.
c) - Even if you allow for a 'source of the universe' god, that's not sufficient to then propose evil exists.

When a rotting tree in a forest falls and lands on some plants and animals, is that evil? When a rotting tree in a street falls in a storm and kills a driver in a car, is that evil, is the devil at work there, or is god at work? If that driver had recently knocked down and killed a child while drunk driving, is that evil, and is his later death divine retribution? Or is it all coincidence? How may drunk driving killers don't suffer subsequently? Shit happens, and sometimes we cause it ourselves. Dressing it up, as some theists do, in a separation of [disasters = acts of god], and [human inflicted suffering = evil], doesn't work for me. There is no good reason to conclude evil, as portrayed by thesists, exists as a phenomenon.

Direct religious experience of God
My response here is the same as to the problem of evil. If the argument for a religious god is strong enough, then revelation can follow. The significant points are that, first, there is no good reason to suppose god exists and that in our universe natural laws of physics apply; and, second, that any other phenomenon such as 'revelationary experiences', can also be explained by natural physical laws.

A better approach is to simply say there is no evidence that these revelatory experiences are real. In all human experience, and certainly in scientific matters, there have to be multiple repeatable and falsifiable evidence for an phenomenon to be taken seriously. We cannot prove these experiences didn't happen. We can only tar them with the same brush as we do the whole religious god hypothesis.

When an atheist asks for evidence and a theist responds that god doesn't work that way, the correct response is that without evidence it simply isn't worth pursuing; and with the contrary and substantial evidence that we know that some people suffer psychotic delusions and some people lie, there are far more good reasons not to accept the revelatory experiences as being real.

"How, then, can it be reasonable for someone in possession of both..." A theist would argue god and evil do exist, and if he occasionally reveals himself, who are we to argue with that. They are perfectly consistent once you accept a 'religous' god exists.

The theist/atheist belief/disbelief in evil and revelation are consequences of the belief/disbelief in god. An atheist using any one point to support any other is performing the same circular argument as a theist, but for the opposite position.

Attempts to solve the problem of evil
Stephen's points here don't improve the argument either way. Basically, as explained above, if you can accept that god exists with very little evidence, then you can use that alone to propose evil, revelation, or any other flimsy reason to support your original supported god hypothesis.

Some of these attributes of a religious god have strong historical and cultural backing. Suppose historically other poorly evidenced phenomena had been supported. Atheists often use the 'fairies' comparison to illustrate how ridiculous is a belief in god. But things could have been very different.

Suppose that all the historical and cultural religious junk had backed fairies instead of angels: fairies do exist; they are small tokens of godliness put on earth to help children believe in god. It's not too difficult to imagine a whole history of fairy belief as part of a god belief system - all supported by scripture. Then atheists would be arguing the 'problem of fairies'.

To some extent this type of thing has happened. The big three religions differ significantly. A Muslim could argue with a Christian about the 'problem of Jesus' - that he wasn't god but a mere prophet.

As another example, suppose it was discovered in some obscure scripture that the requirement to worship was a test put down by god, and only those who follow his guidance out of free will and without fear and worship were the truly blessed. We would still be left with the real question - does god exist in the first place?

So, it's one thing to point out how ridiculous are phenomena like evil and revelation, but you can't use them as arguments for the non-existence of god. If the weird religious god of scripture exists, then so could these phenomena.

Used as independent points of view they can all provide supportive reasons as to why it's not reasonable to belive any or all of them. But you can't use them in a deductive chain to conclude god does not exist.

Where the onus lies
I agree that "..the onus is on you to provide some decent arguments ..." and that "It’s down there near belief in fairies."

And that's all that is required - to show this through reason.

An extreme form of 'faith' and A more common sort of 'faith'

If faith is absolute and doesn't require reason, that's fine, but then an atheist doesn't require reason to not accept belief in god (though it is generally preferred). But that leads simply to a stand-off: "Is!", "Isn't!", "Is!", "Isn't!",...

Now you might say this is nonsense, and of course that's right. It is a 'none'-'sense' position. It isn't an argument, because an argument requires reason.

It's funny that theists of this kind can glorify god's creation - man, his consciousness, his free-will, his superior intellect above all other beasts, his power of reason; and yet on this one point we have to throw all that capability away. The position is childish, and worthy of derision - as are the church signs posted elsewhere on Stephen's blog which also promote the abandonment of reason:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/another-bible-belt-sign.html
and
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/reason-is-greatest-enemy-that-faith-has.html

Sliding between these two senses of 'faith'

I agree with this section. Theists use reason, until their arguments are destroyed, when they then revert to 'faith'. And they don't always wait until you leave the room. The Dawkins-McGrath debate follows this line: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6609671681098320091

The arguments behind 'faith'

"Arguments (v) and (vi) in particular are extremely seductive." I disagree, as stated earlier, but more specifically:

(iv) - "Jesus tells us that God exists, and we know Jesus to be a reliable source of information. Therefore it’s likely that God exists."

