You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2008.
Radio 4’s Thought For The Day this morning was a speech from the late Alan Watts, Zen Buddhist and author of such seminal works as The Way of Zen and This Is It. The short talk offered two different analogies for life; the idea of life as a journey and the idea of life as a piece of music, and it was heartening for an atheist to hear Watts’ comparison.
In the religious world, life is often seen as a journey. From Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress to modern Christian songwriting, the idea of our mortal existence as a route to be travelled is ingrained in the theistic mindset. Under this analogy, the focus is on the destination, on storing up “riches in Heaven,” and the journey itself is merely a path to that goal. Whilst the promise of eternal reward provides a carrot which encourages travellers to journey well, life is seen as a transient thing, something to be passed through and beyond.
As an alternative to this, Alan Watts offered the idea of life as a piece of music or a dance. The focus of a musical composition is not on its conclusion, but on its melody, and a dancer looks not to the end of her performance, but to the individual steps. This is how atheists (and Zen Buddhists!) should approach their lives – with their minds on the present moment and the joy of the here and now, not on the threat of eventual judgement and the shaky promise of reward. Looking at life in this way enables us to see the beauty of existence, which is founded in its transience; once a note has been played, it will never be played the same way again.
Robert Louis Stevenson once said that, “to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.” If you insist on viewing life as a journey, perhaps this is the best way to approach it. However, the Violent Femmes once said, “Dance motherfucker, dance,” and it’s their advice I’ll be listening to in assessing how I live my life.
As usual, it’s the Christmas presents I buy for myself that tend to be the most appreciated. Not that I’m ungrateful for the floating soapdish shaped like Dennis the Menace (you know who you are…), but my smiles this Christmas were most prodigious upon the arrival of my (self-ordered) copy of Playing Gods, the latest and most sacrilegious addition to my stable of board games. It’s a funny, clever and enjoyable game, with a well-crafted game mechanic and a fairly original premise.
Playing Gods has some surface similarities to Risk, in that the eventual goal is world domination, but it operates in the religious, rather than military, sphere. Players compete to accumulate sects of their faithful around the globe, whilst destroying or converting the competition. This goal is accomplished by the collection and use of special cards, enabling one to vent one’s divine wrath upon the infidels, via earthquakes, floods, solar flares, mudslides and so on – the Problem of Evil is really not an issue for the deities in this game. Those who remember the classic early ‘90s computer game Populous could envisage Playing Gods as a board game version of the same – go forth and multiply, and wipe out the heathens!
Like Monopoly, Playing Gods is at its best as a party game, when five players can compete against one another. As a two-player game, it lacks pace, but when you’ve got the neighbours over for dinner a round of smiting and miracles is a fun and furious way to spend the evening. The board and pieces (I sprang for the Special Edition pawns, but the regular ones are pretty cool-looking too) are well-made and nicely proportioned, in fact the design overall is very crisp and professional. The game plays well, without any awkward hiatuses or log-jams in the flow of actions, and although reasonably complex, is no more difficult to learn than Cluedo or Monopoly. Plus, it has some nice humorous twists, especially in the Expansion Pack cards. If you’ve ever had an inkling that you were destined for more than this mortal life, Playing Gods could be the route to realising your dreams of omnipotence.
Back to the daily grind again, I fear. Wifeshui and I spent a enjoyable holiday with my family, which was pleasingly unencumbered by religious trappings (they’ve come to terms with the fact that baby Jesus means about as much to me as the Tooth Fairy) and I also got to watch the Christmas classic It’s A Wonderful Life for the first time. Wifeshui is a big fan of the film, and was keen that I should take note of its uplifting moral. I did – but possibly not in the manner she anticipated. Here are the life lessons I learned from Frank Capra’s masterpiece:
• Stealing is okay, as long as no one finds out. In the film, evil tycoon Mr Potter makes no attempt to return the $8,000 windfall which threatens George Bailey with bankruptcy, and since Bailey is bailed out by his friends no harm comes of the theft. Potter is left unmolested by the law, and continues on his way with an extra $8,000 in his pocket. Stealing is therefore shown to be entirely without consequence.
• Angels are shit. Clarence the angel is a bumbling imbecile, who pretty much makes things up as he goes along, assaults policemen (by biting them – both unsporting and unhygienic), drinks in seedy bars and provokes fights. Peace on Earth? Not with this clown around.
• Ambition is futile. George Bailey’s overriding ambition, throughout the entire film, is to get out of Bedford Falls and see the world. Repeatedly, he gives up his travel plans to help other people – his sick father, the Buildings & Loan Company, the poor immigrants who rely on him for housing… As a result, he never leaves the town, and is eventually forced to erect a façade of contentedness behind which to conceal his shattered dreams.
