Monthly Archive for March, 2008Page 2 of 2

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 4): creating a false, but positive religion

fourhoursemen6Like before, before, before and before, just click on the image to go to the Richard Dawkins site and download / watch the entire discussion.

Sam Harris: You can invent an ideology, which by your mere invention in that moment, is obviously untrue, which would be quite useful if propagated, to billions. I mean, you can say this is my new religion: teach people to demand that your children study science and math and economics, and all of our terrestrial disciplines, to the best of their abilities, and if they don’t persist in those efforts, they’ll be tortured after death by seventeen demons. This would be extremely useful, and maybe far more useful than Islam, propagated to billions, and yet what are the chances that the seventeen demons exist? Zero.

First — and I should not need to tell you this, of course — Harris is not suggesting that we create such a religion. But the idea is intriguing, and certainly worth discussing, I think.

You’ve probably heard many people — both religious and otherwise — praising religion in general as a good thing, regardless of its truth, simply because it supposedly makes people both feel better and behave better, giving special importance to the latter. This is not new — you may have heard of Plato’s “noble lie” –, but I can see several serious problems in it.

One of them, of course, is that it’s not true — and, at least to me, that matters. Another, I think, is that it encourages serfdom and acceptance of one’s fate (indeed, that was Plato’s use for it). Even when it doesn’t, you’d be encouraging people to “be good”, well, “just because”. Accept a command, and don’t think about it. And if you teach people to be obedient, even if their current “commandments” are good, there’s a huge risk that their next set of commandments won’t be. Besides, a religion may begin with good intentions, with a good set of moral rules and so on, but — to quote Ayn Rand — “the moral is the chosen, not the obeyed”. It’s not “morality” to act “morally” just because someone told you to do it.

Finally, there’s the problem that Harris suggests: most current religions are actually very bad ideas, and for every good thing they teach (e.g. “thou shalt not kill”), they also teach many, many rules and ideas that are simply monstrous. In just a sentence, Harris suggested a religion that would be much better both for its believers and for the entire world, which would be much better than Islam, as he says — or than any other religion I know.

Of course, a religion whose main tenet (expanding on Harris’s) was “think for yourself, question everything, and don’t accept anything on authority or on faith” would have a huge problem — you’re basically telling people to leave it! :)

A fictional example of all of this is a brilliant Star Trek: TNG episode, Who Watches The Watchers, which I intend to dedicate a full post to, in the future. In it, a bronze age alien civilization begins to believe the Enterprise crew are gods, with Picard as their leader, and one of the scientists who were studying the civilization suggests that Picard “show them a sign”, give them some set of good moral rules, and leave them with their new religion. Although that would certainly be the easiest way to deal with the problem they caused by being seen (as the civilization is on the verge of chaos due to their new, fervent belief), Picard refuses; he will not leave those people with a lie, sending them back to the age of darkness and superstition they had already outgrown, and therefore has to work hard to convince the civilization’s leaders that, despite the Enterprise’s advanced technology, they are flesh and blood, not gods.

Atheist Lyrics #1: Blaze, "The Path and the Way"

Welcome to a new series on WotM, Atheist Lyrics. I don’t think I need to explain what it’s about, do I? :)

blaze-blood-and-belief The first entry will probably be unfamiliar to you, unless you’re a fan of British heavy metal. It’s by Blaze Bayley, ex-singer of Wolfsbane and Iron Maiden, in the 3rd studio album by his solo band, called (the album, not the band) Blood & Belief.

The song is called “The Path and the Way”, and, besides sounding great (to my musical tastes, of course!), the lyrics, while simple, are somewhat inspired, and Blaze sings them with a lot of emotion — much more than in his albums with Maiden. It’s obvious that he’s singing from the heart. While he may or may not be an atheist, the lyrics certainly say, quite correctly, that religion is bullshit. :)

 

 

Continue reading ‘Atheist Lyrics #1: Blaze, "The Path and the Way"’

First Causes and Special Pleading

A: Nothing can exist without a cause. The universe exists; what caused it? I say it was God!

B: OK, who caused God, then?

