‘The Trouble with Atheism’
The National Secular Society says:
Former Today editor Rod Liddle is set to launch a broadside against atheism in a programme for Channel 4 entitled The Trouble with Atheism – which will be broadcast on 18 December. Mr Liddle says he will demonstrate how similar atheism is to religion.
Sounds interesting. However, this is the guy who recently wrote, in the course of a Spectator interview with Richard Dawkins:
Which brings me to the difficult stuff — and Darwinism. It is a creed to which Dawkins cleaves with the fervour of the fundamentalist, the true believer. And it is the real chink in his armour. For example, because Darwin showed us that life forms progress from the simple to the complex over hundreds of thousands of years of gradual modification, it therefore follows (according to Dawkins) that there cannot have been a divine being present before the amoebae swam in those soupy oceans at Earth's toddler stage — because he would have had to be more complex than those organisms which followed him. And that doesn't fit with the theory.
What? Aside from the dubious characterisation (which is contradicted by the next paragraph anyway) I don't think anyone's ever argued that a deity couldn't have existed at the primordial soup stage because it would have been more complex than that which followed it. That's a strange argument, and there are indeed multiple problems with it. I've never heard it suggested that evolution actively disproves deities, it's more that evolution provides an explanation for probably the largest evidence for the existence of a deity, namely that the natural world looks like it's been designed. A deity becomes superfluous, so why believe in one? It's possible he's simplifying a superficially similar argument to do with the rather large question of the beginning of the universe, but that's still to do with the probability of an inherently complex deity versus a simple process, not that it wouldn't be possible due to increasing evolutionary complexity (not that evolution necessarily makes beings more complex, anyway).
Mr Liddle seems to have misunderstood the issues to the extent that he thinks the entire basis for disbelieving in a god hinges upon Darwin's theory being entirely correct:
But what if the theory, in its entirety, doesn't hold — as Dawkins concedes might be possible? Even now, a century and a half after Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the notion of gradual, cumulative change in every case is being challenged (most recently by the evo-devo school, which believes that sudden change can occur within species within a single generation). Like all scientific theories, Darwinism will be amended — perhaps beyond recognition. Perhaps it will be discarded entirely. Either way, disavowing a divine being because it doesn't quite fit in with another here-today-gone-tomorrow theory seems a tad peremptory. The question Dawkins can never satisfactorily answer is: what if Darwin was wrong? And yet, as a scientist, he must be aware that the likelihood is that Darwin was wrong here or there. In which case, where does that leave his philosophical argument?
"[T]he notion of gradual, cumulative change in every case is being challenged"? Ok, maybe, but it's a long way from overturning current theory, and there's more to evolution than just gradual changes. I don't know all that much about the evo-devo school, but I'm pretty sure it still works on the basis of natural selection, no matter how large the generational mutations. But even if Darwin (and modern theory) somehow turned out to be wrong, it would make little difference to atheistic arguments because they're not built upon evolution in the way Mr Liddle thinks. Sure, you'd have to find another explanation for the life's complexity, but it would have to explain the vast amount of evidence showing 'evolutionary' lineages, and there's no reason to immediately turn to a deity for this.
You also can't just say that because scientific theories are continually revised - or 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' if you like - anything that follows from them (which the non-existence of god doesn't anyway) is unreliable. That's getting it backwards. The point is that predictions can be tested, and the theory is altered, supported or even discarded accordingly. By revising theories science hones in on the truth, and that's very different from the "things change therefore there's no point making predictions" attitude that Mr Liddle suggests. If all the evidence fits with a theory, it's perfectly reasonable to come to tentative conclusions based upon it.
The whole article is really quite odd. I'll watch the atheism show, but if it's anything like the above I don't hold out much hope.
Update on 19/12: I'll update this when I've actually watched the show, but anybody looking for responses could do worse than see here (and not just because somebody in the comments linked to me), here and the comment thread here.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
December 13th, 2006 - 22:27
“Either way, disavowing a divine being because it doesn’t quite fit in with another here-today-gone-tomorrow theory seems a tad peremptory”
I wouldn’t bother with this guy. Unless he is attacking the full on fundamentalist position, which would be fair but unnecessarily ambiguous and in the case of Dawkins a misconception, the above would seem to be holding athiests to different standards. Having a strong degree of trust in a well researched theory (which may have flaws) and a large field of work (which would need to be incorporated into anything that follows) can not be described as peremptory in a speech which aludes to a comparision with religious faith, a concept founded on the “daddy told me so” principle (replace with any third party ‘witness’ with an un-corroborated story).
