I don’t know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me.
This is a quotation attributed to the Duke of Wellington, referring to the red-coated soldiers he led in the Peninsular campaign in the early 19th Century and later, in the Battle of Waterloo, in what is now Belgium. He would often remark in scathing terms about his own men while also praising their steadiness under fire and general courage.
I kind of feel the same way about a bunch of men – it seems to be male thing – called the New Atheists in this interesting article over at Wired magazine. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others are no doubt fearless in fighting against what they see is wilful superstition. You want to admire and like what they are doing and in general, I do. I recall reading Dawkins’ book, the Selfish Gene many years ago and was greatly impressed. I felt the same way about Dennett’s books. And yet and yet… Dawkins is so dismissive of there being any value to religion whatsoever that you almost end up feeling rather sorry for religious people – at least the ones that are not fundamentalists. For all that I have problems with religion and un-reason, I cannot overlook the benign side of religion or the contributions that the Judeo-Christian tradition has played in the West, for instance. It is arguable, for example, that notions of individualism, free will and dignity of the person have been greatly driven by that tradition, as well as other schools of thought. But Dawkins will have none of it. He is just as harsh on moderates as he is on the fundamentalists. He thinks the state should ban parents from trying to pass their views to their children (quite how this would be enforced is not made clear in the Wired article). I am not sure if he is going to persuade any existing religious people out of their views although he might, by his sheer boldness, encourage a lot of secret atheists to “come out of the closet”.
Anyway, it is an interesting article and the associated comments, or at least most of them, are pretty good as these things go.
You might also like to pay tribute to the contribution made by Greek and Roman mythology and thought to Western civilisation. And perhaps offer corresponding criticism of those monotheists who dismiss their religion as pagan idolatry; and claim that there is no doubt whatsoever that it is false and there are no such Gods/Goddesses.
One of the monotheists’ favourite tricks is to take for granted that when you speak of religion or God you must be talking about theirs. When the Bishops and Muftis are as polite about the potential existence of other people’s Gods as we are supposed to be about theirs… well, I’ve probably end up carrying a papier mache FSM around Lambeth Palace or the Kaaba and calling on the residents to bow down and worship His Noodliness, dripping tomato sauce as I go. We’ll see how tolerant they are of others’ religious beliefs then!
If they can put Creationism into the science classroom, we can surely put Polytheism back into the pulpit. 🙂
As has often been said, a monotheist is simply an atheist who stopped one short. They are frequently no less dismissive of Gods than Dawkins; they just get a free pass because nobody thinks to question it.
They take a very babyish definition of God. God is a personification of the moral code which allows a people to thrive. The existence or not of God is irrelevant – it is like asking if the laws of physics really exist, or if logic really exists. Our conception of God may be wrong, but that is a different question.
It’s hard for me to imagine how Dawkins can think that his style of debating will be effective with “quasi believers.” Dawkins would probably consider me a quasi-believer in that, while I do not believe in a god, I accept that what I believe can probably never be proved (nor it’s counter-positions disproved), consider it a matter of faith, and do not actively dis-believe in a god, either. Yet, even so, I’m disappointed by Dawkins’ belligerent rhetoric and his constant straw-manning of relgious arguments.
He considers all theological positions other than his own equally wrong, and worthy of contempt. That’s just not a good strategy for winning converts. I don’t like to believe that someone as intelligent and learned as Dawkins would deliberately employ nothing but straw-man arguments. But the alternative is to believe that he has simply not bothered to make himself aware of the stronger arguments he ignores, which might even be more damning for someone in his position.
Hermione Eyre wrote an article on Atheism for the Indie today. Deeply unsatisfying subscribers link here.
The thrust of this God Delusion-celebrating piece is that atheists should out themselves…
Pa Annoyed, I hope when you talk about the “monotheistic” religions that you’re not including Christianity in the mix, because by it’s nature it’s essentially polytheistic. No matter how you may try to dress up the trinity, it comes down to polytheism. And if you’re Catholic, like I grew up, it becomes even more complicated by the veneration of Mary, the saints, etc.
As to the main point of the article, militant atheists are the flipside of the religious fundamentalist coin. These people are just as intolerant as anyone else, but like to dress up their intolerance with feel-good leftism and ivory tower education. The only intellectually honest religious philosophy in the world is agnosticism, because they at least admit to their ignorance.
🙂
Well, actually I was including Christianity. Because even if you can argue that it is actually tritheism (and I think a lot of them would argue long and hard about that, although exactly how they know all this stuff about the mechanics of God is beyond me), it is nevertheless as dismissive of Baal, Jove, Odin, and co. as Dawkins is of their God.
There are degrees of agnosticism, as Dawkins has already explained in his book. There’s “it might rain tomorrow, or then again it might not” sort of uncertainty, and there’s “there might be a tiny invisible unicorn in a secret compartment of Elvis Presley’s flying saucer, you can’t prove there isn’t” sort of uncertainty. It’s perfectly true, you can’t prove there isn’t. But it doesn’t thereby have equal status with the hypothesis that there isn’t one.
And whether or not one accepts the “there could be some sort of God-like thing out there” argument; that’s a long reach to “… and it’s the one described in this book here.” Dawkins addresses this argument too: yes, you can redefine God to be something else (the ‘personification of morality’ is a new one on me, but the general idea isn’t), or posit a God who apparently doesn’t actually do anything observable. But once that ground has been taken they go straight back to the miracles and floods and fire and brimstone in front of the parishioners. We might not be able to disprove a God existing and simply watching, but the God who made all the languages in a single act of creation at Babel is one for which scientific evidence can definitely be brought to bear. Did all languages descend from a common ancestor, or are they created and unchanging? Who designed regular verbs? Or do you think they just all happened to have the same endings by random chance? There’s lots of evidence, and that pushes it out of the “will it rain?” category and into the other one.
