ArchivePage 4 of 36

Hitchens vs. Hitchens

It’s brilliant. Really. Christopher Hitchens is in much greater form here than in, say, the Four Horsemen talk, and Peter is not bad either. :)

I, of course, agree with Christopher on virtually everything he says, except for his support of the Iraq war — although he presents his case for it very well here, I still think it was the wrong thing to do, was done for all the wrong reasons (oil for Halliburton, and getting the US in a war frenzy so it’s “unpatriotic” to criticize the administration), and was done as badly as it could.

But, on the subject of religion, listening to Christopher’s wit is an intellectual delicacy, not to mention very, very funny. :)

Get the torrent here. Or look for it on YouTube.

"Atheism being promoted in science class"

cectic132

Source: Cectic

This shows perfectly what the theists’ beef is, IMO. :) No matter how much they deny it, their goal is to insert religion in science classes, nothing more… and they won’t be satisfied with a truly neutral position, where science classes only teach science. To them, not saying “goddidit” is “promoting atheism”… and they can’t have that.

"It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists"

(Note: you may want to read the prologue first.)

From Rep. Davis’ bigoted outburst about atheists, one part “jumped at me”, and I knew at the time (a few days ago) that I would have to dissect that point. That part is, of course, this post’s title.

If you follow, logically, from a correct premise, you will likely arrive at correct conclusions. However, if the premise itself is wrong, then the best logic in the world will still end up with a wrong conclusion… but it’s interesting to analyze those occurrences. This is one of them.

Rep. Davis, when she said that sentence, was being bigoted and ignorant, sure, not to mention hateful and full of “righteous anger”. However, there was something else there, something else you can hear in her voice. Fear.

And, from her original premise, she has every reason both to be afraid and to hate atheists. Because something very, very precious is at stake: the fate of eternal souls.

I’ve talked about this before, but most people — believers and otherwise — have never really thought about the concept of hell, or eternal torture. Or are simply unable to grasp it in its entirety, because humans have not evolved — nor have they ever needed to, for their survival, so it makes sense — to deal with concepts such as infinity. The worst part of “eternal torture” isn’t “torture”, but “eternal”. Even mere eternal boredom, without any active torture, is a fate inconceivably horrible, to an extent our minds aren’t capable of imagining. There is no crime on Earth, which is necessarily finite, that warrants such a fate — and this is why I believe the doctrine of hell makes the Christian god supremely evil, more sadistic than the world’s most sadistic sadist, and I wonder why more people don’t see it. Cultural indoctrination, I guess.

But, even without fully grasping the concept of eternal torture, Christians know very well  — even if sometimes just instinctually — that it’s something to be avoided at all costs, something worse than anything that can happen to us on Earth.

Now, think about it. You believe that the most important thing in the world — to such an overwhelming degree that, compared to it, nothing else matters — is to avoid going to hell. Both for yourself, and for those people you care about — and, if you’re a “nice”, well-meaning person, for strangers as well. Nothing you can do or achieve or feel here on Earth is worth anything if you still end up in hell. So, to save yourself (and, later, others) form hell, anything goes. No amount of earthly suffering really means anything compared to it. No amount of ignorance, of lying, of manipulating, of causing suffering to yourself and others is significant. Taken to the logical conclusion, to condemn someone to hours, days, months, even a lifetime of suffering, is a moral act… as long as it prevents that someone from going to hell! Indeed, this was the belief of the Inquisition. Better to be tortured for days or weeks and repent, thus having a chance of being saved, than to lead a pleasant life and then be damned for all time. If you really believe that God sends people to hell, then anything that prevents that is moral… no matter the suffering it causes.

But this is not simply a matter of suffering. It’s also a matter of knowledge. Any knowledge or way of thinking that can lead one to doubt God is dangerous — indeed, more dangerous than anything in the world — and must be suppressed. Whether that knowledge is true or false is immaterial. Evolution may indeed be a fact, and it is compatible with liberal theism, but it can also lead to non-belief, and therefore its teaching must be opposed at all costs, regardless of its truth — simply because it may lead thousands, maybe millions of children to hell. And isn’t saving innocent children the most moral act one can perform?