No. If Jesus existed (I'm not disputing that), and if he said the things he is reported to have said, there is still absolutely no reason to suppose he is a reliable source. In fact, based on current knowledge there's every reason to suppose he was one or more of the following: deluded, a megalomaniac, a very savvy political motivator.

(v) - "The universe shows signs of having been designed. So God must exist as its designer."

No. It only appears to be designed. That doesn't mean it is, and so it is useless as a reason for belief in god. Degrees of reasonableness again.

Having faith in other people

The type of faith discussed here is a mere intuitive assessment of probabilities based on experience. The human mind can perform some amazing feats - that's why artificial intelligence is such a difficult problem. One thing it can do is assess, apparently instantly, from experience, the likelihood of a particular outcome, which is expressed in this type of 'faith'.

This type of faith can work quite well. If you have been able to rely on a friend in the past, you could infer it would be reasonable to have 'faith' in him/her the next time you need their help. Comrades in arms rely on this type of faith, and it is this faith that makes this type of bond so strong.

However, it can go wrong. As a counter to Stephen's Beckham example, Beckham has missed a significant penalty when everyone thought he would score. Admittedly there were extenuating circumstances - the turf beneath his standing foot gave way. More incredulously, for those of us who are lucky or careful enough to avoid them, there are plenty of more serious examples: a repeatedly cheated-on spouse thinks that 'this time' the offender will change, or an gambler thinks 'this time' the long-shot will come in.

In this way I think theists are the inveterate gamblers in belief systems. Despite the complete lack of evidence for the case, and in spite of the very strong evidence against, they still have faith in this long shot - that when they die they will be shown to have backed the winner.

Educational Fairness: Equality of Access, or Equality of Capabilites

2007-10-06T09:58:00.000Z

See Stephen Law's blog - Ban private schools? - the freedom issue. Is the topic addressing the underlying question?

It may be desirable that the possession of native wit should not be disadvantaged by school, or even by family. Does this mean that native wit should be positively advantaged - positive discrimination? Should the "better" (assuming greater native wit is better than lesser native wit) always be promoted above the "lesser" in order to achieve "equality"? Equality of what?

What's the balance between promoting the better at the risk of leaving behind or discarding the lesser? Fairness appears to be an ever receding goal - a concept, like infinity. Try following these rules to achieve equality:

1) Make a consistent high quality education suddenly available to all (no resource or access problems). Those with higher native wit would be advantaged, since they'd make better use of it. So we need to address this imbalance, in rule 2.

2) Introduce corrective brain surgery to bring the lesser up to scratch with the better. Surely the "better" should have access to the same corrective surgery to improve their capabilities, so maintaining an imbalance. Well, we don't have corrective surgery, so instead let's just boost the education provided to the "lesser" - oops! Denial of service to the "better" and the breaking of rule 1.

Which is required, equal access to a service that improves your capabilities or equality of capabilities? This appears to be the basic question here.

Physicalism and Conciousness

2007-09-25T09:04:00.000Z

[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/stewart_goetz/dualism.html]
See section 2 on Conciousness, and in particular the Mary problem.

As Colin McGinn has stated, "Consciousness defies explanation in [compositional, spatial] terms. Consciousness does not seem to be made up out of smaller spatial processes.... Our faculties bias us towards understanding matter in motion, but it is precisely this kind of understanding that is inapplicable to the mind-body problem."

Nonsense. What is computer software? Can you explain it? How can you copy it without creating new matter or energy? It's information, that's why. Our thoughts are information, the product of physicalism and caused by it. Nothing inherently mysterious, though it might appear so to the human mind that is actually experiencing it. The mind-body duality dilema that people struggle with is analogous to an optical illusion - e.g. the hollow mask that appears solid, or the wire cube that flips orientation - as with these it's difficult to think in our mind of both states simultaneously. We can flip states, but we can't 'see' or imagine both simultaneously. In a similar way we can (almost) imagine computer software as information, but have greater difficulty imagining this condition when applying it to our own thoughts. It becomes even more confusing, and more like the attempt to simultaneously 'see' both states of an optical illusion, when we try an imagine what's happening when we think about what we are thinking now in the first person; and some explanations of conciousness and dualism confuse the issue by trying to do this.

Did Mary (see site) learn something new about pain? Yes. She physically experienced (both in terms of physical neurological responses and informational interpretation) the real pain for which she had only previously had a physical neurological model. Her model has simply been updated with real first hand experiential data, when previously the only experiential data she had was neurological mapping of things she had already experienced. In practice of course this 'schrodingers's cat' type of thought experiment is limited. The definition of the experiment is incorrect. Pain is simply a more intense stimulus of corresponding stimuli - presumably Mary hadn't been denide the sense of touch, otherwise she would have had difficulty relating to much of the theoretical information she had read in the first place. What sort of human would have emerged from the room if that had been the case. It's a hypethetical case where the accuracy of the perceived consequences are dubious, to the extent that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Mary can't even pick up the bowling ball if she's been deprived of the appropriate senses!