A: Nothing. God wasn’t caused or created; he always existed.

B: Then why can’t the universe have always existed?

A: That’s impossible, nothing can exist without a cause…

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? :)

This is one of the most common examples of a fallacy called special pleading, that is, introducing an exception to a rule without justifying or proving that exception. Believers postulate God’s existance due to the fact that, according to them, everything needs a cause, or a creator, or a designer. Then what caused, created or designed God in the first place? Ah, that’s an exception. God always was. Why? Just because! And so on.

Unfortunately, arguing with someone who makes a claim like this and doesn’t see a problem with it is typically useless. We’re talking about a person who already “has” the answers, and will ignore any facts or logic contradicting them. You can’t argue with someone who sees no relation between truth and reality.

Fortunately, many believers aren’t like this, and would not use the argument above as proof of their god’s existence. Unfortunately, then we run into another problem: the more a believer is sophisticated and educated, the more he gets away from the absurd, Ray Comfort-like “proofs of God” (a banana?!? seriously…), and the closer he gets to admitting that he has no proofs or evidence at all, just faith… and if he still sees no problem with it, if he sees faith (complete disregard for facts and reality) as a virtue, then, again, there’s nothing that can be done for that believer.

Obama as Dream (from Neil Gaiman’s "Sandman")?

obamasandman

Don’t know who created this (the place I found it in just linked to it as a remote image), but it is certainly something you don’t see every day. One of the best parts from the first volume of Gaiman’s Sandman, with Obama as Morpheus/Dream and Hillary as Choronzon, a demon. I hadn’t read that comic in years, but after looking at the image for a couple of sentences, it “clicked”, and I remembered where it was from, and the unexpected ending, still beautiful after all these years: “I am hope.”

I don’t think Hillary is pure evil, though. :) I just think that she doesn’t yet understand a fact of U.S. politics, which even a foreigner like myself has already realized: between a Republican and a Republican wannabe, Republicans will vote for the real thing, and Democrats will stay at home. (John Kerry, anyone?)

Anyway, I thought about posting the entire dialogue here, but I think the effect is better if you read it on the image above. :) Just try to read it from the beginning (”I am a dire wolf…”).

Eliminating religion?

Vocal atheists are often asked (and sometimes simply accused) if they want to eliminate religion (sometimes we’re even accused of trying to eliminate believers, but those idiocies aren’t even worth a reply). Of course, I can’t speak for any other atheist but myself (that’s one of the beauties of being an atheist: no dogma), but, in my case, yes, I’d like religion to disappear, because it’s useless and and a waste of time at best, and, more often, a tremendous source of irrationality, ignorance, division, suffering and death. (if I need to tell you that this doesn’t involve killing or harming a single believer, I’m very disappointed in you.)

But what about the “harmless” religions?

PZ Myers put it wonderfully:

As for the charge that these New Atheists are unable to tolerate a harmless religion, and that their goal is the elimination of the enemy, that’s complete nonsense. We want to eliminate them in the same sense that we want to eliminate illiteracy; we will educate, we will talk, we will stand up for our ideas.

(the underlining is mine)

It’s a beautiful comparison, in my opinion. I had thought about comparing a non-harmless religion to a disease of the mind (you can’t possibly claim Fred Phelps or the 9/11 hijackers is/were “healthy”, can you?), but I now think that any religion is at least like illiteracy; that is, it’s not the fault of the believers/illiterate, but it limits them, limits their choices, their abilities, and their future, and they would surely be better off without it.

FAQ: What if you’re wrong, and God does exist?

(Note: this is not the same as the previous FAQ, “Isn’t it better to believe, just in case? After all, if I’m wrong, then I don’t lose much, but if you’re wrong…”. That one is a repudiation of Pascal’s Wager; this one is an answer to the remote possibility that there *is*, indeed, a God.)

 

This is a question often asked by believers (especially Christians) to atheists. What if we’re wrong, God does indeed exist, and after we die, as the saying goes, we do indeed meet our maker?