But anyway, I hope you all will be answering the main point soon. Many religions very firmly reject the existence of Gods and Goddesses other than their own. On what basis? Or are there trendy modern Christian Churches out there, where they say maybe Thor really does bring the thunder? 🙂
(But I totally agree that Dawkins’ style is unlikely to convince many of the truly religious. He is quite abrasive, isn’t he?)
Dawkins came up with “memetics.” If that ain’t BS/superstition, I don’t know what is.
Hank, by claiming man’s inability to know and make claims to universal truths, you contradict yourself because you are making a truth claim. If we are all ignorant then how do you know that we are all ignorant? Or are we all ignorant except for you?
Your belief that no one really has the truth, but instead that we are all ignorant is what leads to closed-mindedness most of all. If I live in a world full of ignorant people who don’t really know the truth, then I have no reason to listen to anyone and attempt to get closer to the truth. Instead, human nature being what it is, I would prefer to remain where I am comfortable, with all of my prejudices and misconceptions.
But if in fact there is a truth out there to be known and some people have more of it than others because their beliefs conform more closely to reality than others, then I can only benefit from being open-minded, from listening to and considering every belief and then using reason and the evidence of my senses to determine what I think about this world we live in and how and why it got here.
Believing firmly that there is God, or there is no God, or that God is everything, or that God created everything does not necessarily make you intolerant or intellectually dishonest. That’s rather unfair and I think counter-factual, as there have been many intellectually honest and brilliant thinkers who have held many different views and have held them firmly.
The irony is that you call people intellectually dishonest for believing that only their beliefs are right, yet you seem to consider your agnosticism superior to every other belief system. You claim that only your disbelief is right.
A guy I know in the States mentioned this during a discussion on “The Selfish Gene”:
Exactly. No one’s beliefs are “right” because they’re just that, beliefs. If you believe in something that you have absolutely no tangible evidence of (belief in God, or conversely, belief in absolutely no god) then you’re being somewhat dishonest with yourself. I can say that I believe in ghosts, but since I’ve never seen a ghost I’d be fairly dishonest in announcing that yes, ghosts exist, end of story.
Instead, I’d just rather say that I flat out don’t know about the existence of God and what form he/it would take. I’ll likely never know in this life, so I’ll suspend my judement.
I was in Egypt back in May. One of the oldest civilisations on Earth. The reason we know that, or indeed anything about them, is because of Religion.
I saw the Temples at Luxor and Karnak, the Valley of the Kings etc etc. All preserved for me to goggle at because of religion.
The amount of effort that humankind has expended on the invisible and unknowable is massive compared to anything else, exept space travel, that we have ever attempted.
I agree with Dawkins. Logically, to this single human being, me, there is no God. No dude with a fat rule book. Yet still I want to knee him in the balls for his bloody TONE!
He neglects the sheer weight of social thought that religion has brought the world (well some anyway. unlike the Mayas, great buildings, messy communion).
Religion has brought us many things like being truthful, being honest, charitable etc.
Those traits may be already there hardwired into us, and we just use religion as an excuse to activate them now and again. And Yet And Yet.
No Logically, I cannot believe in God . But illogically-
I’d sure like to!
Yeah, very clever, Hank. What you’re talking about is the Cogito, except you’re limiting it to deities and nowt else for no apparent reason. We don’t merely have no tangible evidence for the existence or non-existence of gods; we also have no tangible evidence for the existence or non-existence of cats, tables, the weather, and ourselves. All very intellectually interesting, but fundamentally useless for living our day-to-day lives. Most people do believe in their own existence and many other things besides (at least, I believe they do, if they exist), and I bet you do. So, why aren’t you agonising that you might really be a brain in a vat in a lab somewhere, or that this is all a dream? Simple: because you prefer to believe things for which you have evidence. So why don’t you apply that same reasoning to religion?
If you can’t bring me a scientifically demonstrable proof for your religious claims, then shut up and leave me alone.
And of all the adherants of various religions I’ve locked horns with over the years, of the spittle dripping, eye popping, vein bulging, face twitching, hyperventilating nutcases, by far the majority were atheists.
It’s a religion. Atheists make unproven claims about unknown things and vehemently demand to be believed. They can be as loopy as any other religious zealots can be. And worse than most.
And when you think about, how crazy is it to adhere to a dogma that has no pay-off? Atheism has nothing material to offer that admitting ignorance doesn’t, except the need to compartmentalize your beliefs from your powers of observation and deduction.
It’s just another religion and should be treated as one.
One of the things that I find helpful in seeing the positive side to religion is the way that so often the free trading party is also the religious party. Conservatives, Republicans, BJP, Maart Laar’s Pro Patria Union, and so on. I suspect that this is because religious people are mostly driven to study and discuss their faith in detail in a way that atheists and agnostic generally aren’t. It is possible to have a thoughtful and detailed atheist faith; Sartre and Nietszche are both good examples of this. For a lot of atheists, though, the nature of “good” and so on are simply obvious and not worthy of thought.
The problem with Dawkins for atheists is that his nature of good is so abhorrent that you cannot really believe in it. He believes that the survival of your decendents is all that matters. That is what we should strive for and all else is irrelevent. Without God, or some other form of existential absolute that performs the same functions, what is an atheist to rely on to refute this Peter Singer-like horror? I often imagine that Dawkins must be responsible for more Christianity than any preacher since Billy Graham.
Everyone (and I mean everyone) has a “religion” and a “god” or “gods”.
We have let our misuse of language define “scientific”, “rational”, “faith”, “religion”, etc in ways that fundamentally blind us to this reality.
Your “god(s)” are what you hold to be ultimate in reality and your “religion” are the beliefs that come from that about who we are, why we are here, and how we should live.