"Given that it is exceedingly difficult and seemingly impossible to provide a compositional, spatial analysis of the intrinsic nature of an event such as an experience of pain, can a metaphysical naturalist reasonably promise us some other kind of explanation of its nature?"

This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. "compositional, spatial analysis of the intrinsic nature of an event" - does this actually mean anything? These arguments are often dressed up in these phrases that some researcher has latched onto or invented to describe some concept that is difficult to understand - fair enough. But then the problem is that these phrases are used in ways that make it difficult to grasp what is being said.

"...can he (physicalist) at least provide a plausible explanation of how it came about that the universe contains occurrences such as experiences of pain and pleasure? We doubt it."

Why, when it has expressly been given? The dualist is confusing a simple causal relationship between an excessive physical stimulus and the informational model that the receiving organism experiences as a result, as a separate entity.

How does a human feel pain? A cat? A worm? A bacterium? A cell? A complex molecule? A grain of sand? Physicaly, they don't, they simply react - either extremely passivily according to relatively simple laws of physics for a grain of sand, or in more complex physical/chemical ways for a molecule, or in increasingly more complex chemical/exlectrical/biological/neurological ways for higher organisms.

Being organsims with a complex nervous system that includes the brain we have adapted ourselves to the interpretation of our environment. One of our interpretations is to feel/think/experience our environment in terms of our own experiences. The more animate and the more similar to us other entities are, the more easly we make this mapping - we anthropomorphise or personify. We do this with ourselves and our 'thoughts' to the greatest degree. Some of us even have to create, or imagine, or to model non-existant entities using the same principle - demons, faires, ghosts, gods, etc. Sometimes our brains get it wrong - they extrapolate (a very valuable tool used in the prediction process) - they extrapolate too much, they become gullible, seeing optical illusions, even delusions.

"What, then, is the theistic alternative? Theism begins by acknowledging that experiences of pleasure and pain and choices are events that occur in subjects which refer to themselves by the first-person pronoun 'I.'"

Do some of the lower organsims not feel pain? If they do, do they refer to themselves in the first person? Again, when is this magical dualism switched on - just humans, apes, ...? Be careful, else you'll be dragging up biblical nonsense again.

"As the theist René Descartes wrote...(quotes Descartes)..."

The dualist is here acknowledging the simplicity of the mind in one respect, but denying it from the physicalist respect, which itself is very simple.

Decartes: "I cannot distinguish in myself any parts" - could that be because there is nothing to distinguish? Is Decartes referring to the distinction between mind and body, or the distinction between parts of his thoughts? Is he struggling to identify his thoughts as distinct physical entities? Maybe he's struggling because they don't exist as such. When my computer is running some software I can see the results on screen, I can imaging the electrons moving at amazing speeds around the silicon based microscopic circuitry, and I can imaging the source code I have written if it's my program that's running - but can I imaging the actual 'software' itself as a physical entity? No more than I can be self aware and imagine my own thoughts as something distict from my physicality.

I can certainly imagine what the dualists are describing. I can imaging some ghostly substance that might be my soul, spirit, thoughts - but that's all it is, an imagined concept. I have no reason to think it exists. When movies portray a dead soul rising out of a body - is that what we really think is happeng in some invisible dimension? Of course not (or maybe you do). But there is no evidence to support that imagining, that concept. I can imagine flying pigs, with little wings - do they exist? Because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists.

I can imagine God, angels - all with typically anthropomorphised representations. If God really exists with some of the real properties he's supposed to have, such as omniscience, can I imagine that? Only in a limited way, as I imagine the mathematical concept of infinity - something bigger than anything, but to which if I add more it is the same thing? Does that sound a little like the ontological argument for God? Figments of our limited imaginations!

In postulating the concept of dualism we are using a limited capacity tool (the mind) to grasp something of itself that is merely apparent. We accept illusions, hoaxes, some delusions, for what they are - the mind not presenting a sufficiently good approximation of the external physical reality - but then for no apparent reason than the mystery of not underestaning something, we invent dualism, supernatural external agents, theism. Figments of our limited imaginations.

Why is it so difficult to see that the alternative - the physical causal relationship between neurological activity and the resulting mental models?