• Helping other people gets you nowhere. As above, George is consistently obliged to put himself out for other people. What does he get for his trouble? A ramshackle old house, three rather ugly and annoying children, a near-bankrupt business, and the moral obligation to refuse a job offer that would have set him up for life. As far as Capra is concerned, “love thy neighbour” is a no-win situation.
• Money is everything. In the end, George’s entire life revolves around cash – giving it away, not having enough of it, being envious of those who have more. His redemption only comes when the poor of the town give him $8,000 out of their own threadbare pockets, thus covering up the managerial incompetence that resulted in his employment of his drink-addled, cash-losing uncle. Thus, Capra’s film promotes the importance of money above all else, engendering avarice in both characters and viewers.
It’s an uplifting film, alright. As long as you approach it with rose-tinted glasses…
Well, I’m off to spend the next week or so with the family, eating far too much, getting hammered (especially since I’ll now have to drink Wifeshui’s share of the sherry as well…) and generally chilling out in a Santa hat. Happy Holidays, Merry Squidmas, Winterval Tidings, have a great Festivus, Season’s Greetings etc. etc. I wish all my readers an enjoyable week, and look forward to seeing you all in the New Year.
***edit: For the sake of seasonality, here’s a link to my only Christmas related post, from a couple of months back…***
I’ve long been a fan of the poetic musings of Digital Cuttlefish, in fact I recall the DC blog was one of the first on my blogroll, back in the early days of Right To Think. Imagine my delight, then, when I discovered that the Cuttlefish had combined three of my greatest loves – poetry, atheism and books – into a single shiny product!
Most of my regular readers probably know the author’s work by now, but if you don’t, I urge you to head over there and have a look. Digital Cuttlefish combines a great eye for rhyme and rhythm with a singular wit and some remarkably clever literary allusions – witness the Roald Dahl-esque Lipstick On A Pig, or the succinct brilliance of Oh, wait…. The book unfortunately doesn’t include any context, which means that those who don’t follow the shifting winds of the atheosphere may not get all the references, but that shouldn’t detract from the overall enjoyment of such a wickedly playful little collection.
Digital Cuttlefish is arguably the best American comic poet since Ogden Nash, and deserves to be just as widely read. What better Christmas present could there be for the poetic atheist in your life?
One of the most nauseating pieces of proselytisation in the Christain arsenal is the ever-irritating “Have you ever?” routine. You know the drill: “Have you ever eaten a pork-pie? Then you’re a GLUTTON and you’re going to HELL! Have you ever seen a woman? Then you’re a RAPIST and you’re going to HELL! Have you ever watched a David Attenborough documentary where a lion kills a gazelle? Then you’re a MURDERER and you’re going to HELL!” etc. Thankfully, the tea/keyboard-interfacingingly-funny Frodology has come up with a piece on why this line of thinking might just backfire…
Courtesy of Hemant at Friendly Atheist, here’s the latest atheist meme to be doing the rounds. How serious is your atheism? Boldface the statements which are true of you, and find out!
Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
Created an atheist blog.
Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.
Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
Have come out as an atheist to your family.
Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.
Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
Donated money to an atheist organization.
Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.
Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.
Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
Attended a protest that involved religion.
Attended an atheist conference.
Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.
Started an atheist group in your area or school.
Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.
Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
Lost a job because of your atheism.
Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).
Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.
Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.
Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).
Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)
Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.
Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).
Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.
Turns out I’m only a middle-of-the-road atheist. Still, with Christmas coming up there are some good opportunites to make up for lost time…
Yesterday we looked at Troy Brooks punctuation-challenged Irrefutable Four Step Proof Of God, and saw how it basically boiled down to the Kalam Argument. To reiterate:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Conclusion: God is the cause. Thus, God exists.
I said that for the sake of argument I accepted steps 1 and 2 of this argument, and Troy would have me believe that this automatically leads to Christianity. Praise Jebus, etc! Or rather, not.
You see, accepting that the universe had an origin (step 2) does not necessarily imply the existence of a God who is in any way similar to the Christian one. In fact, since the argument posits an “uncaused cause” – God – why can we not reconsider step 1 of the argument and ascribe this property not to God, but to the universe itself? Perhaps the universe is the exception to the rule that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”.
Alternatively, perhaps the universe had a cause that was not God. Quantum physics demonstrates that subatomic particles flick in and out of existence all the time. Could such a quantum event have been the cause of the universe? Perhaps it might be safer to say that the universe was caused, but we don’t yet know what caused it. In any event, the leap from an induced universe to a Christian God is too great for any but the faithful to attempt.
The argument also suffers from a form of special pleading. In order for its conclusion to hold up, God must exist beyond the normal parameters of existence. I can, for example, use the exact same logic propounded by William Craig to say the following:
1. Everything that exists began to exist. (This is another example of “metaphysical intuition” (see yesterday’s post) – if Craig can use it, I don’t see why I shouldn’t.)