Talk to any secular/scientist/realist/athiest and you will be able to show them the beliefs that they hold that cannot be based on any “scientific” evidence.
I once heard Margaret Atwood utter the following statement “anything inside our heads is just belief”…and she said that with certainty and with a straight face as she merrily asserted that her statement was both absolute truth and merely a belief.
What matters is how a religion accords with reality – by their fruits you will know them.
“The wisdom of the world is foolishness”
Seems like Dawkins personifies this. He is probably the worst enemy of his little coffee-klatch for bitter old men.
James of England, I disagree with you. My experience is that many supposedly religious people do not discuss their faith. So much so that they cannot even really express what their belief is.
Atheists can and have developed “belief” systems to live by that do not require the authorisation of an irrational and vindicative God. And these systems do not have to accord with Peter Singer’s views. I’m sorry, but any belief system that puts an imaginary law giver ahead of the rights of man is going to do some pretty horrific things.
James of England, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don’t think Nietzsche had the most thoughtful belief system, just a very persuasive way of advocating for it. All rhetoric and no logic. I get the impression that his conception of the nature of good and evil was “what Nietzsche likes” and “what Nietzsche doesn’t like.”
Hank, I totally understand if you feel that the evidence is insufficient to make a conclusion either way, but see that’s the difference. I totally understand, even if I may disagree. I wouldn’t accuse you of being intellectually dishonest simply for that fact that you don’t see sufficient evidence for a belief either way. I might accuse you of being wrong, but that’s another thing entirely. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that there are and have been intelligent, intellectually honest, and tolerant adherents to each of the world’s major belief systems?
In a book by Lois McMaster Bujold, one of her characters is an emperor on his death bed after a long and fruitful reign. He confesses that he has always been…
“…an Atheist. It’s a simple faith, but it has comforted me.”
Atheism is a religion as provable as any. We’ll find out in a bit.
People who argue that Dawkins’ case against religion is weak or over-emotive miss the point. He isn’t trying to bring light to a controversial topic; he clearly wants to fan the flames of the culture war. That, by now, is a more surefire way for him to gain social status and make money through book sales, lecture tours etc. than trying to enhance his reputation as a biologist.
Why else would he make inflammatory comments such as “Catholicism is more harmful to children than sexual abuse”.
No it isn’t. Atheism is a position. You can come to it a number of ways. There are even atheistic religions (Buddhism being the prime living example; Stoicism the most important extinct one.) The characteristic of religions is that they prescribe codes of behaviour and morals, which atheism per se does not.
To put it another way: If atheism is a religion, then Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Baha’i, and several others, whose position is that there is a single all-powerful creator god wholly responsible for the universe, are all the same religion.
My take on Dawkins is that he has become more rigid and aggressive as he’s become more frustratedly furious, as 30 years of advocating rationalism have had next to no effect on the people he’s debating against, day after day, year after year.
The world may or may not have become more atheistic in that time. I suspect Britain has, and even the US has, marginally. But the people he has to face haven’t. They’ve, if anything, become smugger as their grip on their sheep has been unaffected.
This is a frustration familiar to libertarians in the sphere of political economy. You want to try to shock people out of their complacency by putting your points in a more and more controversial form just to get attention. But it is a mistake to assume that shock tactics will engage people who aren’t ready to be engaged. Most don’t want to think, and you are in danger of giving them grounds not to.
I’m not upset by most of Dawkins’ negative assertions about religion, because I generally agree with them, even in quite extreme form. And I’m glad they are said, and got into public discourse as memes. But I do recognise why they are ineffective as direct attack, which he doesn’t seem to.
Where he falls flat on his face is in attempts to be subtle and manipulate discourse. Rational people are often poor at this. (God knows, I am.) The whole thing about “Brights” is just embarrassing, implying as it does an (obviously wrong) inherent intellectual superiority for athiests as individuals merely by virtue of their being atheists. It is as patronising as anything flourished by the religiose, to assert by implication that all the world’s religious people are not mistaken or culturally bound or pursuing psychologically satisfying theories or seeking moral foundations… just stupid.
As an atheist, I find so-called “militant atheists” like Dawkins quite off putting. Another good example is Penn Jillette, who often uses his radio and TV shows to attack religious belief. Now, I quite like “Bullshit”, but he has a tendency to rant on his radio show about Christianity in a far less humorous way. Personally, I got over being upset about Christians and their influence when I was still in high school.
Another excellent example is famous blogger Jason Kottke of kottke.org. He’s a typical metrosexual liberal, and good lord rarely a week goes by without him feeling the need to link to some anti-creationism piece on the internet. I feel sorry for creationists, because they are put in the spot of either dismissing the biblical account of creation (which may put them at odds with their church, and potentially the Big Guy himself), or believing theories presented by the same class of people who are selling the certainty of anthropogenic global warming. Clearly Darwin was right, but I can understand siding with your church over the “esteemed members of the academy”.
As a libertarian, I think it is important to keep in mind that if we do ever get our way (yeah right), that it will largely be religious organizations who fill in for the defunded and/or dissolved social welfare agencies. Many of them feel that charity is a requirement for a moral lifestyle, and that belief has some important positive social benefits. Lets just say that I prefer “faith-based” to “taxpayer-based” when it comes to social spending.
Finally, as to the atheist vs. agnostic argument that some commentators have brought up, as I said at the beginning I consider myself an atheist. This doesn’t mean that I am 100% sure about the non-existence of god, but I am satisfied with the (lack of) evidence and I have decided. I am not a fence-sitter, which is how I would define an agnostic.