Don't be fooled by the apparent complexity. How can this proposed simple process take part in this argument, including those parts of the process that produce the written (typed) work above (whether you think its good or not it's still apparently complex). But, just as the many many simple little steps of evolution have produced us, so the many many simple little processes in this organism have produced this. If I had omnisciently and omnipotently flashed out all this text instantly, in zero time, then we might be closer to the realisation of what God is. But I didn't. Every impulse to my fingers to type, every nuerologocal action that contributes, is very very simple - they are simply working very fast and in great numbers. The sophisticaion comes from the co-ordination. But co-ordinated lesser orgaisms that are independent to some extent also produce similarly amazing results. Bees building honey combs, ants foreging for food - they are all sophisticated co-ordinated processes where the individual elements are all amazingly simple whan compared with the result.

We are at the top of the chain, as far as we know, in this evolutionary scale, so we find it difficult to imagine anything that might be more complex than ourselves that is not some ultimate God.

Dualism, as with God, is a failed attempt to come to terms with the complex. We can imagine the simple. We can imagine somethings more complex. But eventually, as complexity increases we lose touch and make a giant leap to something bigger, but conceptually easier to identify - even if not easier to understand.

In maths, imagine a simple sum: 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine some complex formula - say some series using powers and factorials - still with me? Now try some complex differential equations - still here? Now Schrödinger equation... - have you seen them and do you understand them? By now some, if not most of us (including me) has lost track of these equations - they are more complex than I am familar with. I can imagine some vague representation on a physicists blackboard, employing symbols I'm not familar with - it's all Greek to me. Now, let's imagine infinity - got that?

I bet more people with upper high school and graduate level maths find it easier to grasp the notion of infinity than they do some complex expression representing something in physics. It's quite straight forward to imagine clearly some simpler things, and relatively easy to grasp something of the notion of a concept that is very extensive, in size, number, power, infomational capacity, than it is to imagine some things that are just more complex than we are used to. It's easier to imagine God as represented by some very vague notions of extreme extension to simpler human properties, than it is to imagine in detail more complex processes or organisms than those with which we are currently familar.

Dualism is similar to some extent. We find it difficult to imagine where the boundary lies - or how the continuum flows - from the physical bodies that we have come to be familiar with and the thoughts that we are also familiar with. Because we can't imagine this we invent a separation - dualism. It's a failure of our current capacity to understand.

So, are physicalists so advanced that they can conceive of it, while the poor dumb dualists can't? No, of course not. What is most likely at work here is an ingrained view that's difficult to shake off. I would guess, though I have nothing to support this, that all physicalists have had dualist interpretations at one time - simply because it is easier to imagine.

This is an imagination gap. If the gap is narrow we can build a bridge easily. If the gap is wide we prefer to fly across, skipping whatever is missing. Go from what we are familiar with to some extreme concept based on the familar properties. It's difficult to imagine what we don't know. This imagination gap should be familar to most students, particularly the more advanced your studies*. You can read the fear of the apparent consequences in the writings of theists. We are dealing with a 'duality of the gaps' that is similar to the 'God of the gaps'.

"we are not arguing that there is some gap in an otherwise seamless naturalist view of reality"

Oh yes you are.

"This is an argument from the fundamental character of reality and what kinds of things exist (purposes, feelings..."

Yes, purpose and feelings exist, but not as some distinct dualist entity. They are properties of the organism that is experiencing. Particularly feelings and emotions - simple hormonal biological chemical electrical reactions. 'Purpose' is apparent, not real in the sense that is independent free-will.

The only dualism I see in all this is that in the mind of the dualist. On the one had an imagination failure in not seeing the continuum and inclusiveness of physicalism that encompases conciousness, and on the other, the runaway imagination that goes in leaps and bounds from missing data regarding conciousness, to mind-body dualism, on to basic theism, and then on to all the wild imaginings of heaven, hell, saints, miracles, etc.

*I remember very clearly the earliest experience of this, on a very limited scale. In primary school I could do 'short-division' but I couldn't fathom out 'long-division' - it was very frustrating, and even frightening - I feared I was really dumb!. Then a neigbour's son, a year older than me, spent some time going through examples. I remember very clearly when the penny dropped. A spiritual revalation? Later, at university I struggled with some concepts of advanced chemistry - it was an electronics course and I naively hadn't expected to be learning chemistry and I'd skipped chemistry at highschool, so I was ill equiped for some of this stuff. I remember the anguish in class, seeing all the other students nodding knowingly while I was thinking "what the hell is he talking about". Recognising the response I went off to the library and made sure I caught up. Never be afraid of what you don't know! If you need to know it, put in sufficient effort so that your brain and its neurological patterns become famialar with it - eventually you'll see the light - alleluiah!

Anthony J. Carroll's RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN STATE INSTITUTIONS

2007-07-28T12:08:00.000Z

This is a review of some of the points made by Anthony J. Carroll in his paper:http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/images/stories/hirepl/publications/tcarroll/religious_symbols.pdf
Carroll says, "Is it reasonable [of secular liberals?] to presume that religions cannot judge between unfair proselytism and the reasonable acknowledgement of one's faith in the public domain? I think not." - On the contrary I think it is. The reason being that most faiths, and certainly the big three, are absolutist in their views about the truth of their religions.