First, let me say that this is not a possibility that actually worries me, as I have every reason to believe that no god or gods exist. The universe appears 100% natural, and, while science is far from knowing everything, there isn’t anything out there, so far, that absolutely requires a supernatural explanation and can’t possibly — ever — be explained in naturalistic terms. In other words: a complete lack of evidence “for” is in itself very good evidence “against” (and it’s not like humanity hasn’t searched, for millennia), and therefore evidence suggests there are zero deities out there.

Second, if there was a god, it’s still virtually impossible that the human religions are right. Their gods are small, provincial, territorial, petty and tribal. And very human-like. They have human emotions (including a lot of jealousy), they tend to have a “chosen people”, they supposedly created a universe that we now know is incredibly vast and complex (and which was unknown when the religions appeared), but our insignificant little planet is still the only thing that matters in the universe — and our physical lives here aren’t even what really matters. (The idea of a universe old and vast like this, as simply “background scenario” for a test to see whether we’re saved or not… it boggles the mind.) The anthropomorphic gods of our religions are too obviously man-made to be the real thing. If there was a god out there capable of creating a universe, he/she/it would probably be much too complex for us to even notice — and he/she/it wouldn’t certainly be concerned with us, our morality, our sexual lives :) , nor would he/she/it judge us and create places for us to go after we died. In other words, if there was a god, it wouldn’t affect us in any way — and it would be infinitely greater than the petty anthropomorphic fictional deities of our religions.

Third, what if, despite all the above, there still was a god, and he/she/it was concerned with us, and did judge us in some way after our physical deaths? Well, it depends on its standards of judging. Maybe it didn’t care about our morality, or about being worshipped, but about something completely different. We have no way of knowing.

But suppose it did care about our actions. Then, the final question would be: is God good, or evil? I’m dismissing any corruptions of the meaning of “good” such as “whatever God does or wants is by definition good”. There must be some standard, other than the whims of a powerful being.

Therefore:

  1. a good god — which precludes the insecure sexuality-obsessed tyrant the three monotheisms believe in — would reward someone who lived a good life, generally being nice to other people, and full of curiosity to discover things, and to follow the available evidence to the logical conclusion. The available evidence doesn’t in any way suggest the presence of a god, so to believe in one anyway is nothing more than intellectually dishonest wishful thinking. A good god would reward good atheists and good believers, and punish evil atheists and evil believers — but would probably be a bit disappointed with the lack of curiosity and honesty shown by the believers (but then again, he/she/it would have some explaining to do: why stay hidden and make it so that the universe implies his/her/its non-existence?). A good god wouldn’t be an insecure or immature, so he wouldn’t need, desire or care about worship or any kind of ego-stroking at all. Therefore, I have no fear at all of a good god.
  2. an evil god — much like Yahweh or Allah (and if you don’t agree with me, you haven’t been reading your holy books) — would be much like a brutal dictator in a totalitarian dictatorship. No one is safe from such a monster; there’s no use in expecting justice or fair treatment. He owns you; you’re his property: a slave, no more. Sucking up might work for a time, but he can always torture or kill you on a whim, because, to him, you’re not really a sentient being; you are a tool to be used, a toy to play with. Still, sucking up — that is, worshipping him, and living your life just for him, obeying his commands blindly, no matter the suffering it causes — would probably be your best bet. Of course, that would also make you a disgusting little coward, devoid of any moral integrity. This god is the kind of being that would indeed create two places for us to go for eternity — one for endless torment, the other for sucking up to him even more. The only moral thing to do in the presence of such a monster, as he condemned and damned us for having the morality he lacks, would be to spit in his face, as a final act of defiance.

Fortunately, I don’t believe any of the above exists. I have no reasons to, after all. And the result? A feeling of freedom.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 3): "God exists" implies Christianity?

hitchensAs always, click on the image for the source and to download the videos, yada yada yada. :)

Christopher Hitchens: You had a marvelous quotation from Francis Collins, the genome pioneer, who said, while mountaineering one day, he was so overcome by the landscape, and then went down on his knees and accepted Jesus Christ. A complete non sequitur.

Indeed it is. One doesn’t follow from the other, unless you already had some nasty preconceptions.