Johnathan, you know that I do not go around advertising my blog [look at its name for a start] and so I’d like you to delete this once you’ve read it. It’s just that I lost your e-mail in my crash and this is the only way to tell you that I’ve just posted on your comment. The url [delete it once you’ve read it] is:
http://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/2006/11/defending-west-falling-at-final-hurdle.html
Ohhh, gizmo, you’d certainly liven up Bros. Judd.
You should take a look or three.
Atheism is a religion, in Dawkins’ mind, he is god.
I wasn’t aware that Dawkins would have the state ban private indoctrination of children. Such a ban sounds very dangerous to me (for one, I don’t think it would stop at religious ideas: “anti-social” ideas or “irrational” views on environmental issues would be next).
Live and let live, please. That includes letting us tell our children about Jesus if we so wish. This is not a problem, has worked reasonably okay for the past two millenia, and should be able to continue without state interference. Leave it alone. Seriously.
I see that yet again some people equate atheism to religion. Not so: atheism is the absence of religious belief. That is all. It is not the same. One is not required to prove that X does not exist, only that it does.
I don’t really know what is Dawkins’ motivation and I have yet to read his latest book, but as I said in my post, I don’t know whether he is a very good advocate of his point of view. He comes across as being insufferably arrogant, rather like the current Chelsea football manager…
As a Satanist, I am my own god. Therefore, I can quite easily prove the existence of my god.
Therefore we are the one true faith.
Re atheism not being a religion. It seems to me Dawkins proves the opposite: atheism (like humanism, socialism, feminism, etc) can become a religion, in terms of the usual behavioural symptoms.
I think it’s a bit brainless to describe agnosticism as “fence-sitting”. You might as well say it’s fence-sitting as a physicist to be agnostic about whether the universe had a beginning or it didn’t. On present data, it’s impossible to tell and not holding a belief is the best thing you can do.
There are far too many people out there these days who have beliefs. (“Well, I think people should have the right to wear veils.” “Oh, I think they definitely shouldn’t.” “I think if God existed he would definitely have shown his presence by means of a scientifically verifiable miracle.” Etc etc)
See, I don’t get that. What is the downside of forming a opinion. We are not all judges here, we don’t have to remain impartial, and there is nothing that precludes us from changing our minds in the future. And I would say that a physicist, or anyone, who is so afraid of being wrong that they won’t form an opinion, even if only privately held, about controversial issues is pretty boring. Yes, fine, include a disclaimer that “this is conjecture” or “this is only my opinion” or “this may be shown wrong in the end” but people should feel free to weigh arguments and theories as befits their evidence. And if they find them lacking, well…
Nothing wrong with having opinions on all manner of topics, even when it might be more rational to be agnostic, except (a) don’t shove it down other people’s throats, (b) don’t start legislating on the basis of it.
The hypocrisy of people like Dawkins is to expect us to agree that Christianity is the worst culprit in this respect. Perhaps it’s different in America, but here in Britain I feel much more assailed by the arrogance of egalitarianism, PC and all the other beliefs of the ‘liberal’ cultural elite, who assume they’re in the right and deserve to be promoted in educational institutions, than I do by Christianity. Christian leader don’t even believe themselves any more in the doctrine (e.g. God shouldn’t be “he”; let’s abolish limbo, etc.) let alone try to sell it to others.
I’d rather be boring than get embroiled in pointless debate. The important thing is not what opinion you hold, but whether you’re prepared to fight for someone else’s right to express an opposing one. I would, and I regard Dawkins’s attempt to ban the teaching of creationism as an affront to free speech, however dotty creationism may be.
The problem is neither atheism nor religion, but rather dogmatism… and atheists are no less prone to that mental disorder than The Godly. If a person believes he is in possession of The Unalterable Truth, that is a person largely immune to rationality. He may be a person you are able to converse with but always make sure you are slightly closer to the nearest gun than he is no matter how polite he seems to be at the moment.
Dawkins may be intelligent but I am far from convinced he is particularly rational. When he says he “believes in democracy” within the context of his views, all my alarm bells go off as this is the sort of person who you want to keep as far away as possible from the violence backed product of political processes. Decode what he is saying and it translates as “people who disagree with my views on religion need to be thrown in jail by armed men”.
Five things I couldn’t give a rat’s arse about:
Dawkins’ views on religion
Chomsky’s views on foreign affairs
Bono’s views on global finance
Tony Blair’s views on climatology
“Dr” “Baroness” Jenny Tonge’s views on anything at all.
Richard Dawkins may claim to be an atheist, but he is clearly a staunch desciple of the eco-theoligical dogma of anthropogenic global warming. This, as Michael Crighton pointed out in a speech is no less of a religion than christianity or mohammedanism and has all the same elements of primitive superstition. An ideal paradise and a fall from grace (mother earth contaminated by the misuse of knowledge), a evil world (humans and pollution) and a promise of salvation (sustainability etc).
Just as christians or mohammedans hate jews or each other because emphatic dogma and denouncing the other is the only tool you have when there is no evidence or rationale, so Richard Dawkins vehemently condemns religions due to the fact that he ironically adheres to a different (but no so different) religion also lacking in evidence.
In any argument where fact and reason are not your ally, the most proven method of carrying on your position is by strawman arguments and/or misrepresenting your own position to make it appear to be something it is not.
This Atheism proponent’s swapping ‘religious belief’ for ‘belief in God/s’ helps to obscure things enough that it is necessary to challange this statement.
Atheism is not ‘the absence of belief in God/s’. It is ‘the belief in the absence of God/s’. They are not semantically different, they are contradictory statements.
Agnosticism is not “a fence-sitter, which is how I would define an agnostic” if the inference is that an agnostic is half in either camp. An Agnostic is in neither camp. An agnostic say that statements of knowledge are false in that they are unproven. That they are in fact a substitution of ‘conjecture’ for ‘knowledge’.