2. God did not begin to exist. (This property of God is vital if the Kalam argument is to hold up, otherwise it gets caught in infinite regression.)
3. Therefore (can you tell what it is yet?) God does not exist.
“Ah,” says the theist, “but God is different, you see.” Well no, I don’t see – you might as well say, “One of God’s properties is that He exists,” and then you’re into the ontological argument, which is probably the weakest of all classical God-proofs. This is special pleading at its finest – if you accept Craig and Brooks’ definition of God as a being who exists without cause, then you have to accept their argument, but if you don’t see a reason why God should be given special dispensation from the rules (which an atheist doesn’t) then the whole proof falls flat.
Essentially, Brooks begs the question in his “irrefutable” proof – if you assume the existence of his God, and accept his idea of the process of human perfection, and allow his God to have properties not granted to anything else in the argument, then it holds up. However, if you approach with the idea that God does not exist, or even with a completely open mind and no prior assumptions whatsoever, it becomes a tale “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury / Signifying nothing.”
Laughably, Troy has offered a Hovind Prize to anyone who can refute his proof. $10,000 is yours if you can spot the fallacies in his ranting. Of course, he deletes, edits or bans any commentators who make any serious attempt to do so, and given that his argument is so much incomprehensible raving, will weasel his way out of any valid criticism by pointing at an indecipherable sentence and claiming, “you haven’t understood this bit! I’m so clever, nyah nyah nyah.” If you want to have a crack, be my guest, but in Troy’s befuddled head no-one can ever prove him wrong, and that $10,000 (assuming it even exists) will remain as unclaimed as the original Hovind Prize.
Here’s an interesting piece of crackpottery, discovered courtesy of FSTDT. To save you having to trawl through this appallingly written bit of apologetics (and the writing really is dreadful – imagine an English-as-a-second-language version of Time Cube), I’ll summarise and refute his arguments here. It’s essentially a slight (but original twist) on our old friend the Kalam argument, also known as the “slightly-tweaked version of the now-defunct argument from First Cause”.
Here’s the essence of Brooks’ argument:
1. The Universe cannot have existed forever, because if it had existed forever there would be no sin.
2. Kalam argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. As per step 1, the universe must have had a beginning, hence a cause. This cause is God, because God is uncreated.
3. God must be the God of the Bible, because… well, this is where Troy’s ranting becomes sufficiently obtuse as to completely obscure his argument. It’s the Christian God, okay? You aren’t allowed to apply this argument to anything else. Oh, and sin came into the world as a result of the Fall. It just did.
4. Only God is uncreated. If God had a creator you would end up with an infinite regression, and (as per step one) that would require infinite time, in which case there would be no sin. Therefore He must be the Creator. QED.
Let’s go backwards, since the last two steps are basically step 2 only with extra assertions in boldface type. These are little more than your common-or-garden a priori statements: Jesus was the Son Of God, Christianity is true, bad people go to Hell, blah blah blah. Rather than addressing this unfounded spewing, I’m going to dispense with steps 3 and 4 and examine steps 1 and 2 instead, since these actually contain some semblance of an argument.
Troy Brooks has got within spitting distance of William Lane Craig’s Kalam argument, which is best expressed thus:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The logic of this argument, as formulated in the above syllogism, is solid. However, it is possible to attack premise 1, since this requires an unobservable proof (to establish its veracity, one would have to observe everything that exists, and establish that all of it had a cause). One could also cast doubt on premise 2, although I personally would find it hard to argue against it (given the great weight of evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory). Troy Brooks seems to consider this second idea to be the argument’s most vital link, since he devotes the whole of his First Step to “proving” it. Returning to Brooks argument:
“Simply stated, If for eternity things have been evolving (biologically or non-biologically, etc.), by this very definition of evolving (in causes and effects, before or after the amoeba, even before or after the big bang), you would have had an eternity to be perfected (without sin) irrespective of when you personally started in the evolving chain according to calculus where the approximation of eternity is taken as eternity.“
Basically, he’s saying that there is an overriding tendency for existence to evolve towards perfection (note that he’s not making the usual strawman argument that humans represent the pinnacle of evolution – as far as I can tell, Brooks has a severe case of evolution-denial). If this were true, then over an infinite period we would have become perfected – since we are clearly not, the universe cannot be infinitely old.
Whilst this argument is clearly deranged (Brooks assumes that because he sees a tendency for history to progress towards modern morality, it must be getting better – never thinking for a moment that relative morality may have changed as well. It’s a moral version of the anthropic principle), we can change a few ingredients and make it fit for human consumption. Physics (specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics) tells us that in a closed system (like the universe) entropy will increase. Since there is still matter and energy in existence that has not been converted to heat, we can deduce that the universe has not been around for an infinite length of time. Add to this such factors as red-shift and cosmic microwave background radiation, and we can state with some certainty that our universe must have had a beginning.