Much like C.S. Lewis did before, Francis Collins doesn’t realize that the idea that some god exists (because he’s looking at something which seems to imply some form of design) does not mean Christianity — or any other particular religion — is true.

Why is it that supposed atheists or agnostics, when they have an experience like that, never “accept” the “truth” of a less common religion where they live? Why wasn’t Collins convinced of the “truth” of Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, from watching that beautiful landscape?

Because of his background, I’d say. Much like many Westerners, Collins was probably brought up to believe that religion means Christianity (regardless of whether its claims are true or not), and that then there are some other creeds out there, mostly weird, exotic beliefs. Therefore, a sudden realization that “yes, there is a god!”, to him, must necessarily mean “Christianity is true”. In other words, “there is a god” is synonym with “God incarnated as a human 2000 years ago and sacrificed himself to himself in order to change his own mind about damning us all”.

Needless to say, it takes a pretty warped mind to not only move from one to the other, but to see no problem with doing so.

Want to have nightmares tonight?

If so, read on; if not, stop reading now.

Continue reading ‘Want to have nightmares tonight?’

Atheism is necessary, but not sufficient — and not the final goal

A recent post on Primordial Blog, Atheist Proselytizing - What Should Our Goal Be?, includes this part:

And that’s why I think that turning people away from religion is not enough. Instead, the primary goal of an atheist movement should be to instill in people the value of rational thinking. I’m worried that, as atheism gains in popularity, we will see a bunch of bandwagon-jumpers climbing on board because it is the thing to do rather than because they have thought critically about the issues. The truth is that most people do not think for themselves - they like to follow the crowd and do what they are told. That is the disease we need to combat in this world.

I couldn’t agree more. I sometimes worry that the success and momentum of the so-called “new atheism” may lead some (eventually many) people to become atheists simply because “it’s in”, or “it’s fashionable”, or “so-and-so is an atheist too”, or simply to annoy others (their parents, society, etc.), as a teenage-like act of rebellion.

Will I say that the above is not “real atheism”? Of course not. If you don’t (really) believe in gods, you’re an atheist.

I’d say, however, that the above reasons are irrational reasons for atheism, and that is a problem.

Saying 2+2=4 because it’s fashionable, or to imitate someone who said that, or to annoy your 2+2=5 believing parents, is irrational and stupid, even if the conclusion is itself correct. Rationally, you’d make the sum — that is, think about it — yourself. Two pebbles, two more pebbles, one, two, three, four pebbles. That’s rational.

Note, by the way, that there’s no way to believe 2+2=5 rationally. That is, you may have been brought up believing that, you may respect and admire someone who believes that, and believing that may be comfortable and make you feel good; however, you can’t ever reach that conclusion rationally, scientifically, by testing reality. By adding two groups of of two pebbles, you will never come up with five of them, and so, to keep believing that 2+2=5, you have to come up with irrational, absurd excuses (“you can’t test God’s addition”, “it’s 5 in a spiritual, non-materialistic sense”, “it looks like 4 to test our faith”, “there’s a higher reality beyond this one where it does add up to 5″, “it’s 5 because it says so in my holy book”, “I don’t need to add the pebbles — my faith is enough for me”, and so on).

In other words, being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re rational, but not being an atheist certainly means you’re irrational — because somehow, somewhere, wishful thinking, dogma, arguments from authority, and unfounded emotions got in the way.

But we (ok, ok, *I*) don’t want atheist sheep, do we? What we want is for people to stop being sheep, to think for themselves, to be rational. The survival of our species may depend on that — and its progress certainly does. Atheism is, ultimately, just a minor (but unavoidable and necessary) consequence of that rationality.

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 2): the immaturity of religious arguments

Hitchens and Dennett

 

Like before, just click on the picture above to go to the source, download or watch the 2-hour video, and so on.

Also like before, I’m going to post and comment on one of my favorite parts of the discussion between the “four horsemen of atheism”.

Daniel Dennett: Right. And you know this, what you just said Christopher, actually, I think, strikes terror, it strikes anxiety, in a lot of religious hearts. Because it just hasn’t been brought home to them that this move of theirs is just off-limits. It’s not the game. You can’t do that. And they’ve been taught all their lives that you can do that - this is a legitimate way of conducting a discussion. And here, suddenly we’re just telling them “I’m sorry, that is not a move in this game”. In fact it is a disqualifying move.