On a different point. While there is a sub-category of agnostic that believes the existence of God is ‘unknowable‘, most other agnostics believe that position to be an unproven overstep and believe the existence of God to be simply unknown/unproven.
Fabian:
I substantially agree with what you said, but in the article Dawkins is quoted as saying, “I’m quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism.” Perhaps he meant he has a keen interest in how belligerent statements are a poor strategy, politically, for persuading people of the virtues of atheism, in which case what you said above would be correct. But I took him to mean that he has a keen interest in actually persuading people.
I agree with this, too, to a point. But we’re talking about belief here, not knowledge. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “On balance, I believe there is a god/there is not a god, but I acknowledge that I can never be certain.” To use your analogy, I suspect most physicists do believe something about the origin of the universe, but most also probably remain open to the possibility that they are wrong.
Johnathan:
Not quite so. There are two kinds of atheism: the belief that there are no deities, or the absence of any belief in deities (i.e., either “no opinion” or the belief that the question itself is without meaning). The former is a religious belief. The latter is not; it is the same as
Midwesterner, in stating that atheism is the absence of religious belief, I don’t think I was trying some sort of cute debating trick. It happens to be my view that atheism is the complete absence of belief in a deity. Atheism is not a commitment to believe in X regardless of evidence. That would be a contradiction in terms, like irrational physics. If evidence existed of an incorporeal god who can achieve all manner of things but without any obvious shape or physical presence, then of course I would not be an atheist.
Atheism does not require faith because faith implies a willingness to believe in something even if there is no immediate, verifiable evidence in whatever is the object of one”s faith. To believe in the existence of the chair I am sitting on is not the same as believing that Christ rose from the dead, or that a chap called Moses managed to part the Red Sea by clicking his fingers.
The intellectual twists and turns required by religion is ultimately something that I could not put up with. I used to be an Anglican Christian and still have a lot of respect for aspects of that religion, which is why I think the approach of Dawkins is counter-productive. But in essence I agree with Dawkins’ harsh assessment and his logic is overwhelming. I just wish he could be a bit less of a jerk about it.
Johnathan,
I wrote this reply and was editing it when your comment came up. It’s relevent to part of your comment regarding terminology. You said atheism is
The word ‘agnostic’ is usually attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley, who’s works can be found here. Here is a key statement of his found in Chapter VII of Collected Essays –
In light of this statement, it seems that where ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ are used in the same discussion, ‘absence of belief’ is the very definition of agnostic.
I will address a separate comment to the statement
To the extent that atheism is construed to mean belief that God/s do/es not exist, I’ve yet to see anything remotely approaching a proof.
First, there is the problem of definition. While by no means universal, most religions that have a God stipulate that God created the universe.
To hold a belief that there was no coherent thought (or even incoherent) behind the creation of our universe is an insubstantiable belief.
I’ve just had a rather enjoyable romp through a bunch of cosmology sites talking about origins, extremes and understanding. Talk about ‘branes’ and ‘bangs’. The inflationary model and the ekpyrotic model. And on …
How can we see out of our universe (both literally and figuratively) when the very water we swim in is space and time, which is confined to the presence of matter?
In light of our perspective, to make an absolute statement that ‘there is no other’ is preposterous beyond belief. And if we cannot know that there is no other, we cannot know what relationship it may have to us.
I find it fascinating to see all these arguments against Dawkins’ position which are either not his position at all or which he’s adequately answered in his book. (Or at least, the arguments here certainly don’t address his answers.) It’s almost as if most of the people commenting haven’t actually read it. 😉
The faith/proof and atheism/agnosticism issues I’ve discussed already in my post above. (Which I note with amusement that nobody has been able to answer and so is being heavily ignored.)
Dawkins’ main “proof” of the non-existence of God is that it is so incredibly fantastically improbable (for exactly the reasons Creationists think merely human intelligence is improbable, multiplied by infinity) that it doesn’t function as an explanation. How did God come about? And if you come up with some baloney about him being ‘outside time and causality’, why can’t that apply to the scientific explanation?
Dawkins explains it at considerably greater length and completeness than I do. But essentially he is turning the believer’s favourite “argument from design” around and asking who designed God. And if you think something as complex and sophisticated as God could arise without being created, then why should you have a problem with that when it comes to anything else?
Pa,
The only part of your previous comment I found worth my commenting on, was your advocacy of relativism with the ‘tiny unicorn’ versus ‘it might rain tomorrow’ statement.
Days can statistically be shown to show patterns over time that meet scientific standards for proofs. Over the millenia, when certain conditions exist on the planet on one day, the likelyhood of rain the next can be statistically predicted with acceptable accuracy. (Unless your planning on going sailing, in which case they will have gotten it all wrong.) In other words, this is not a case of uncertainty, it is unpredictabiliy. But it has and will rain. This is one of the strawman arguments I was talking about.
Probabilities and uncertainties are not the same.
prob·a·bil·i·ty Pronunciation (. . .)
n. pl. prob·a·bil·i·ties
. . .
3.
a. The likelihood that a given event will occur: little probability of rain tonight.
b. Statistics A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.
Probabilities can be certainties. And by equating a scientific probability with an uncertainty, you are able to create an example demonstrating degrees of certainty.
Not that long ago, ether theory was a popular belief. But at no time, did it equate to a probability, it was an uncertainty. Uncertainty is not relative, it is either certain, or not certain. Conjecture, while it may have varying degrees of plausibility, does not equate with greater or lesser degrees of certainty.
Tedd,
I was being provocative when I said Richard Dawkins wants to aggravate the culture war. I don’t know that, but I am sceptical of his image as a rational analyser, whose only concern is the prevention of anti-intellectual indoctrination. As various people have said, his style is not suggestive of objective, dispassionate debate.