December 17th, 2006 - 19:08
I think science effectively (beyond reasonable doubt) does disprove god (well a personal interventionist one anyway, which is what the bible, koran etc define and what most religious people mean when they say they believe in a god).
If we accept that science shows homeopathy to be no better than a placebo and this effectively disproves the claims of its supporters (beyond reasonable doubt) then I believe it is reasonable to say the same about supernatural deities.
Most people are culturally attached to the religion they are brought up with, but we all know that this does not mean they believe what their religion teaches them (most ultimately pick the bits they like and dismiss the rest). Those who do claim to believe in god generally believe in a god that is disproved by science.
Philosophically we can’t say we ‘absolutely’ know anything about the universe (except our own existence) but we don’t live our lives like this – we have to make decisions and we accept (whether we are religious or not) that the best way to make our decisions is based on the best evidence we have. And this rules out believing in a god as defined by the great religions.
December 19th, 2006 - 01:16
“Dawkins cleaves with the fervour of the fundamentalist, the true believer. And it is the real chink in his armour.”
Well. I think scientists and those of a scientific bent act in such a way, with an almost fundamentalist fervour is because the theory comes under attack and needs to be defended. We do not feel the need to bang on about theories of how one colour light combines with another, or Ohms law or whatever, because there is no attack on them.
Anyway, I thought it was established that life on Earth was started by Dr Who when he travelled back in time to the primordial soup age and blasted that alien baddie. (I’m sure Paul B could furnish you with the episode name if required. It was Tom Baker I think…)
December 19th, 2006 - 08:45
“I don’t think anyone’s ever argued that a deity couldn’t have existed at the primordial soup stage because it would have been more complex than that which followed it.”
I have heard Richard Dawkins make exactly this argument, unless I misunderstood him, which is not likely given the care with which he chooses his words.
The problem is in the line “doesn’t fit with the theory”. A scientific theory explains observations, and changes to accomodate new observations. It’s religious dogma that has problems with things that don’t fit.
Evolution by natural selection doesn’t disprove deities, it shrinks gods-of-the-gaps to near zero.
December 19th, 2006 - 10:22
Huh, I’ve never heard anything like that. It’d certainly be an odd thing to say, but I’d be interested to see the context.
Quite yes – well phrased.
December 19th, 2006 - 10:39
I watched a little of it after Open All Hours had finished on the other side. It was tooth-grindingly atrocious and IMO did everyone in every group – scientist, theologian, atheist, agnostic – a huge disservice.
It would have been nice if they could have checked the factual accuracy of just a few of the claims made by the folks they interviewed – for example that museum guy who claimed Darwin said the Archaeopteryx was the missing link between reptiles and birds (and seeing as how this is not quite correct, Darwin’s whole work could be in question). Trouble is… Um. No, Darwin didn’t actually say that.
The same museum guy went on to blather about how his ‘theory’ (which actually seemed nothing more than an ill-considered dreamy hypothesis at best) would eventually supplant Darwin’s entirely. Yawn.
Terrible.
December 19th, 2006 - 12:09
Have we been watching the same programme? To set it in its proper context, Rod Liddle was exploring the notion that atheists believe with absolute certainty that a deity in whatever form does not exist. The programme argues that atheism is a leap of ‘anti-faith’ that God definitely doesn’t exist, in the same way that religious people make a ‘leap of faith’ to support their own convictions. To be a fundamentalist atheist is surely to believe that all life can be explained by scientific theory. This may well turn out to be the case, but can it ever be proved beyond any reasonable doubt? Science is very good at explaining the ‘how’, but isn’t asking ‘why’ an equally valid question? As for the Oxford Don who on being trapped in an intellectual corner, explained away Stalin’s mass murders as being because he was a Confucianist, shame on him. Stalin was an evil man who perpetrated the myth that Communism was a utopian heaven on earth and that anyone who didn’t fit was disposable. To paraphrase Mr Liddle at the end of last night’s programme, wouldn’t it be easier if we were all to admit that we just don’t know and leave it at that!
December 19th, 2006 - 12:21
Sure, but that’s a massive straw man argument. There may be atheists who think like that, but by far the majority I’ve ever read or spoken to would never claim to have absolute knowledge of anything. That’s the point. As an atheist I do not say ‘god doesn’t exist’, because that would indeed be a faith position. I say there’s no evidence for a deity, and I’m going to operate under the assumption that one doesn’t exist until you can show me something that suggests otherwise. But (from what I’ve seen, and I haven’t watched the show yet) Rod Liddle seems to make the common mistake that any level of uncertainty means that no conclusion can be reached. Which is silly. It’s unreasonable to say ‘we don’t know’ and leave it at that, because if that were the case we’d continually worry about disturbing the unicorns in the forest, the fairies at the bottom of the garden and the trolls under the bridge. When there’s no evidence for something, it’s reasonable to operate under the (tentative) assumption it doesn’t exist. It would be fine to agree to disagree if most atheists didn’t think that religion itself causes massive problems in the world, but they do, and plenty of people see it as almost a moral duty to do something about it.