[..]

Christopher Hitchens: Adumbrate the move for me a bit, if you would, or for us. Perhaps only for me. Say what you think that move is.

Dennett: Somebody plays the faith card.

Hitchens: Yes.

Dennett: They say look, I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that’s it. At which point, I guess the polite way of saying it is well, okay, if that’s true you’ll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you’ve declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. Now…

Hitchens: That’s what I hoped. That’s what I hoped you were saying.

Dennett: …if you really can’t defend your view, then sorry, you can’t put it forward. We’re not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine. But because it says it in the holy book, that just doesn’t cut any ice at all. And if you think it does, that’s just arrogant. It is a bullying move and we’re just not going to accept it.

Sam Harris: And it’s a move that they don’t accept when done in the name of another faith.

Dennett: Exactly.

In other words: saying “we just have to believe it and that’s it” is not a rational argument, or a grown-up argument. Nor is saying “it is true, because it says so in my holy book”. Those are appeals to emotion or to authority, which are childish arguments that have no place in an adult, rational discussion… and which believers wouldn’t accept from believers of other faiths, anyway. Those arguments are the equivalent of a child’s “but I wannaaaaaa!!!!”. They only “work” because religion and religious beliefs are still unnaturally and unjustifiably respected.

Incidentally, Dennett’s “Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine” reminds me of Barack Obama’s “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”.

In other words — and even though Obama is himself a Christian — both are saying that childish arguments, such as appeals to authority or emotions, just won’t do in real life. This is probably shocking to many believers, who are used to, and comfortable with, their immaturity of beliefs and arguments. It probably explains why Christians cry “we’re being oppressed!” merely for not being allowed to oppress others anymore… after all, they’re suddenly losing a right privilege they’ve had for centuries, when they were so powerful that they were able to act like spoiled children, both in terms of arguments and of actions. Suddenly being told to grow up and act like adults — for the first time in centuries — probably feels like “oppression” to them…

Atheism, Stalin, and "without God anything goes"

A couple of days ago, I was reading the comments to a post on The Frame Problem which, like one of mine, included this comic:

The replies, over there, were a little more like those I had expected here.

First, there came the usual “Stalin / Hitler did this, so atheism is even worse” argument, a.k.a. “I completely missed the point of the comic”. The point is that the comic’s panels suggest several hypothetic (and completely non-existent) atrocities actually made in the name of atheism — and whose equivalents were, in real life, made in the name of religion. That’s completely different from atrocities made by believers or atheists but not in the name of (or because of) their religion or atheism.

When someone pointed out that there’s no relation between Stalin’s atheism and his atrocities (Hitler was a Catholic), then this little gem came up:

They decided that there was no god and realized that they were therefore permitted to do anything they wanted

And this is where I believe all discussion with that person should end. Because he or she, at that point, has gone between a mere logical confusion (going from “atheists did this” to “atheism causes this”) to actual immorality. That person doesn’t see any reason for not “doing anything they want” other than fear of being spanked by the sky daddy. No reason to help and care for other human beings, except that God supposedly commanded so. No reason for not going into a killing spree, except that they don’t want to go to hell.

This, ladies and gents, is absolutely sickening — not to mention worrying (what if they ever lose their faith? no one in the vicinity would be safe…). And they don’t even get that.

I’d like to suggest to fellow nonbelievers that, when told that “atheism leads to evil (because without god anything goes”), or confronted yet again with the Stalin argument (which really amounts to the same: “they killed people because they didn’t fear divine punishment”), they reply with something like the following:

You have just stated that you, yourself, see no reason not to commit mass murder, other than fear of going to hell. Therefore, you have shown yourself to be a psychopathic monster, and I am not interested in continuing a discussion with the likes of you.

I know I’ll be using it in the future, because, sure as hell, believers will continue to compare my morality (or, in their eyes, lack thereof) to Stalin’s.




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal