Irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God

Recently my friend Andy and I have been playing a variety of board games with one another, via the medium of Brainking. Being a profoundly intelligent man, he has been conclusively beating me at everything we’ve tried, with two exceptions. One is Go, which is hardly surprising as I’ve been playing it obsessively for nigh on a decade, whilst he has only just encountered it for the first time, but the other is Backgammon, and it’s this that I want to talk about.

Unlike me, Andy is a devout Christian, a regular attendee at his local church and a competent adversary in theistic debate. I, by contrast, am a godless heathen. These facts, plus our Backgammon experiences, are all I need to conclusively disprove God’s existence. In the style of Irreligion, I will formulate my argument as a syllogism.

1. God is jealous (Exodus 34:14), and clearly favours believers over unbelievers.
2. God wants us to acknowledge him as our lord and master.
3. God is omnipotent, and thus more than able to influence the effect of chance – otherwise, why would people pray to him?
4. God is omniscient, and thus knows everything
5. Backgammon is in many ways a game of chance.
6. Andy and I both started to play Backgammon at the same time.
7. As per points 1 and 2, God would want Andy to win, thus demonstrating the superiority of faith over atheism.
8. As per points 3, 4 and 5, God would be able to give Andy the best dice rolls possible.
9. As per points 5 and 6, skill is relatively insignificant.
10. But I win at Backgammon every time we play!
11. Therefore God either doesn’t exist, or is rubbish at Backgammon.
12. As per point 4, God must know how to play Backgammon. Really well.
13. Therefore God doesn’t exist.

Q.E.D., theists!

April Fool’s Day falls a bit late

I generally stay quiet on subjects like the Expelled fiasco which only really affect the USA – not because I feel they’re unworthy of comment, but because they are amply covered by the many American atheist bloggers out there (there are tons – use my blogroll on the left as a starting point and knock yourself out). However, I learned from a recent post of (((Billy)))’s about America’s National Prayer Day, and that’s worthy of comment even on our side of the pond. Not only does it contravene the spirit of the First Amendment, effectively promoting Christianity (Bible-thumping fundie Christianity at that) as the “official” religion of the country; in doing so it relegates all non-Christian Americans to the status of second-class citizens. Best of all, though, is their idea that by praying for “guidance, protection and strength” they are somehow doing something useful for their country. Newsflash, people: prayer doesn’t work.

Thankfully, whilst we Brits prance merrily around a beribboned pole on May 1st (well, some of us do) and the followers of Christinsanity pray their little hearts out, atheists and freethinkers can celebrate the National Day Of Reason. So to all my American readers (yes, both of you) – get your reason hat on and start promoting the alternatives to a theocracy.

Regurgitating for Jesus

Matt Taibbi’s forthcoming book looks like being a good read – I’ll certainly be trying to get my hands on a copy. In the meantime, there’s a rather brilliant excerpt published in Rolling Stone – a tip of the hat to PZ Myers for the link.

Holy honey

At last, an answer to the age old question: “Do bees have souls?” Apparently, they do.

I mentioned the treatment of animals in religion briefly once before, in respect of Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism, with it’s doctrines of vegetarianism and rebirth, is one of the most animal-friendly of the major world religions. Cows in particular are considered sacred, and the slaughter of a cow is equated in Hindu law with murder. Buddhism, too, is compassionate where animals are concerned, viewing them as sentient beings with as much potential for enlightenment as humans. It has historically tended to be the Western religious traditions, Christianity and Judaism, which have seen animals as mere automatons, lower than humans on the spiritual scale. This stems primarily from the Cartesian duality which exists at the core of both faiths, the idea that body and soul are separate and distinct. Much of Judaism’s bloody sacrificial customs have died out over the years, although the practice of kapparos still persists. The destruction of the Second Temple in about 70 AD effectively saw the cessation of the “burnt offering” ceremonies detailed in the Torah.

Various Christian thinkers have argued against animal rights. Both St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas claimed that humanity had no duty of care towards animals, and that they were created for our use by God (a number of Bible verses can be seen to support this view). Recent Christan philosophers have started to reverse this trend, with the Pope announcing in 1990 that animals do indeed have souls after all. It is heartening to think that societal pressure is encouraging a shift in morality towards the animal kingdom, although what this bodes for the idea of absolute biblical morality is anyone’s guess. At least the bees get a decent home out of it.

It’s a victimless crime!

Just in case this slipped under your radar, as of last month the British Criminal Justice Bill has been amended to remove the criminalization of blasphemy. For most people, this will have a less than negligible effect on their day-to-day life (it’s notable how Baroness O’Cathain’s predicted “torrent of abuse towards Christians” has failed to materialise). However, it is one more small step towards a secular Britain, and in that regard should rank as a milestone for those of us who favour the separation of Church and State.

Pascal’s Wager

I was reading a recent post on Richard Dawkins’ website and was particularly struck by Lord Winston’s reiteration of the now-famous “Pascal’s Wager”: “You cannot lose by professing belief in God – if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife.” Pointing out the flaws in this argument is a little like shooting fish in a barrel, but since I discovered the excellent Edward Current recently, I’ll let you amuse yourselves with his simple yet brilliant demonstration of why Pascal would have done very badly at his local William Hill.

Was Jesus a revolutionary?