December 19th, 2006 - 12:45
I trust these comments won’t be considered as trolling: So here goes and Ill keep it short:
If there is a god, then what can we attribute to that being? Was the design of the human intentional, or did we simply evolve from some a lesser order?
My casual observations lead me to base suffering as a key theme to our existance.
We can see examples of suffering within the insect world, animals also and take a look at the contents of your next sandwich, assuming it more than a cheese savoury.
Natural world disasters are a common occurence and cause immense suffering!
Consider those who have horrible diseases like cancer. If it stikes one person in the family then the whole family also suffers. If suffering could be measured as we are able to measure the ozone, then I would gamble that on average if a disease were to stike any of us then it would hit a family member and not a lonley old drunk in the street who had no one who cared.
Perhaps there is a god! My question would be what type of bateries are you using?
Forgive my indulgence!
December 19th, 2006 - 12:59
‘As an atheist I do not say ‘god doesn’t exist’, because that would indeed be a faith position. I say there’s no evidence for a deity, and I’m going to operate under the assumption that one doesn’t exist until you can show me something that suggests otherwise.’
Surely this is an agnostic’s position, not an atheist’s. To be sceptical about something leaves a certain margin for doubting one’s own position.
December 19th, 2006 - 13:26
“‘As an atheist I do not say ‘god doesn’t exist’, because that would indeed be a faith position. I say there’s no evidence for a deity, and I’m going to operate under the assumption that one doesn’t exist until you can show me something that suggests otherwise.’
Surely this is an agnostic’s position, not an atheist’s. To be sceptical about something leaves a certain margin for doubting one’s own position.”
To my mind: Theism is a belief that god exists. Agnosticism is a belief that it cannot be known whether or not god exists. Atheism is a belief that god does not exist.
I believe that there is almost certainly no god. I therefore consider myself to be an atheist, operating under the same assumption as Andrew. With any position there should always be a certain margin for doubt as long as it can potentially be disproved.
December 19th, 2006 - 13:34
So many thoughts going through my head following that programme, so please excuse me if the following appears a little disjointed:
I watched the programme last night and found myself somewhat perplexed by the presenter’s basis for moral standards. Particularly, with regards to his theory that a moral atheist couldn’t possibly condone survival of the fittest to the extent of the ‘enforced sterilisation of mentally handicapped persons’. In response: Yes, I can, brilliant idea in my opinion!!!
All in, the show presented the ‘If science can’t explain 100% then a devine being must therefore exist’ argument, something I find somewhat tedious.
December 19th, 2006 - 13:42
Richard – agnostic in principle, atheist in practice. We’re all in theory agnostic over fairies, but would anybody describe themselves as such? It’s a linguistic trick to say ‘you’re an agnostic therefore you admit you don’t really know’, as the word is too broad and this misses the point about making tentative conclusions based on available evidence. It’s easy to get hung up over definitions as neither word is really adequate. “Atheism” can mean both a lack of belief and active denial in deities, “agnostic” covers the range of ‘I have no opinion’ to ’99% certain no god exists’, which is why I normally say ‘secular humanist’ or some such. Rod Liddle can argue against ‘there definitively is no god’ all he likes, but it doesn’t mean anybody actually thinks like that.
December 19th, 2006 - 13:52
“‘As an atheist I do not say ‘god doesn’t exist’, because that would indeed be a faith position. I say there’s no evidence for a deity, and I’m going to operate under the assumption that one doesn’t exist until you can show me something that suggests otherwise.’
Surely this is an agnostic’s position, not an atheist’s. To be sceptical about something leaves a certain margin for doubting one’s own position.”
“I believe that there is almost certainly no god”
I do not think that atheism is a belief at all. Theism IS a belief, as there is the possibility that it was conjured out of nothing and is false/ it is conjured from nothing and is true. (Of course here I am ignoring ‘revelation’ that religions would base themselves upon).