RD’s arguments against the existence of God are interesting, but not exactly intellectually scintillating, and certainly not deserving of a proselytising mission. (“RD is brilliant but arrogant”, it is often said. This stuff is supposed to be brilliant? Pur-lease.) His claim he is promoting rationalism is exaggerated. He would do better to condemn dumbing down on television, which has a far worse effect on the quality of thinking than religious belief.
What I find objectionable is the selectivity of his attacks. If you’re going to complain about children being indoctrinated with phoney values, why not start with the left wing inspired ideology taught in schools these days under banners such as “citizenship” and “ethics”.
The reason RD picks on religion is simple (and it’s this which undermines his claim to be acting as the champion of enlightenment): it’s an easy target because it’s already fashionable to kick it. Its intellectual power – certainly in formerly Protestant countries other than the US – is minimal. (I have a bit more sympathy with Dennett plugging the same line in the US as Christianity actually has some cultural influence over there.)
Re RD’s interest in “the politics of persuading people”. Why do we have to have a politics? That implies you know the right answer, which is not what science should be about. Incidentally, that includes the theory of evolution itself which, while it has a lot going for it, also has some serious problems and may not be the last word on the issue.
According to the Wired article, the leader of RD’s “brights” Glen Slade says that moderates (e.g. agnostics) “give a power base to extremists”. That sounds to me like taking sides in a culture war – and forcing others to do so – not like promoting rational analysis.
Atheism is not a religion in the same sense as theism is not a religion. Not much in common between either group. Just the same as there are a lot of theist groupings of beliefs, there are a lot of atheist (existentialists etc.) Keynes had a great line: “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” It works just as well for theologians.
Guy, I feel quite sure that you have a developed sense of right and wrong that comes from somewhere. How do you decide if a given action is morally good?
Pete D.
I don’t know what you think religious folk do on Sundays/Saturdays/Fridays, but a lot of them spend time discussing their faith. Many put in additional time at other points in the week. Many also spend considerable time in solitary contemplation of their faith. There are few institutions that support that level of intellectual activity in the atheist world. Few atheists regularly attend sermons or bible studies or any kind of equivalents. In the study time that the average Christian, Jew, or Muslim spends studying they accumulate the equivalent amount of knowledge to that which might be gained through several advanced degrees. Not every theist is particularly intelligent and some have difficulty taking advantage of the breadth of knowledge available to them, but it is almost impossible to spend that amount of time thinking about something without learning anything.
Aberlard: “God is a personification of the moral code which allows a people to thrive.”
Congratulations. Now go and persuade all the nutcases who blow up tube trains and/or abortion clinics that God is just a personification of the moral code. Until that happens, the question of belief in God is still quite relevant.
Hank Scorpio: “No one’s beliefs are “right” because they’re just that, beliefs.”
I believe that Paris is in France. I believe that the Earth orbits the Sun. Your statement would have it that my Paris-is-in-France-ism is equivalent to a belief in the existence of pixies.
James of England,
As I recall you trained (are training?) as a theologian. While you may see many nuanced subtleties, I’ve been going with generally accepted uses on this thread and this blog generally.
To my perception, the use of ‘religion’ in this thread has meant a belief or beliefs based on faith as opposed to scientific proofs.
For ‘faith based’, I’ve been assuming the definition of faith found in Hebrews 11:1 – (NIV)
It then goes on describing examples of things Christians believe by faith.
Atheism, when defined to exclude agnosticism, is faith based.
This definition works very well on this blog as it also allows inclusion of social and environmental beliefs to be defined as the religions we here recognize them as. “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
I’m pretty much an atheist, which is normally defined as a belief there is no God. Jonathan, I think your use of the term is simply incorrect. As others have pointed out, no belief is agnosticism.
Of course I’m not what you’d call a dogmatic atheist – why should I be? If I don’t believe there’s a higher force will throw me in hell for not being an atheist, I see no reason to adhere to the belief “religiously”. I find Dawkins and his ilk intellectually curious – if they are correct in their atheism, they accomplish nothing, as life is just the dance of atoms without meaning. If they are wrong, they condemn every convert (along with themmselves) to eternal damnation. What’s the point?
But I do find religion, and specifically Christianity, good for a society. The morality of a religion has a sort of cultural inertia for a few generations – atheists know when something is “wrong”, but they don’t have a satisfying explanation as to why this should be so. In fact, I would go so far as to say the rise of atheism leads, in all cases, to the destruction of a society, either by a more religious society or simply though decay. We’re witnessing this in Europe right now as birth rates plummt and Islam fills the spiritual void left by the death of Christianity.
By the way, this isn’t a new argument.
Mid,
Probabilities and uncertainties are not the same? I’m very tempted to ask on what basis and using what definitions, but we’ll probably get sidetracked down some Bayesian vs Frequentist rabbit hole. The point is there is a difference between situations where each hypothesis’s probabilty has a similar magnitude, and cases where one so vastly outweighs the other that to call the question uncertain is pedanticism. I apologise for being rude, but your “probability vs uncertainty” blether is a blatant distraction from that. I’m a mathematician; I do know what ‘probabilty’ means. And it is perfectly possible to apply Bayesian belief to things like the luminiferous aether question, and to assign differing degrees of confidence to conjecture. (Incidentally, scientists knew perfectly well that the idea was dodgy, like we know today that General Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics – they just didn’t have the maths to offer anything better.) The Riemann Hypothesis is almost certainly true; the God hypothesis almost certainly false – there is no difficulty in this.
You can easily generate an infinite number of mutually incompatible hypotheses about God (and about teapots and unicorns and flying saucers). If you were, on symmetry grounds, to consider them all equally likely, then their probability must be 1/infinity each. That’s why we don’t believe in things without evidence.