Recall the preface in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, where he wrote (emphasis mine):

I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Therefore, to a believer like Davis, the mere existence of atheists — and, not only that, but happy, moral, fulfilled atheists — is a threat, one that may cause many people to question their faith, to realize that, yes, non-belief is an option, and doesn’t make you a monster. It may cause millions of innocent souls to end up in hell. Morally, shouldn’t that be fought with tooth and nail? The mere existence of atheists is already a threat that is filling hell with souls that might not have ended there otherwise. But vocal atheists? Publicly seen atheists? Atheists that don’t act like hedonists, who don’t have “horns”, or frighten people? How many are they condemning to eternal suffering?

If one believes that God sends non-believers to hell, then it only makes sense to do anything in your power — including oppressing, lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering — to stop any possible source of non-belief. Whether that source is a person or group, or a book, or an idea, or a philosophy, or a knowledge. Whether that source is itself moral, or is itself true. None of that matters. Hell is what matters.

In fact, why stop there? Yes, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder”, so one can assume that a murderer goes to hell. But what greater sacrifice is there than one’s soul? What is giving up your life for others (say, your children), compared with up giving your soul? What could be more moral, more heroic, more noble than sacrificing your afterlife for that of your children… by killing that soul-damning atheist who is making them, for the first time in their lives, doubt what you’ve taught then since birth?

Compared to that, what is disregarding the Constitution (man’s law… pfft.) and taking away the legal rights of an atheist? I’m sure Rep. Davis considers her bigoted actions to be absolutely moral, and probably won’t even understand what all the fuss is about. After all, she was doing it to save innocent souls… in her eyes, she should get a statue, or something.

"It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists" - prologue

Readers of Planet Atheism will probably have already been flooded with posts talking about Rep. Monique Davis’ unconstitutional and hate-filled insults against Rob Sherman, who was testifying against Illinois (unconstitutionally) giving 1 million dollars to a Baptist church. Here is Eric Zorn’s original news report in the Chicago Tribune, and here’s PZ Myers’ post on RichardDawkins.net (which I link to instead of the original on Pharyngula, as this one includes contact information for people to do something about it, instead of just posting comments :) ).

Well, as this post’s title says, this is a prologue for the next one, about that particular quote from Davis. I wanted that one to focus on that quote itself, which is why I’m introducing the story here, in a separate post. The “real thing” comes later today.

Also, I’m not American, so there’s little I can do about it, but if you are, and care for that pesky thing called the Constitution (not to mention the civil rights issue of having non-believers demonized and insulted by politicians without consequence — imagine if Davis’ rant had been against a particular religion or skin color!), please follow the second link above for ways to make a difference. Even if you’re not an atheist, you should still care

Does Evolution lead to Atheism?

notdarwinMany people in the US claim that teaching evolution is a bad thing, because it leads to atheism (and some, like Ben Stein, add that it then leads to Nazism and the Holocaust, but that’s another story). Of course, I don’t think that leading to atheism is a bad thing, because atheism is a “good thing”. However, the question remains: does it?

My answer: in some cases, yes.

The reality of evolution doesn’t preclude the existence of God, much less disprove it. It is certainly compatible with the existence of a supreme being who created the universe, and even with one who also intentionally created life on Earth.

It does, however, affect religious belief in two different ways, either of which can lead one to atheism, and which are why religion often has objections to evolution:

  1. It removes one of the major needs for the existence of God. One can believe that a divine creator exists simply because we don’t see any other explanation for something — in this case, the existence of mankind. Much like in Douglas Adams’s case, it can happen that you come to the conclusion that human religions are logically incoherent and man-made, but you still believe there must be some kind of creator, since you are aware of no other explanation. But evolution provides one, which resolves the “I don’t see any other way it could have been” argument from ignorance.
  2. It reveals the holy books are not inerrant. The major monotheist religions are based on their respective holy books, which include creation stories, usually having something to do with “six days”, with mankind as “special” and intentionally designed, and which totally contradict evolution. To put it bluntly: if evolution is real, Genesis is wrong. While not all sects of each religion teach biblical literalism and inerrancy, many do so, and the fact that evolution shows one part of the Bible to be not literally true leads one to a slippery slope: if this part is wrong or can’t be taken literally, might other parts be wrong or non-literal as well? (One particular resurrection comes to mind…) And how can one then know which parts to trust? This kind of questioning leads some to a more liberal form of religion, but others to one simple, “dangerous” question: what if… it’s all wrong?

And thus evolution is opposed. Because they see what it can do, indeed.