If you would cast your minds to Bertrand Russell’s celestrial teapot; it is a belief to claim there is a teapot, when there is no evidence. It is not a belief to contradict this proposition, as you are adopting an atheistic stance, in which you do not accept something exists unless it is proven to you. This is not a beleif, nor agnosticism (agositicism applies only when you think, as Richard Dawkins said, that the probability of God existing comparitive to his non existence is around 50%, when you balance all the other thousands of tedious arguments).
I ‘beleive’ there is no God, for the lack of a better word, but surely it is not the right one?
December 19th, 2006 - 14:19
Atheism is more difficult to define than I assumed in my last post. Those who consider themselves to be atheists can be seen to disagree about the limits and extent of atheism, for example whether a lack of belief in god constitutes an atheistic stance. Thus I guess atheism and agnosticism can be seen to overlap where people have different interpretations of the words.
Atheism could be better described as a theory than a belief, but it can be (and almost always is) presented as an opposite to theism, which is without doubt a belief. You could say “I think there is no god” instead of “I believe there is no god” if you see this as being a more adequate representation of your opinion. Interpretations of any word can differ, but I see no problem in saying “I believe, based on the reason and science that I have encountered, that there is no god, so I am an atheist”. My personal definition of agnosticism limits it to thinking that god’s existence cannot be proven or disproven, thus taking a stance somewhere around 50-50. Therefore to consider myself an atheist I have to think that it is not forever beyond the realms of possibility to disprove (or prove) god’s existence.
December 19th, 2006 - 15:52
Rod Liddle says without religion we would have a moral void.
I am forming the view that religion itself is immoral. I do not kill, murder, or “X” for whatever is your bag in immoral behavior, because God tells me I will burn in hell. Or, I do not do those things because I myself think them wrong. My faith, I suppose could be in the idea of civilization. If we want to have cities, towns, countries, civilization we have to evolve a framework in which we can co-exist, so morality is born. I am a free thinking human within the paremeters of my culture & upbringing.
As an atheist I believe I have one shot at being here on this earth. I will never exist again nor will you. The chances of us having ever crossed paths, either literally or virtually, are astronomically small, as each of our individual ancestors had to get to breeding age and breed for us to “meet”. Because of this logical improbable “miracle” it would be wrong for me to steal or kill …. back to the “X” for your chosen”sin”. Wrong because of your uniqueness.
I agree with Rod Liddle about imposing but I do not think Richard Dawkins has ever suggested we have a government to impose atheism & I would be against that. I also agree we would not be less violent, most wars are fought over access to supply, land.
One day religion will be seen in the same terms as myth, legend &, literature. And like those things they are a repository & guide of moral & Philsohpical values.
I think mystery itself is not understood. Wagners funeral of Siegfried is a deeply mysterious piece of music, but we can dissect it, examine, & explain it. But when we sit down again to listen to it again the power & mystery envelopes us.
December 20th, 2006 - 00:14
Andrew said:
“(…I haven’t watched the show yet) Rod Liddle seems to make the common mistake that any level of uncertainty means that no conclusion can be reached.”
Not the case at all. No, Rod seemed to be arguing more that it is fallacious to state definitively that there is no god/God. He did not state that Dawkins et al do state this definitively. I don’t think he pushed forth the point that there is a misunderstanding in the public at large that science is a definite “truth” (think about the phrase “it’s not an exact science”), which is a failing in the education system. Instead he skipped over it and did a reasonably good job of demonstrating that Dawkins, though being careful not to state anything definitively did make significant implications.
Sam said:
“If you would cast your minds to Bertrand Russell’s celestrial teapot; it is a belief to claim there is a teapot, when there is no evidence. It is not a belief to contradict this proposition, as you are adopting an atheistic stance, in which you do not accept something exists unless it is proven to you.”
Now this may seem frivolous, but bear with me.
Until very very recently, the “rogue wave” was considered a myth. The rogue wave is a phenomenon that occurs at sea when waves meet and two or more waves constructively interfere with each other, usually at the meeting of seas and oceans. Since the earliest records, seamen have claimed to see isolated pyramidal waves of immense height. These legends reached their peak when sailors navigated round the Magellan Straits — because that’s where the world’s two largest oceans meet and the biggest rogue waves occur.
Rogue waves couldn’t be proven — you can’t catch a wave (unless you’re a gnarly surfer, my righteous dude) and before cameras what other evidence is there? But untold numbers of sailors claimed to have seen them, and Katsushika Hokusai even made a picture that appears to show one. I think that the first photograph of a rogue wave was taken off the coast of japan in the 90s, and satellite imagery has shown us that they are far from rare.
Now compare the rogue wave with god/God and Russell’s teapot.