You don’t even mention the question of how religions know that the Gods of other religions don’t exist. You don’t give any viable explanation as to why the God hypothesis is any different from the invisible unicorn hypothesis. You call the comparison of uncertain versus obvious “relativism” but don’t explain what you mean, let alone why it invalidates the argument. You don’t discuss the difference between the non-interacting deist creator that agnosticism acknowledges and the miracle-wielding physics-violating historical God that religions attract their followers with.
I won’t insist on a point-by-point rebuttal. Just one issue; on what basis do religions deny the existence of other Gods and Goddesses? Religions claim other religions are false – what standard of evidence do they accept for this? And how do they answer the similar claims of those other religions about theirs?
“atheists know when something is “wrong”, but they don’t have a satisfying explanation as to why this should be so.”
Don’t they? What makes you so sure?
And in what way is “Because God said so” satisfying?
” .. You don’t even mention the question of how religions know that the Gods of other religions don’t exist.”
Ummm, how about …
“There is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet” … Koran.
“I am the Way, no one comes to the Father but by (through) Me”… Jesus.
“Anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is evil.” … Richard Dawkins.
All religions need to assert that they are the “Truth” whether islam, christianity, atheism, darwinism, feminism, etc, etc, etc..
Atheism makes the individual god, so it is in every sense a religion with expected modes of belief and action. And as Richard Dawkins and his sorry acolytes demonstrate, it seems to be a religion of decidedly bitter people.
Ah, Pa.
You may know math, it’s English that seems to be the problem.
cer·tain·ty Pronunciation (. . .)
n. pl. cer·tain·ties
1. The fact, quality, or state of being certain: the certainty of death.
2. Something that is clearly established or assured: “On the field of battle there are no certainties” Tom Clancy.
Synonyms: certainty, certitude, assurance, conviction
These nouns mean freedom from doubt. Certainty implies a thorough consideration of evidence: “the emphasis of a certainty that is not impaired by any shade of doubt” Mark Twain.
end quote.
Since you are basing your case on a better understanding of science, I assume you are using hypothesis in the scientific sense.
hy·poth·e·sis Pronunciation (. . .)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
end quote.
And while we’re at it, the Reimann ‘Hypothesis’ is a hypothesis in name only, in reality it is a conjecture that is treated as a hypothesis. Note that they actually mention the Reimann Hypothesis by name, refering to it as a conjecture and calling everything based on it ‘conditional’. In other words, they wish it to be true, they believe it to be true, they act as though it’s true. But it is still only conjecture. A great big house of cards falls down if it’s not true. The same can be said for any other faith based belief.
Since this discussion is one of epistemology, these distinctions matter. If choosing words carefully and trying to use them as they are defined is pedantic, then I try to be guilty.
Regarding other of your statements, “the God hypothesis almost certainly false”. This one is nowhere near the realm of hypothesis. This is a conjecture.
You over estimate me. I can’t easily generate an infinite number of anything. The best I can do is label something ‘infinite’. And frankly, Pa, you’re making my case, not breaking it. The best you can do is describe conjectures of varying plausibility. And plausibility is innately suspect. When no proofs are available, and no disproofs are available, how do you calculate plausibility? By feelings and intuitions. While your feelings and intuitions may be true, in the absense of proofs/disproofs, they are just conjectures.
Things like the Reimann ‘Hypothesis’, quantum uncertainty, and religion can explain a/o predict things while failing to be provably true. They are just explanations wrapped around an observation. Granting them privilege as ‘likelier’ is comforting, but not sound philosophically.
The point of your entire argument seems to be to get me (and/or others) to admit certainty as having varying probabilities. And therefore deserving varying treatments. Certainty is a conclusion, not a prediction. In a world were certainty is required before ideas are incorporated into laws, likelyhood and plausibility don’t cut it. And it’s a good thing because likelyhood and plausibility are not proofs and therefor we don’t (at least morally) have to concede ludicrous environmental and social (and religious) theories into law based on democratically measuring ‘plausibility’.
You are trying to get me to cut some slack for beliefs that you hold without proof and that are comfortable to you. I don’t see anyway to do that by principle. It’s just one person’s (or many) opinion. It’s pragmatism to the core.
BTW, this statement “the non-interacting deist creator that agnosticism acknowledges” is
crockflawed. Agnosticism by its definition and name does not acknowledge anything.Uain,
To my observation, it seems more likely to choose collectivism.
Midwesterner-
Good point!
I would submit that they get to collectivism through a ’round about way. First they start with radical individualism. Then comes the self doubt, the fear and finally the safety of the collective.
Pa,
I don’t see how a true atheist can have an absolute moral system. Why would you ever do something that wasn’t strictly in your interest? I’m not saying atheists could never agree on enforced societal arrangements like a legal code. Not because they believe it’s right but because they know it’s in their interest to do so.
The problem comes when you consider actions at the level of the individual. Let’s say my neighbor has a cute wife, and I don’t consider him a physical threat (for whatever reason). Let’s further say she finds me attractive, and I know I can sleep with her if I put the effort into it.
If I’m a Christian, I refrain, because one of the commandments (I forget which one) tells me it’s against God’s law. The fact that her infidelity might cause her husband to leave her and the kids, and that those kids are more likely to grow up to be burdens on society is irrelevant.
As an atheist, do I have a reason to control myself? Will I refrain for the sake of the greater good? Why?
Of course sometimes Christians will do things they believe to be wrong. But if a substantial portion of them uphold Christian values there’s a large positive effect on society.
Oh, and “because God said so” isn’t so much satisfying as it is an implied threat. There’s always an “or else you’ll go to hell” there too. That’s what makes people willing to sublimate their worldly interests for the betterment of society at large, even if that betterment isn’t the underlying motivation.