The very fact that this discussion is taking place so openly in secular democratic states is indicative of the fact that there is not (or should not be) any absolutist view from liberal-democratic (or philosophically-atheistic) world views - they should always be open to debate and persuasion.

Carroll says, "The alternative to the liberal position is the so-called 'Anglo-Saxon' model. This model acknowledges the positive insights of communitarianism about how learning and socialisation are accomplished within particular communities with distinctive commitments. Communitarianism privileges the good of a particular tradition over the claims to universal rightness of a neutral reason supposedly independent of tradition and cultural context. It readily accepts a pluralism of cultures within the one society. Continental European societies, however, are concerned that such a model will lead to ever greater fragmentation, a fear that is not, in present late-modern or postmodern societies, without foundation. When, therefore, the French state sees headscarves in the classroom, it fears societal atomization and the weakening of the social bond-le lien social. If you let one group do their own thing, the danger is that everyone will simply go their own way. Society will disintegrate, and the result will be nothing other than anarchic tribalism."

This seems a reasonable view. The liberal approach appears to offer the opportunity for more cohesion. Granted, there may be a problem where religious communities object to this approach, and so potentially detract from that possibility of cohesion. But that is generally the nature of such groups, a nature that the secularist liberal objecting to.

In liberal secularism there is also the objection to the promotion to children of singular absolutist views within religious (or political or any other) communities, since with closed communities this amounts to indoctrination. Note that this is not an objection to the promotion of religious beliefs. Following liberal democratic principles it should be open for any religious, political or other group to express their views to adults, and to attempt to persuade adults within the bounds of law*. Further more, there is no objection to the teaching about religions, atheism and other world views within a well controlled non-indoctrinating classroom.

The problems only arise because some religions, or at least some sub-groups, not only believe that the truth of their religious world view is absolute, but, because they believe so, they assume they have the right to impose that view on everyone else, at the expense of democratic principles. I think Carroll's solutions require that these groups relinquish such aims.

Imagine, if you will, if you can, an absolutist dogmatic religious world view that includes in it the view that democracy is invalid, evil and must be replaced by the one true theocracy. Further, that world view sees nothing wrong in using all the tools, all the 'weaknesses', of that evil democracy to democratically win control of the state, with the intention of making it a theocracy. What road back remains for those of other faiths, or atheists, for democracy. This is the terrible fear that drives the liberal democratic secular movement. And it isn't based solely on distant historical experiences of religious wars, as Carroll suggests.

"However, as I have argued, its [secular liberalism's] seemingly neutral, rational principles are in reality neither neutral nor independent of material claims. Liberalism is itself an ideology; it is grounded in a particular vision of the world, one that is all the more powerful because it is not explicitly acknowledged." - I think it is explicitly acknowledged, by secular liberals, and I understand that it might not be by those that don't share the view. It is the more powerful because it is the most cohesive and is not exclusive. It is also the most beneficial to the most people - both as a society and as individuals. It is not perfect, but then perfection is a flawed notion when applied to human social organisation (see my blog on perfection: http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/2007/07/perfection.html).

"For its part, communitarianism respects the particularities and the substantive claims of distinct groups. It supports the freedom to live according to one's own moral, religious and cultural convictions." - Only coincidentally. This "freedom to live..." is not a requirement in any group, except within liberal democracy where it exists as part of the definition of that world view and is not superseded by any 'higher power'.

"Liberalism stresses freedom at the cost of ideological blindness and naïveté; communitarianism fosters cohesionat the risk of societal atomization. How can one draw on the strengths of these conflicting positions and avoid the limitations of each of them?" I don't see ideological blindness as a fault - your ideology shouldn't prevent your access to, for example education. In suggesting that "communitarianism fosters cohesion" surely there is no suggestion that liberalism does not? Liberalism fosters super-cohesion beyond any particular group, while at the same time imposing no restriction on cohesion within groups, given safeguards.

As for Carrol's proposals: "Acknowledging Commitments", "Citizenship", "Appropriate Assertiveness" - I agree with all his sentiments here.

The examples of the headscarf or the crucifix should pose no problem for state schools, if Carroll's guidelines are followed. There remains the problem of other forms of dress, such as the complete covering of the face except for the eyes. It has been argued that this form of dress is inappropriate since it prevents full communication between teacher and pupil. So where does this lie in Carroll's mind?

*If it is felt that a law does restrict religious expression among adults the liberal democratic system allows for that law to be challenged.

Perfection

2007-07-28T12:00:00.000Z

This notion of perfection is often used to prove god exists. Aquinas employs it in his proofs. It would be stretching credibility even to say it 'suggests' there might be a god - but to say it proves it is ridiculous.