Were generations of sailors and admirals right to state that there is no such thing as rogue waves simply because they had no evidence? No — rogue waves exist.
Were they right to disregard them as improbable, without stating categorically that they don’t exist? No — if they had charted the reported sightings, they may have discovered wave black-spots and could have marked them on charts, and other ships could have avoided the danger zones.
I believe it is a mistake for modern (post Newton) science to disregard witness testimony as a source of evidence, as some observations are by nature unrepeatable.
Note that I am not stating that we should give credence to all witnesses and I am not saying that prophets are necessarily reliable witnesses. But Russell’s teapot is an inappropriate analogy: it is as arbitrary proposition, not a true witness testimony. All we can really take from Russell’s teapot is the notion that some witnesses make things up!
Rob said:
“Particularly, with regards to his theory that a moral atheist couldn’t possibly condone survival of the fittest to the extent of the ‘enforced sterilisation of mentally handicapped persons’. In response: Yes, I can, brilliant idea in my opinion!!!”
Such a view comes over to me as incomplete. The argument for eugenics is that society has short-circuited natural selection, and that we need to reintroduce it for the good of the genestock. But…! How do we judge what nature wants rid of? Disabilities may seem obvious, but I’m sure that there are disabled people who have been a lot less close to death than I have.
I had a testicular hernia at a couple of months of age. Without medical intervention (but thankfully not surgery) it would have most likely strangulated. When my life was saved, should they have sterilised me? Nature had deselected me after all. My mother was delivered by caesarean section — her mother could not have given birth to her unaided. Should she have been sterilised at birth? Nature had deselected her. My little sister had a septic finger when she was three or four. Without antibiotics, it would have spread and she would probably have got gangrene and died. Should she have been sterilised then?
Any unnatural selection criteria will be an inaccurate model of natural selection, because science is only an approximation.
Lacanox said:
“The chances of us having ever crossed paths, either literally or virtually, are astronomically small, as each of our individual ancestors had to get to breeding age and breed for us to “meet”. Because of this logical improbable “miracle” it would be wrong for me to steal or kill ….”
There is really no link there. You believe that stealing and killing are wrong because you have been taught they are wrong. Anything else is simply post-hoc rationalisation. This one of Rod’s points. We want a reason, an explanation, an authority. In the absence of a religious authority, humans seek to create a scientific authority, but as any good scientist knows, science is not authoratitive.
–
The program missed out on one important quote:
“The only true knowledge comes from knowing that we know nothing.” Socrates.
December 20th, 2006 - 11:13
Science doesn’t disregard witness testimony: that’s a common misconception. The issue, as you said, is that it’s well known (and can be demonstrated) that such evidence is not necessarily reliable. The most that otherwise evidence-less reports can reasonably do is suggest there’s some phenomena worth investigating. Then comes the actual investigation. If I and thousands of other people said they’d seen a fairy at the bottom of my garden, it’d be reasonable to actually have a look for fairies. But that doesn’t in itself constitute evidence of fairies, just that people think they’ve seen fairies. At best, the argument that lots of people think God exists is only a reason to investigate, and cannot be taken as evidence in favour of a God when there’s absolutely nothing else in support of it.
In the case of rogue waves it was accepted that large waves could existed, but models suggested they were far rarer than turned out to be the case when investigated with modern technology. I’m very skeptical of the claim that ‘black spots’ could have been charted. While the waves are not as rare as thought, it’s still very unlikely for anybody to encounter one. This small amount of data, combined with the not-terribly-reliable nature of sailor stories (mermaids, sea monsters etc.), makes it a very difficult thing to investigate without satellite technology. There’s also nothing, as far as I can tell, to currently suggest that the phenomenon even has ‘black spots’. But even if I’m wrong – so what? It was missed, but science caught up. ‘Science’ didn’t say ‘rogue waves don’t exist’, it said ‘there is no reliable evidence to suggest that rogue waves exist, therefore we’ll work under the assumption they don’t unless further evidence is presented’. As far as I can tell, that’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on evidence at the time. More evidence turned up, and the opinion was changed – that’s how it’s meant to work! It’s no embarrassment for science / skepticism that rogue waves turned out to be real.
This is the only reasonable way to behave and progress. An ambiguous ‘keep an open mind’ will never get anybody anywhere. You have to make tentative conclusions based upon available evidence. Think of the huge number of things people claim to be true: rogue waves, mermaids, UFOs, ghosts, celestial teapots…How are you going to decide which are true, given the inherent unreliability of human witnesses? Only by proper investigation. The teapot analogy is nothing to do with witness testimony, the point is that there is no reason to believe in something until evidence is presented, and that just because nobody can prove there is no teapot doesn’t mean there is one. Science is always open to new evidence, but conclusions can still be reached based upon available evidence.