So far, so good. It looks like the second premise of the Kalam argument is proven. Hooray! Let’s go back to the first one again.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (Note: the rather clumsy phrasing occurs to escape the problems of the older cosmological argument, which began, “Everything has a cause”.) This is what William Lane Craig refers to as “metaphysical intuition”, that is to say, we can’t prove that it is the case but deduce it from what appears to be obvious. Leaving aside the objection that the leap from this “obviously sensible” statement to the idea that God exists (a much less obvious idea), I’m willing to accept that yes, in the catalogue of observed events, everything that begins to exist has had a cause (nebulous though the concept of “cause” might be). It seems reasonable to extend this to a general statement.
So, I accept both the premises of the Kalam argument*. Does it then follow that I must accept Troy Brooks “irrefutable proof”? I don’t think so, and tomorrow I will be explaining why.
* it’s not necessary to do so, however – for a thorough rebuttal of both of them, see Chapter 5 of John Loftus’ book, Why I Became An Atheist.
CodewordConduit posted an interesting argument at Reflections Of The Damned recently, positing that Christians have a far greater incentive to commit murder and other crimes that atheists. Whilst her reasoning is sound, she bases it on a premise of which I’m somewhat suspicious, namely that:
“All voluntary actions performed by human beings result in personal gain”
This is a form of psychological egoism, and it’s shaky grounds on which to base an argument. Firstly and most obviously, there are numerous actions which, whilst they might have personal gain as the objective, fail to achieve their ends – a compulsive gambler, for example, might bet on a race with the idea of winning a fortune, but could easily lose his stake, in which case his actions have resulted in personal loss, not gain. That’s just semantics, though, and this criticism is easily circumvented by rephrasing the premise slightly, as CodewordConduit does a little further on in her post. A better statement of the idea might be:
“All voluntary actions are motivated by personal gain.”
Now we have in our hands the kernel of egoism; namely that humans are motivated entirely by (conscious or sub-conscious) selfishness. John Aubrey relates the following story of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, which sums up the position quite nicely:
“One time, I remember, going into the Strand, a poor and infirm old man craved his [Hobbes’] alms. He beholding him with eyes of pity and compassion, put his hands in his pocket, and gave him 6d. Said a divine (that is Dr Jasper Mayne) that stood by – ‘Would you have done this, if it had not been Christ’s command?’ ‘Yes,’ said he. ‘Why?’ said the other. ‘Because,’ said he, ‘I was in pain to consider the miserable condition of the old man; and now my alms, giving him some relief, doth also ease me.’” Aubrey, A Brief Life of Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679
In other words, even charitable acts are performed with the intention of making the giver feel better. At base, psychological egoism teaches that we are incapable of truly altruistic behaviour. Unfortunately, because it is impossible to examine the motives of everyone who has ever performed an action, egoism supporters have to bite the bullet and accept that their argument promotes a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
This is probably best explained as follows. Suppose Arthur performs an act of heroic self-sacrifice, giving up his seat on the bus to an old lady, for example. His companion, Beatrice, an egoist, asks him why he did this:
Arthur: Because she needed the seat more than I did.
Beatrice: Ah, but you really did it to make yourself look good in front of the other passengers, didn’t you? Especially that pretty girl by the window.
Old Lady: ‘Scuse me, dear.
Arthur: No, she just needed to sit down.
Beatrice: But it made you feel good to alleviate her suffering, didn’t it?
Arthur: Not particularly, she just needed the seat.
Old Lady: Excuse me, dear.
Beatrice: I’ll bet your legs were cramped and you wanted an excuse to stretch them out a bit, right?
Arthur: No, I just thought she needed to sit down.
Beatrice: Well, since all human actions have selfish motive, you must have had some personal interest in letting the old lady sit down.
Old Lady: Bugger it, you selfish bastards, now I’ve missed my stop!
Or as a syllogism:
1. All human actions are motivated by selfish interests.
2. Arthur performed a human action.
3. Therefore, Arthur’s action was motivated by self-interest..
I could equally say:
1. All humans were created by God.
2. Arthur is human.
3. Therefore, Arthur was created by God.
or
1. All humans have blue skin.
2. Beatrice is human.
3. Therefore Beatrice has blue skin.
but it wouldn’t be in any way true, even though the argument, as it stands, is completely valid.
The problem with psychological egoism is that it follows a wholly circular argument. If you assume that all actions are selfish, then all actions are selfish, and therefore all actions are selfish. This is exactly the sort of logical error which we abhor when committed by Christians, so we need to be extremely careful not to wander down that path ourselves. Attractive though egoism is to the more cynical amongst us (as a teenager, I thought it explained a great deal about the world…), it is a flawed model, and whilst useful as a philosophical theory, can never be used to make statements about reality (leastways not without substantial caveats).
Recent Comments