Applying Logic to Creationism / Evolution

A little while ago, and for no apparent reason (I’m like that :) ), I thought about an Internet poll I’ve seen some time ago, which asked people what they thought was more likely about the development of life on Earth. If I remember correctly, the options were something like this:

  1. God created the species as they are, less than 10,000 years ago (young earth creationism);
  2. God created the species as they are, millions of years ago (old earth creationism);
  3. God created life and directed evolution, starting millions of years ago (theistic evolution);
  4. Life evolved without action from a god (natural evolution).

And it got me thinking…

We can think of the several hypotheses as a series of switches. God (as in “interfering”, not as in “existing”)? Yes or no. Old Earth? Yes or no. Evolution? Yes or no. With these switches, here are the 8 possible combinations (with 0 for “no” and 1 for “yes” — yes, I’m a computer geek. :) ):

God? Old Earth? Evolution?
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1

This is the initial premise. But we can quickly remove a few contradictory combinations. For instance, no God and no evolution means that nothing accounts for the life we have in the world today. In other words, we can’t have a “0″ for both God and evolution. Evolution but no old earth is also impossible: nobody — scientists or creationists — claims that species could have evolved in just a couple of millennia, and both sides agree that man already existed 6,000 years ago. In binary terms, evolution requires an old earth (not the other way around, though).

So, the cut-down table (now with labels for each combination) amounts to this:

  God? Old Earth? Evolution?
A 0 1 1
B 1 0 0
C 1 1 0
D 1 1 1

What more can we say about them? Well, for a start: evidence contradicts B and C, so they cannot be true. There is lots of evidence for both evolution and an old earth, and both are accepted by science — not dogmatically, not on authority, but because that’s where the evidence leads. The only reason people still claim B or C is this: it’s what the holy books claim. If you believe they are inerrant, then any evidence to the contrary must be ignored, like covering your ears with your hands and crying “la la la, I can’t hear you”. Of course, such a position is irrational, dishonest, and stupid. Creationism (old earth or young earth) is the denial of reality; it’s not a scientific hypothesis with any merit, because no evidence supports it, and a lot of evidence contradicts it. I can respect people who are honestly mistaken, but not those who lie to themselves, who deny reality, just because it’s somehow uncomfortable or contradicts dogma.

So, if we care the least bit about reality, we must remove any combination with Old Earth=0 or Evolution=0. Therefore, the only remaining combinations are these (keeping the labels from the previous table):

  God? Old Earth? Evolution?
A 0 1 1
D 1 1 1

Now, D is obviously theistic evolution, that is, evolution directed by God. This is undisprovable, because it doesn’t contradict the evidence (but, then again, Last Thursdayism, the theory that the universe was created last Thursday, but with everyone having memories of a fictional time before that, and with the world having been created to appear much older, is also undisprovable). There is, however, no evidence for it, either.

A is not necessarily atheistic naturalism; as I said before, “God” here means intervention by God, not just existence. A can be naturalism, but it can also be Deism. Again, it can’t be disproved, and, again, there is no evidence of “no (intervening) God”. The main difference between A and D is that D adds another agent, which is not required, as A has the exact same evidence for and against it, and explains everything just as well. If both explanations are equally satisfactory and substantiated, but one of them has an extra entity, then Occam’s Razor tells us that the other one — with the least number of entities — is the most likely one. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, and the extra entity is unnecessary.

From this, we arrive at A as the most likely hypothesis. All available evidence agrees with it, and it is the simpler (in terms of number of entities) explanation.

FAQ: There must be a God; otherwise, life is pointless / there is no basis for morality / etc.

This FAQ answer doesn’t address the correctness of the consequences (e.g. whether life is pointless without God or not, etc.). You can find answers to some of those in the rest of my Atheism FAQ — or will be able to in the future.

Instead, the purpose of this entry is to show you how the very premise is based on faulty logic, and and is therefore an absolutely invalid argument.

In a nutshell, the statement says the following: if there is no God, <something bad> is true. Therefore, there must be a God.

What’s so wrong with it? Just this: even if the consequences were correct, that is, the result of “no God” was indeed bad, that has no bearing on the truth value of the premise. In other words, the desirability of a possibility has no effect on whether that possibility is true or not. It either is, or is not; its consequences don’t matter here.

Even if it were absolutely 100% true that “no God” meant “life is pointless”, that would have zero effect on the truth of whether God existed or not.