‘Some observations are by nature unrepeatable’ is a very odd thing to say, too. Rogue waves are repeatable. Does everything that happens leave some kind of evidence? Possibly. I think I can guess what you’re getting at, though. It’s all very well saying ‘if miracles happened they wouldn’t be repeatable’, but it’s still far more likely that there are other, more reasonable, explanations. Why should I believe that the laws of nature were temporarily suspended, when this has never happened under conditions in which it could be recorded properly? Postulating ways in which omnipotent deities could circumvent the process is all very well, but it’s all mind games on a par with aliens from another dimension until anybody can show any reason to think otherwise, and witness testimony just doesn’t cut it.
December 20th, 2006 - 11:25
Niall – re: eugenics. I haven’t seen what Rod Liddle actually said as yet, but of course your arguments make sense. I’m not sure about your approximation comment, but drawing morality from natural selection would indeed be horrible.
You believe that stealing and killing are wrong because you have been taught they are wrong. Anything else is simply post-hoc rationalisation. This one of Rod’s points. We want a reason, an explanation, an authority. In the absence of a religious authority, humans seek to create a scientific authority, but as any good scientist knows, science is not authoratitive.
No I don’t. I think killing and stealing are wrong because I see that they cause harm, and I wouldn’t want either done to me, so why should I want them done to anybody else? I think we should always be open to thinking about moral issues, but reasons for causing harm against somebody’s wishes are few and far between. I’m not bothered about ‘a reason’ or ‘an authority’ in the way you say, either. I’m perfectly happy to go about my life without an overriding story arc, thanks. I like explanations, but only when they make sense. The only desirable ‘scientific authority’ is in terms of knowledge, not morality, and ‘authority’ only in terms of a diffuse body of knowledge, not individual people.
December 20th, 2006 - 16:24
Hear, hear, Andrew
But that is the crux of the point many people want a God Father to be the moral arbiter, & wish to know which side to be on. They really do believe in Gandalf, come Merlin, come some great Mr Good Guy Boss, or Mrs, who says yes you’re a goody, here live forever. Would be nice in a way. Much more frightening to be a tiny piece of flotsam floating in a vast universe for a short brief flash. But exciting though.
Niall so what if we want an authority? But if it’s not there, it’s not there, no matter how passionate our wanting. Of course like most atheists my position is that due to lack of evidence …. & unless something comes up that ……. in the meantime I will work on the proposition, Gandalf & all are “Great Inventions”.
Utter nonsense, where do you get the idea that science is an authority on morality? Are Aardvarks?
When you were ill; & I am delighted you are now well, may you long stay so; natural selection created brains, which made thinking possible to do science to do medicine, so we humans by evolving the intelligence to invent these things saved your life. Or to put it very short, natural selection selected you to survive. You are the species you are, born at a time that you were, to make it possible for such cures to be administered.
The Jehovah’s Witness would let their child die for want of a blood transfusion. Yet we “God created humans” have invented that facility, but their faith demands that their child dies, a child too young to yet decide where it’s beliefs lie. That is immoral, & child abuse.
Anyway have a lovely Christmas, eat drink & be merry, & may Doctor Who bless us all
December 20th, 2006 - 17:12
And EPICURUS said
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him God?
And
ARISTOPHANES – Surely you don’t believe in the gods? What’s your argument? Where’s your proof?
Goooaaalll
December 20th, 2006 - 18:07
“Atheism could be better described as a theory than a belief”
The point I was making using Bertrand Russell’s teapot, was not to label atheism with another word, but to make the point that atheism could also be described as an assumption. Such as assuming the world it flat, as it looks that way, until you find out it’s not.
I assume there is no God, as until there is good reason to assume there is one. a few hundred years ago there would be much reason to, but not now.
December 21st, 2006 - 14:17
Lacanox:
“Niall so what if we want an authority?”
One of the points of the program was that people are trying to make science out as an authority, which is a misinterpretation of science, which is merely a best guess (in light of current evidence).
“Utter nonsense, where do you get the idea that science is an authority on morality?”
Is that addressed at me? I said no such thing.
“The Jehovah’s Witness would let their child die for want of a blood transfusion. Yet we “God created humans” have invented that facility, but their faith demands that their child dies,”
The debate between “we can” and “should we” exists in every moral philosophy, religious and non-religious.
We can make nuclear bombs. Should we?