The whole notion of perfection in anything is simply that - a notion. It's a vague notion of direction or improvement: "this is good", "this is better", "keep improving until you get to perfection", which of course we recognise we can't achieve - therefore jump to the conclusion that the only entity that can we call God, and so god exists. Nonsense.

If perfection doesn't exists, and there's no reason to suspect it does, then it cannot be used to conclude God exists. And even if perfection was a reality, and if we chose to call it God, there is no reason to attribute all the usual properties to god that make him the personal god that religions promote.

McGrath, Dennet, Dawkins - Memes

2007-07-18T21:32:00.001Z

I read this debate between Dennet and McGrath: http://www.rsa.org.uk/acrobat/dennett_130306.pdf

I think McGrath is right to point out that the meme hypothesis is purely that - with no evidence. The hypothesis can be made to fit history, but is it falsifiable, and what supportive evidence is there?

McGrath points out Blackmore's acceptence that atheism is a meme, just as theism is. Is atheism a meme? In some respects - when there is unquestioned belief in atheism. And I suppose the same hypothesis can be applied to any human idea - such as the appreciation of art, what art is, how it evolved, etc.

But scientific atheism accepts its own vulnerability, and does not claim infalability, and does not require faith. It is not a belief system in itself, but a consequence of what all humans do - attempt to understand and reason about the world around us. Atheism is a probabilistic conclusion, not a dogma, not a self sustaining belief. It may be that atheism as a world view is falsified in the future, by scientifically supported evidence of God. But how would theism be falsified? No matter what was discovered about the universe god could always be postulated to be beyond that.

McGrath points out some of the flaws in the meme hypothesis: "But my real question is this: how would Dr Blackmore and Professor Dennett be able to settle that point scientifically? If they are not able to do so, then we have a non-scientific debate about imaginary entities, hypothesised by analogy with the gene. And we all know how unreliable arguments based on analogy can be – witness the fruitless search for the luminiferous ether in the late nineteenth century, based on the supposed analogy between light and sound. It was analogically plausible – but non-existent. The analogy was invalid. Richard Dawkins tells us that memes are merely awaiting their Crick and Watson; I think they are merely waiting for their Michelson and Morley."

I would agree with this, particularly about the inappropriateness of analogies sometimes. Dawkins Burka analogy in "The God Delusion" is suspect, for example.

McGrath makes another good point about the association of 'evil' with religion: "Now Professor Dennett might respond by saying that these are not typical of atheism. I believe he would be right to do so. But neither are the excesses of violence and intolerance that he does mention, typical of religion. I appreciate the need for a bit of rhetoric and exaggeration to spice up an argument, but one cannot represent the pathological elements of any movement, religious or antireligious, as if they were normal or typical. Few of us in this audience tonight are in favour of fanaticism; but it is clearly perfectly possible to be a fanatical atheist, as much as a fanatical religionist. It’s fanaticism that’s the problem, not religion or anti-religion."

Agreed. I think the early use of the 'evil', as in 'evil in the name of...' and the other old chestnut 'the problem of evil' are fine as simplistic rebuttals of simplistic claims of theist about the inherent goodness of religion. Both theists and atheists would be better to leave these out of the main debate. Basically 'evil' can be performed by anyone, religious or not. And the problem of evil can be argued either way, as problematic for theism, or inconsequential as evidence against.

McGrath is right here: "In Oxford, we are facing a threat from one of the most fanatical groups in British society today: animal rights protestors. They are not religious. They are driven by an ideology – by a world view. Surely our common enemy is the fanatic, first and foremost. We need to reflect on how to control this phenomenon. But it is a clear factual error to assume that this is limited to, or necessarily characteristic of, religion."

However, Dawkins point is that the dogmatic teaching of religion to children makes them amenable to irrational unquestioned ideas later. That would also be true if we taught dogmatic atheism to children too. I think Dawkins, (and Stephen Law in "The War for Childrens' Minds") are really promoting the teaching of reasoning to children, and the removal of teaching of dogmatic religion - and are not proposing the teaching of atheism. Read Stephen Law's books on philosophy - they don't promote atheism as such, but ask questions and invite the reader to think of their own answers.

Man U Prices

2007-07-14T12:07:00.000Z

Poor Man U fans. John Mayall (surely he should be a blue) is suing the reds over cup ticket prices being included in the season ticket scheme - it used to be optional, as at Man City.

In response to some season ticket holders protesting by holding up their renewals, the United spokesman added: "We've a waiting list of 14,000 for season tickets and we regularly turned 5,000 people away for Premiership games last season."

So Man U are effectively saying "stuff you, there are more mugs where you came from who will pay."

God and Analogies

2007-06-26T08:32:00.000Z

On Stephen Law's Blog he posted a response to his The Jesus Light, by Sebastian: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/06/jesus-light-switched-back-on.html. Had to get this off my chest.