The latest issue of New Internationalist* has a rather perfunctory article by Terry Eagleton, the well-known Marxist commentator, on whether Jesus could be considered a revolutionary. The basic thrust of his argument is that Jesus’ theology predicted the imminent arrival of the kingdom of heaven, and therefore his function as a leader on the material plane was more spiritual than political. I’m unimpressed by the referencing (Eagleton’s citations of the Gospels are never by chapter and verse, and only occasionally mention which Gospel he’s referring to) and by the rather trite conclusion (“…the answer, then, is not that Jesus was more or less a revolutionary, but that he was both more and less.” Eagleton, Was Jesus Christ A Revolutionary?, NI iss.411), but it’s certainly interesting to hear a Marxist interpretation of the New Testament. If you don’t subscribe to NI, I strongly recommend you rectify the situation.

*at the time of writing the new issue wasn’t up on the website – we get our copy a bit early.

Book Review: Lifelines

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve recently been working my way through Steven Rose’s Lifelines, a book which addresses the trend of what Rose terms “ultra-Darwinism” in biology. His basic premise is that modern biological research follows a reductionist course, assigning preeminence to gene theory and biochemistry, and downplaying the roles of ecology and behavioral science. Rose contests that this is too narrow a view, and proposes the study of “lifelines”, the actions and interactions of an organism in its environment.

There is a great deal to recommend in this book. As a primer for the history of 20th century biology it is superb. Rose covers a range of topics from the scientific method to genetics to evolution by recounting the history and major discoveries in each field. His writing style is accessible and enjoyable, and the images and explanations he uses are instantly understandable. He makes a good case for the “lifelines” theory against genetic reductionism, and racks up a number of points against Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene worldview.

It is unfortunate, then, that the book makes almost no mention of how the “lifelines” theory can actually be applied. One of the great strengths of “ultra-Darwinism” is that its process of reification and reductionism makes it easy to design experimental techniques and interpret the results. As Rose points out, this system is overly simplistic – but he does not seem to suggest a way in which the “lifelines” theory can perform the same investigations. As a method of viewing biology, it is excellent, but as a method of practicing biology it leaves a lot to be desired.

I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend the book, however. It’s a hugely important contribution to popular scientific literature, and for those raised on a diet of Dawkins it makes for an excellent counterbalance. Rose’s lifelines offer an “organism-centric” alternative to the gene’s-eye view we see so often reported, and without this we are doomed to forever be slaves to our DNA.

Would you take mortgage advice from an imam?

The Archbishop of Canterbury will be addressing the House of Lords over the subject of consumer debt today. Call me skeptical, but doesn’t that seem a little outside his area of expertise? Fair enough if they were debating ecclesiastical matters, but if someone is taking the Lords to task over my consumer debt problems, I’d like to see an economist or financier in the role.

This isn’t the first time the Archbishop has thrust his oar into political matters. He’s addressed the Human Fertilization And Embryology Bill, Government-sponsored gambling, the function of the penal system, the treatment of young offenders and more. To be fair to the man, he makes a good deal of sense on many of these matters, and I even agree with him on some points, but his role as the predominant spokesman for the Anglican Church does not make his opinion on subjects outside Christianity any more valid.

The reason Dr Williams is able to put forth his views in the House is that he has a seat there. As one of the 26 Lords Spiritual, he has a guaranteed position in the British Parliament. The House of Lords is a somewhat archaic institution (it’s been knocking around in various forms since the late thirteenth century), and is made up predominantly of unelected peers, so it is in no way a surprise that the equally outdated Church of England should be given a position in its midst. Once again, the legacy of Henry VIII’s lusty loins gives the lie to the concept of a secular Britain.

“Down there”

Today I’m going to talk about my penis. Don’t worry, there won’t be any pictures. In fact there won’t be much description of my old chap at all, since this is really just a hook to lead you onto a much more disturbing topic.

I was circumcised at the age of about five or six, for medical reasons. I have absolutely no problem with my parents’ decision on this, let’s just make that clear – if I’d had tonsillitis as a child I would fully expect them to have whipped my tonsils out, and this to my mind is no different – but since then I’ve discovered that there was a trade-off . In exchange for a wipe-clean John Thomas, I have lost a great deal of sensation and potential pleasure. Years of chafing underpants (I didn’t discover boxer shorts until my mid-teens) have degraded the nerve endings in my exposed glans, drastically reducing its sensitivity. As I said, I hold no ill-will towards my parents for this, they were acting on medical advice and for my best interests, but I have been thinking about how I would feel if I’d been brought up in a Jewish family.

In Judaism, male children are circumcised eight days after birth. The operation is performed by a mohei (circumciser), who will possibly have had some training in this procedure but is not a medical doctor (save by coincidence). No anaesthetic is used. The child (obviously!) has no say in the matter, and is destined to live the rest of their life with this mutilation, simply because the Jewish god demands it (Genesis 17:9-14). A Jew who later renounces his religion can’t grow back his severed foreskin, and is forever marked with the faith of his parents.

Far worse, though, is the practice of female circumcision, or genital cutting. This barbaric practice is found across Central and East Africa, and in parts of the Arabian Peninsula. I won’t go into detail (readers interested in the custom can find more information here), but suffice to say that this is not something I can envisage any free-thinking woman desiring. Female genital cutting predates the arrival of Christianity and Islam in Africa, and stems primarily from tribal customs lost in antiquity. It is clear, however, that these customs were the product of a highly patriarchal belief system (you can read more about traditional African religions at Wikipedia’s entry on the subject).

One final link between religion and genital mutilation is the story of the church father Origen. Inspired by Matthew 19:12: “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Origen went under the knife and had himself castrated. It is said that he somewhat regretted this in later life…