If you answered yes to that, then consider this: North Korea can make nuclear bombs. Should they?
Andrew:
“‘Some observations are by nature unrepeatable’ is a very odd thing to say, too. Rogue waves are repeatable.”
Not in laboratory conditions, except to the extent that constructive interference of waves can be produced in water.
To all:
I know that most of you here reject the notion of respecting other people’s beliefs, but how about the simple principle of respecting other people?
Comparisons to Gandalf and the like are not the way to open a dialogue. Basically, you’re saying “You’re an idiot — let me teach you to be clever”. Accepting that invitation is admitting to being an idiot. Who is going to do that? Without according with respect, treating them as equals, how do you expect them to be open to new ideas.
You’re artificially setting science in opposition to religion, and suggesting there’s a strict choice of one or the other simply encourages religious people to reject science.
December 21st, 2006 - 15:44
Comparisons to Gandalf and the like are not the way to open a dialogue. Basically, you’re saying “You’re an idiot — let me teach you to be clever”.
No I’m not. It is entirely ‘respectful’ to treat you like an adult and expect you to understand that I am attacking what you think, not you. As I’m sure you do.
I don’t think you’re an idiot. I think, based upon current evidence, that your beliefs are likely to be completely wrong, but that says nothing about you. You’re reading more into the statement than is there, and it doesn’t help anybody. Comparing deities to a magic fairy in the sky is a succinct and reasonable way to make a point that says nothing at all about the person who holds the beliefs. If you think I’m actually saying ‘you’re an idiot’, you’re wrong. I know nothing about you. There are a myriad of reasons people could believe in deities, from indoctrination to just never having thought about it very much to, heck, personal revelation, and ‘you’re an idiot’ doesn’t mean anything anyway.
If we were discussing anything else it wouldn’t occur to people to play the ‘my feelings are hurt when you argue against me and you should think about that’ card. It is entirely possible for reasonable people to have a debate over any issue at all, but when it’s religion suddenly ‘my feelings are hurt’ becomes a valid argument. I would suggest that the level at which feelings become hurt in discussions of religion is far, far lower than in any other topic. We could discuss foreign policy, the latest blockbuster film or the price of stamps and everybody involved would have a perfectly good understanding of where the line lay between attacking the opinion and attacking the person. But when gods enter the equation suddenly I’m meant to argue in the softest terms possible in case somebody gets offended? Why? I do not consider that I attack religion any more rudely than I would a political opinion – any offence you take is based upon your emotional attachment to the ideas, and how am I supposed to take those into account? What if you got offended every time I said the word ‘Jesus’? Should I respect you as a person by never saying it? There’s a reasonable level, and I see no reason to think that anybody who attacks the opinion and not the person comes close to breaching it.
How would that work, anyway? What if I said, “I know it means a lot to you, but here’s the thing. I can appreciate that many people do, but I can’t actually see any reason to think a guy called Jesus came back from the dead. It’s a nice story and I can appreciate your feelings in this matter, but there’s no evidence it ever happened.” Are you telling me people wouldn’t be offended by that, too? No matter how many pillows you shove around it, I’m still saying that I think deeply held religious beliefs are nonsense. Hell, I’ll just be accused of being patronising if I start doing that. Why can’t we have a grown-up conversation! You think we’re all stupid!
Like I said, I consider that I am treating you with complete ‘respect’ by arguing reasonably against the opinion and never the person. If you want to argue that people nevertheless still do get offended and that some kind of ‘your religion’s lovely but here’s a teensy problem with it’ method would be more effective, be my guest. But I don’t think that’s what you were saying.
You’re artificially setting science in opposition to religion, and suggesting there’s a strict choice of one or the other simply encourages religious people to reject science.
Or reject religion, but that’s beside the point. I have no problem with anybody believing in deities until they try to influence other people in unreasonable ways. If you want to think that people come back from the dead / virgins can have children / wine turns into blood, be my guest. But start claiming this as truth and saying people not in your club should alter their behaviour accordingly and you’ve got a claim which can be examined using reason and logic (call this ‘science’ if you like), and it’s this that creates a battle between religion and the real world. I’m perfectly happy for you to retreat into the gaps as knowledge advances, but make nonsensical truth claims and try to affect other people on the basis of them and I’ll attack your beliefs – not you – with everything I have.
December 21st, 2006 - 16:59
Quite right you didn’t, sorry Niall . And for Gandalf read Tea Pot if you like. I am still confused by the word “authority” then. I assume we agree an aeronautical engineer is more of an authority on aircraft than a biologist? So Science can tell us how things came about by using the scientific method, where as a pole vaulter, whilst he can have an opinion, cannot, he is not an “authority”.