Analogy - Helpful in the explanation of point A in terms of point B, where B is a more commonly understood point. But the use of an analogy, however effective, does not consist of proof of correctness of the original point A; or even evidence for it. Analogies can often sound good but can be way off the mark. In this particular case the whole God idea is so vague a notion almost any analogy could be concocted to explain God.

My personal analogy is that God is an invisible pet. I love my cats, I talk to them, communicate with them and can have quite complex conversations. I work from home, alone most of the day. My family are removed daily, though unlike Sebastian's women they reappear each evening, fortunately. But, I have an inner drive to talk to someone. It's often myself, but also my cats. I get great inner satisfaction from that. Some find solice in the company of machines - the Tamagotchi 'pets' of a few years ago. We have an inner yearning for companionship and communication, as do many animals. Along the evolutionary trail humans have picked up imagination. We've used that to invent God as a perfect companion, who listens without complaint, anywhere any time - the perfect Tamagotchi. We can even delude ourselves that our own answers to our own problems have been provided by Him. Inventing human companionship in anything is easy. Anthropomorphism rules - ok?

I have no evidence for this. I've based it, rather loosely, on what little I've read in popular books on psycology, evolution, biology, etc. I might even have read it somewhere explicitly, and using the great power of imagination convinced myself it's my own idea.

I could also be convinced by steelman's God. I'm a Manchester City supporter - I'm currently in purgatory, waiting to be saved by Thaiksin Shinawatra. I'm certainly having my faith challenged. I know there are very convincing arguments why I should watch Manchester United instead, but like any good theist, I'll listen, digest, ignore, and plod on regardless.

Sebastian's rejection of the 'tooth-fairy' myth is rejected simply because it's not his myth. I may well have belived in fairies, Santa, God, The Lone Ranger, or any other myth, when I was a kid. But to suggest that anyone who discovers that they are myths would "fall into a state of lifelong depression" is a little presumptuous. I find it liberating to know that somewhere, sometime there could be an answer to anything, just waiting to be discovered. The fact that I don't and can't know everything isn't a problem. I'm happy to search for answers on the understanding that I won't necessarily find them. I have no need for God. Quite the opposite - I find God to be an unsatisfactory answer to anything, a cop-out.

Maybe in the past God and religion have provided apporpriate stop-gaps, until other ideas became more acceptable and the arguments clearer. Phlogiston provided a pretty good explanation for combustion, until oxidation supplanted it, but it's still a passable analogy if you don't know of or ignore evidence against it.

Despite all that's said about the scientific method, plenty of research begins with a hunch, or an unsubstantiated hypothesis. The scientific method comes into its own in evaluating evidence to support or reject the hypothesis. So far the God hypothesis has zero evidence in its favour. Plenty of imagination and analogy, but zero evidence. Cold fusion is an attractive idea that has had its proponents from time to time, but as yet no repeatable un-falsified evidence, so there aren't many supporters of it. Alien abduction is another unsubstantiated popular myth, that thankfully has been debunked pretty thoroughly - but that doesn't mean the evidence against it is conclusive, and so there are still people out there that believe in it. Similarly, the evidence against God is low - non-existent - we only have Ocham's Razor, but since we apply that to the tooth-fairy and other myths, why not to the God myth.

I would suggest, though it's only my own crack-pot hypothesis with no statistics to back it up, that most religious people believe in God because they haven't thought about it enough, don't understand the arguments (re Sebastians response to the barefoot bum), or are persuaded by charismatic intelligent con-men; and many of those con-men do a pretty good job of convincing themselves. Many don't even believe in order to fill this internal desire that Sebastian speaks of. Most believe because they were indoctrinated, out of tradition, out of fear (see Law, Dwakins, etc). That's my understanding, based on the deplorably inadequate sample that consists of the few personal friends and relatives I've discussed it with, and on reading the ideas presented in print, in documentaries and on the internet by supporters of theist arguments. Statistics, for or against, anyone?

The Problem with Faith

2007-06-14T00:58:00.000Z

Following on from my previous blog, I think the crutial point is faith.

I think Stephen is right in that any point of view can be a faith (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/ - Faith topic), and that's certainly the case for most, if not all, religions. And I personally know at least one person for whom atheism is a faith. She has no interest in any arguments one way or the other, and certainly has no interest in science, but believes herself to be endowed with ultra reliable common sense, to the extent that she believes the whole God business is nonsense. It's as if this faith of hers has grown out of some dissatisfaction with religion and all its trappings, a discomfort in the presence of religious people and proceedings. And I detect a similar discomfort in the absence of religion, or in the company of atheists, in some religious people. The opposing point of view is dismissed out of hand, with little discussion. Whichever way you lean this is a pretty insecure faith.

The faith expressed by professional theologians and serious theists appears to be much stronger, both in intensity and in the degree of thought put into it. I think that this is the type of religious faith with which atheism is competing; but which atheism? Not the atheism promoted by the feeble faith atheists - the faith atheism that theists attack, but scientific atheism. And this scientific atheism isn't a faith, though it is a belief system.