The error of believing something to be true just because “otherwise it would be bad” is a logical fallacy called appeal to consequences, a common example of wishful thinking. Your beliefs should be shaped by honestly attempting to perceive reality to the best of your abilities — not by believing in what you wish was true, in what makes you comfortable.

Again, note that I am not agreeing with the consequences in this FAQ entry’s title at all. Life isn’t pointless without gods, there is a basis for morality, and so on. But even if those consequences were all completely and undeniably true (like some others indeed are, such as “we’re evolved animals, not specially designed” or “there is no life after death”), it would have no bearing at all on the question of the existence of God.

 

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

Just doing my small part…

… to make the world a better place:

Expelled

There. :)

Childish stupidity among Democrats?

According to this article,

Just as reports of thousands of Republicans switching to the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania came streaming in this week, Gallup says Democrats are equally intent on crossing over to the GOP and voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if a candidate they do not support wins the Democratic party nomination.

The pollster said 28 percent of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY)supporters and 19 percent of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) supporters would vote for McCain if their candidate lost the party nomination.

I have one little question for these 28% of Clinton supporters and 19% of Obama supporters:

Are you retarded or something!?!?

Do you have any idea of what the consequences of such petulance, such stubbornness, such “I’m taking him/her down with me” sore losing, such stupidity are? Do you hate your candidate’s Democratic rival so much, so irrationally, that you’re prepared to condemn your country to 4 more years of neoconservatism? Do you have any idea what the party of war, torture, tax cuts to the rich, wiretapping, and the Religious Right, emboldened by a third victory in a row, can do to your country and even to the rest of the world?

Do you honestly think — that is, assuming you think at all, which I find doubtful — that the Democratic candidate other than your favorite is as bad, or even worse, as McCain, even though he or she has positions on the issues much closer to your candidate’s than McCain?

Have you even considered the fact that, regardless of whether Obama or Clinton wins, the administration will be filled with Democrats, while McCain will keep the Republican thugs who have done so much damage?

I don’t like Hillary myself. I think she just cares about power, about getting elected, and that she should have conceded already. But I’d never, in a million years, say I’d rather have McCain, or that they’re as bad as each other. And anyone who claims that much, who supports McCain out of childish, unthinking spite, is a complete imbecile, and shouldn’t even be considered mature enough to vote.

Democrats and Fighting Words

PZ just linked to this article about how Democrats and liberals need to stop being so afraid of offending or “being rude” and call things what they are.

I completely agree. I think this has been going on far too long. Democrats — and this includes the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and company — seem to be deathly afraid of sounding “rude”. They never call things what they are, never really criticize the Republicans or the Bush administration, never even tell their opponents “you’re wrong” because, well, they might be offended. Even hurt! And we don’t want that, do we?

Even more disgusting is the way Democrats are afraid of looking “liberal”, as if that is a dirty word, and do everything they can to distance themselves from that, and sound “republican”. And, like I said before (though I think Ebonmuse said it first), even a foreigner like me can see the obvious: between a Republican and a Republican-wannabe, Republicans will vote for the real thing and Democrats will stay at home.

Republicans are bullies. That’s what they’re all about. Democrats need to stop trying to appease the bullies (which never works anyway), and begin to stand up to them. Call things by their name. Don’t accept their warped definitions, such as “patriotism” (a.k.a. not criticizing the administration, and wearing flag pins), “morality” (saying “God” and “Jesus” every five words), the “war on terror” (curtailing civil liberties and invading unrelated countries), and so on. They’re nothing but bullies, but even a bully may appear to many a better leader than someone cowed by bullies.

My favorite part of the article:

Liberals, still stunned by the way a legitimate combat vet like Kerry was beaten by a combat-dodging spoiled brat like Bush, never understood that for millions of voters, the question wasn’t how well Kerry fought in Vietnam but whether he would fight in 2004.

Would he defend himself when called out by the gang of disgusting bullies Bush had gathered around himself? It would have been so simple, so glorious, if he’d just turned on his accusers and reacted like a human being: “You’re questioning my record on behalf of a skunk like Bush who spent the war with the Alabama National Guard, and then went AWOL from the Guard?”

Millions of American voters were waiting, hoping Kerry would react like any sane person would have. He never did. I don’t know why not; I assume he was in the hands of some Clinton gurus who babbled about “rising above the fray.” Well, that sure worked well.




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