December 21st, 2006 - 18:01
OK, “authority” was a poor choice of words. What people want is an absolute truth, which we know science cannot provide. We, the scientifically literate, know science has made lots of mistakes in the past (some quite horrendous, eg lobotomisation, bisection of the hippocampus in epileptics), and we fully expect to see evidence in the future that we are making similar mistakes today.
As such, science by its very nature is not an absolute truth. However, people assume it to be, as a result of ignorance of the scientific method.
I am not saying that any given religion [i]is[/i] the absolute truth, and neither was Liddle.
Andrew:
[i]“It is entirely ‘respectful’ to treat you like an adult and expect you to understand that I am attacking what you think, not you. As I’m sure you do.
I don’t think you’re an idiot. I think, based upon current evidence, that your beliefs are likely to be completely wrong, but that says nothing about you. You’re reading more into the statement than is there, and it doesn’t help anybody.”[/i]
An anology between fairies and any mainstream religious god is logically valid, but all words have several layers of meaning and what I am reading is what is written, although not necessarily what the author intended to write. We all heard stories about fairies when we were children. Many of us may even have searched for them in gardens and parks. Similarly with Santa — most people believed in Santa when they were young. As such, Santa and fairies are inextricably associated with childish naivety. This association bleeds across and comparing a god to a fairy or Santa Claus implies that the religious believer has the mental capacity of a child. Whether it’s intentional or not, that’s just the way language works.
It has to be said that your version was better worded than most of the comparisons I’ve read or heard, but while the negative semantic effects of the word fairy were minimised, they cannot be totally avoided if you still use the word.
Lacanox’s metaphor is a much more interesting study in the use of belittling language:
[i]“They really do believe in Gandalf”[/i]
First of all, Gandalf is a known fictional character. By putting Gandalf on an equal footing with any deity you care to name, he presents the fictional nature of the god as a given, as taken for granted, as beyond question.
“They really do” is a phrase used to introduce something that the audience are expected to find hard to believe. Again, it is taken for granted that the audience are convinced of the non-existance of any supernatural deity.
[b]This[/b] is where the language becomes insulting. The subtext is “everyone knows there is no god” which implies “anyone who believes in a god is an idiot”. As this is the jumping-off point of the argument, it really is as I stated before: “you’re an idiot — let me teach you how to be clever.”
Let’s compare this with the following from Andrew:
[i]“What if I said, “I know it means a lot to you, but here’s the thing. I can appreciate that many people do, but I can’t actually see any reason to think a guy called Jesus came back from the dead. It’s a nice story and I can appreciate your feelings in this matter, but there’s no evidence it ever happened.” Are you telling me people wouldn’t be offended by that, too?”[/i]
No, of course there are extreme elements who would be offended by this, but the majority would not be. That is the reasonable, productive way to put it and anyone who cannot see that would be too hardline to debate with anyway.
This statement is effective because it makes no assumption. You do not [b]assume[/b] that there is no god, it is not presented as a given. Rather you [b]assert[/b] that there is no god. An assertion is linguistically open to doubt and to challenge; if you say “there’s no evidence it ever happened” you are open to the response “yes there is”, and the scriptures are mentioned, miracles etc, and we’re back to the question of the reliability of witnesses, particularly in light of the fact that most holy men, prophets and visionaries exhibit symptoms of chronic mental disorders. The debate gets nowhere, but at least it’s a debate rather than a slagging match.
December 22nd, 2006 - 18:40
In his programme “the trouble with atheism”, Rod Liddle kept referring to Darwin’s Origin of Species as the “atheist’s bible”. As a scientist, I am puzzled by the suggestion that a scientific work can be regarded as anyone’s bible. The fact that there may be people who make inferences about the existence or non-existence of a deity from the contents of Darwin’s work hardly turns it into someone’s bible. Mr Liddle also keeps demanding to know when someone is going to rewrite Darwin. The Origin of Species is now a historical document. Does he really think someone can throw it on the rubbish heap and sit down to rewrite it. Although much has been added to theory of evolution since Darwin’s timed, for example through the development of genetic studies, that in no way diminishes the value of Darwin’s work, nor does the fact that I have a copy of and value the Origin of Species mean that I must be an atheist!
August 11th, 2008 - 14:41
I believe the “Trouble with Atheism” was an agnostic perspective on atheism. While the portrayal of atheism was not flattering it appears as if the community which most strenuously objects to atheism is the conservative Christian community as can be seen in the article on atheism .