With the strong theological faith, when all the trappings are stripped away, when all the arguments of reason against it have been put forward and dismissed, what is left is pure and absolute faith. An explanation is not required. That's it. No argument.

Science based atheism isn't that. And in not being that, it isn't a faith, or not a strong faith. Science based atheism relies entirely on empiricism at its base. And in that it is, and will always be, open to doubt and question. I don't mean the personal doubt that one might have in any belief system, but an underlying inherent doubt in the system itself. Every currently understood 'fact' upon which all science is based is ultimately in doubt. The limitations of its tools of deduction and induction are often pointed out by the faith followers, and rightly. Most arguments are circular and nothing is conclusive. There is no absolute - though for practical reasons it may often be convenient to act is if there is.

But not only all that; there's another element of the science that is at the heart of science based atheism: the requirement for Popper's falsificationism. Science, and scientific based atheism requires this. Not just now, to ensure that for some current theory to be valuable it must be falsifiable, but in perpetuity. No matter how far into the future we look, no matter to what extent we evolve, whatever answers we find, there will always be something we don't know, or cannot know at that time.

To put it simply, I have no absolute faith in my current belief in science based atheism, but I do believe it, because all the current evidence I have tells me it's the best choice for a belief system.

So, does God exist? Theist faith tells me he does, but gives me no reason to believe it, so why should I. Science merely tells me he probably doesn't, but gives me very good reason for believing he doesn't.

Neither point of view has any baring on the existence of God. He exists or he doesn't, irrespective of which belief system one follows.

And, his existence or not has little consequence for the two belief systems. If God doesn't exist then it won't matter to the religious. They can go on believing and they'll never know. As each draws his terminal breath that'll be the end of him. And for the scientific atheists there's not even the satisfaction that we haven't yet been proved wrong, because our position will remain the same - he still might exist. An if he does exist, there's no change for the faithful - they knew it all along. If they find he exists I hope there won't be too much gloating, as that would imply they weren't as sure as they've been saying they were before his existence became evident. And for the scientific? Maybe no longer strictly atheists, since being true to our principles we should be happy to accept the new evidence - just not absolutely.

The Problem of Evil

2007-06-14T00:46:00.000Z

I've read Stephen Law's view on the Problem of Evil and other arguments for the atheism. In particular, this article:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1475

"Why would a benevolent God do, or allow...?" Why wouldn't he? If God exists, there is no reason to suppose he has any regard for our interpretation of good and evil. As atheists we often argue that there is no good or evil, just things and events - the good or the evil being some human interpretation. So why should we then suppose there is a problem of evil at all? Shit happens, as they say.

Theists can conjure up any explanation they like to explain the problem of evil, and over the centuries they have manufactured many, so it's pretty useless labouring the point. Yes, it might cause them some minor embarrassment, but it doesn't take much effort for them to rationalise (sic) away any objections. They already have magic on their side, so the the problem of evil argument isn't going to win them over.

Stephen says:

"So it seems to me that there’s little evidence to suggest that God does exist. Indeed, the problem of evil provides powerful evidence in that He doesn’t."

I agree with the first sentence. I strongly disagree with the second. The problem of evil presupposes rationality in the theist position. There isn't any. I also agree with Ockham's razor, as descibed by Stephen - pick the simplest hypothesis. But Stephen then goes on to put this valuable tool to one side with:

"But the fact is that atheists don’t need to appeal to Ockham’s razor to justify their belief that there is no God. They already possess a very powerful justification for believing that there is no God the justification provided by the problem of evil."

It's not that powerful a justification - it's irrelevent. It's Ockham's razor that trumps the problem of evil, not the other way round.

There's no evidence for, and so no good reason to believe in God.

Facebook Applications

2007-06-13T08:51:00.000Z

I recently joined facebook, which is currently facelessbook for me, until I can post a reasonable mugshot that won't offend the religious, or frighten young children, old ladies or those of a sensitive disposition. My social network so far consists of my son and his friend. Am I a recluse, or simply unpopular. Time will tell.

I had a look through the applications there, and found so much junk it took some time to find anything of interest. They're mostly natty little games and social nutworking widgets that look novel when you see the first of that ilk, but are usually discarded five minutes after you start to use them.

The only ones I've found I can use are Causes, an advocacy toy, and one of the "places I've been" mapping apps. If you spot any app that you could really use over time and that isn't some five minute marvel, please let me know.

I hadn't looked at these apps until I read Marc Andreessen's new blog, June 12 2007, as referenced in Adam Herscher's blog, June 12 2007 - two blogs worth following.

God Botherers...

2007-06-12T13:00:00.000Z

...where would we be without them? This blog is hell on earth: http://made4worship.blogspot.com/ - Your not kidding! And get the rant about Columbus Day.