Archive for the ‘religion’ Category

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

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

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.

First Causes and Special Pleading

Tuesday, March 11th, 2008

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.

Eliminating religion?

Saturday, March 8th, 2008

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?

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

(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?

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

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?

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

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

(more…)

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

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

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"

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

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.

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 1): belief and emotional investment

Friday, February 29th, 2008

fourhoursemen2 

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject, I want to share — and comment on — some of the best parts (IMO) of the conversation between the “four hoursemen”, which I still recommend that you watch in full (just click on the image above and download the files, if possible, or at least follow the YouTube links). Since there’s too much to comment on, I’ll divide it among several posts; here’s the first.

Daniel Dennett: Yeah, well I’m amused by it [the accusation that they are "strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill"], because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn’t do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realize that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

Nowhere else, from my experience, does something like this happen. “I think you’re wrong” is not an insult or a personal offense… except in religion. I think this is a very important point.

And why is it? Harris and Dennett provide the answer:

Sam Harris: I mean, this is just not the way rational minds operate when they’re really trying to get at what’s true in the world. And religions purport to be representing reality. And yet there’s this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous, reflexive response to having these ideas challenged. I think we’re pointing to the total liability of that fact.

Dennett: Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody…

Harris: You’ve wasted your life!

Dennett: …do you realize you’ve wasted your life? Do you realize that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered – even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

Again, this is pretty important. It’s something I’ve noticed when discussing these matters with less skeptical friends (and it wasn’t even about religion, but astrology, mysticism, “energies”, and so on): if you refute their arguments one by one, they invariably reach a point where they’re visibly emotionally affected — almost near panic — and, if you keep going on past that point, they get really offended, angry, and aggressive with you. Why? Because their beliefs aren’t just a matter of whether the methods (e.g. prayer, horoscopes, etc.) “work” or whether the propositions are “true”. These people have an emotional investment in those beliefs. A huge one. And, in a way, you’re telling them that they may have lost all of that investment. That, as Harris and Dennett say, they’ve wasted their life. A form of the sunk cost fallacy comes into effect — deep inside, the person may realize that their belief isn’t based on reality, but they’ve invested too much time, energy, and emotions into it to ever admit the fact. And anyone who insists on making them “look hard” at it is “hurting” them, is attacking them personally, is “offending” them.

I guess that, in many cases, there’s nothing that can be done. It takes a special kind of courage and honesty to admit something like “I’ve wasted most of my life”. In many cases, it’s probably hopeless to try to get them do do it — and it can cost friendships, in fact.

More Christian double standards

Friday, February 29th, 2008

ByTheBook38-small

Source: By The Book Comics

I won’t insult your intelligence by talking about what’s wrong with this picture… :)

2 Hours with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

This is not very new (it’s from December 2007), but I only found the time today to watch it, and I found it intellectually delicious. Four brilliant minds (who don’t agree in many ways) having a fascinating (and polite!) discussion about religion and atheism.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Please, watch it. Really. Just click on the image above. I suggest downloading the files first and watching them in the best available quality, instead of using YouTube.

For believers, it may surprise you to find out how “strident”, “shrill” and “fanatical” these four bestselling authors really are. :)

For non-believers, don’t pass this by because you expect it be just “preaching to the choir”. As I said, the discussion is, in my opinion, fascinating and absolutely stimulating, and it will sure get you thinking about stuff you hadn’t considered before.

More on the efficacy of prayer

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

Like I wrote before, Christians don’t pray for truly impossible things, because, I’d guess, deep inside they know that “magic doesn’t work”. They pray for possible things, and, if they happen, they feel good about it, call it a “miracle”, feel blessed (after all, the supreme being of the universe just took a personal interest in them!), and it reinforces their faith. When they don’t happen, either “God has a plan”, or, most likely, they simply forget about it. It’s called “counting the hits and ignoring the misses”.

But… what about the people of other religions? And what about atheists? Why isn’t their life absolutely miserable (or at least noticeably worse), since they don’t have a deity taking care of them and answering their prayers?

Consider this likely example: a Christian comes down with a flu. He prays to God to get better, and, after a couple of days, he does. “Thank you, God, for healing me! Praise the Lord!”, and so on.

Meanwhile, the atheist next door gets the flu at the same time, and, coincidence of coincidences, also gets better at the same time.

What happened here? Did God require prayer and faith from the believer, but not from the atheist?

Or is the believer just projecting supernatural explanations onto something that happened naturally?

If prayer worked, if God intervened due to prayer, then either unbelievers would remain sick forever, or, at least, believers would get better much more quickly. I would say that a miracle — a direct intervention by the omnipotent creator of the universe — should be pretty easy to distinguish from a natural occurrence. Yet we don’t see the impossible happening to believers. We don’t even see the beneficial possible happen sooner, or more often. In fact, everything happens just like it would if…

…there was no God at all.