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.
Monday, 3 May 2010
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Secret Agents
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
God On My Mind - BBC
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?"
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?"
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Political Islam
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!
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!
Monday, 22 March 2010
Thin Blue Line
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.
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.
Friday, 8 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)