Like I said, I’m pretty much an atheist. But I realize my value system comes from my parents, who are devout Catholics. Will my children (assuming I have any) inherit my values without the “or you’ll go to hell” part?
Forming moral theories does not require God. In fact I would say following behavioural religious laws would prevent me forming a moral theory because “god says you must always wear a hat or you will be a sinner” pretty much precludes me from being able to form any theory on any subject in which the religions to which I subscribe has rulings if I am a fundamentalist.
In other words my ability to make moral judgements ends with “morality is whatever God says it is” (as passed down to me via the The Rev. Richard D. Smallbottom or whoever).
Absolutely. I cannot figure out why people always suppose that one cannot be moral without a Supreme Being of some kind. I suspect this stems from the mistaken idea that morality is not something that arises from a rational understanding of what we need to thrive and flourish (the Aristoteleian tradition), but is something that is imposed by force, either through the threat of eternal damnation, or some other unpleasant consequence.
When people state that you cannot have morality without belief in God, they hold their own faith to a sort of ransom and connive in a sort of “noble lie” like this: “I must believe in God, even if it is rubbish, because otherwise anarchy would break out.”
If you think about it for a second, the idea of “do to others as they would to you” is plain common sense. You can even see how morality arises from things like game theory, and so on. No God is necessary.
I suspect this line of argument really pisses some religious types off.
Uain, I differ again.
Agnostics ‘think’ or ‘wonder’. Atheists ‘know’.
People who think are inclined towards individualism because they do their own thinking. The thought occurs inside theirselves.
People who know are inclined towards collectivism because they accept knowledge without thought. The thought occurs outside themselves.
Just my conjecture, mind. 🙂
I agree with Perry. Moral codes are best formed in the absence (or perceived imperfection) of other beliefs.
God is either a discovery made during the formation process, or an after the fact marketing ploy.
Johnathan, it’s possible for a belief in God to mandate the use of reason. In typical Deism, God wrote the laws and our highest calling is to discover and apply them. In keeping with this, one might almost say that Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, etc are ‘saints’.
And the Golden Rule is only common sense if you share the underlying values. When you believe that all consequences come from an all powerful source, either a God or a master or a collective, then common sense says ‘please the boss’.
Question-begging statement, MidWest. Even if a person had no pre-existing “underlying values” (whatever they may be), if a person realises that he has a more likely chance of being treated well if he treats others in a similar fashion, then he will. Rational long-term self-interest, which is the basis for a lot of what we call moral codes, does not need a pre-existing value system that somehow captures Man’s mind through a sort of religious portal in our heads.
Of course, some evolutionary pscychologists like to argue that at a certain level, our behaviours, both selfish and altruistic, can be biologicially hardwired. I am not really confident on this issue so I won’t press the point.
“To my observation, it seems more likely to choose collectivism.”
“I would submit that they get to collectivism through a ’round about way. First they start with radical individualism. Then comes the self doubt, the fear and finally the safety of the collective.”
How so? Most atheists I know don’t hang around in groups or meet on Sundays, or organize to raise money for the poor (not that they never give to charity), or talk about atheism most of the time… only on Blogs. How anyone could claim that atheism is more akin to collectism than is any organized religion seems pretty far fetched to me.
I’m an atheist. The question of god is not even valid to me. I see no reason to entertain it, as I see no reason to enterain the idea of invisible unicorns, teapots.. all the usual suspects. I observe nothing to convince me the question of god needs to be asked. And just because there are items we can’t answer now (start of history, end of the universe etc…) doesn’t mean I don’t think those answers could not convievably be answered down the road but regular old observation (albeit a highly sophisticated, and technologically developed observation).
Also. The ability to sleep with your nieghbors wife has nothing to do with your religion/lack there off, and everything to do with who you are as an individual. Some can live comfortably in the knowledge they have hurt someone. Some can’t. Some are compulsive gamblers, some aren’t.
You have just named at least three pre-existing value systems.
Rational over faith is a value.
Long-term over ‘eat drink and be merry … ‘ is a value.
Self-interest is a value only held by those who believe in the ‘self’. People who hold collective perceptions of identity to do not share it.
Please read my last sentence at 3:47 carefully.
Duncan, if you don’t ask the question, you probably don’t claim to have the answer to it either. I suggest that you are an agnostic, not an atheist. You don’t appear to have any beliefs on the matter at all.
My understanding is that an Agnostic is not willing to make a decalrative statement either way. “I can’t know so I won’t *decide*”
Where as I, through my experience and perceptions, have decided there is a reason to work a god into the equation.
If tomorrow, I experience something where somehow, the most likely explanation, to the best of MY knowledge, is a divine being. I’d reconsider based on that evidence.
The teapot orbiting mars example — I can’t say for sure there isn’t, but I woudn’t consider myself teapot agnostic. As of know, I don’t believe there is a teapot orbiting mars.. and feel pretty safe in that assumption. Same with god.
If through some loose, indequate wording on my part, someone can say I’m being inconsistant or comitting some logical fallacy or another… Seriously.. you know what I’m saying.
That should be
“have decided there is *NO* reason to work a god into the equation.
Duncan,
Since what people believe has a way of finding its way into law, I think the difference between personal assumptions verses beliefs is a significant one.
Pa A named a conjecture that is almost certainly true but not yet proven. My answer to people who would use that as adequate grounds for writing into law I say, there are many things that have been thought by a majority of persons to be almost certainly true. Yet, we should not act on these ‘almost certainties’. At one point or another a great many falsehoods have seemed almost certainly true.
I most emphatically do not argue that there is a teapot … , but if you try to put your opinions against one into law without scientific evidence, I will fight you with great energy.
I hold throughout all of my debates here and in other threads and blogs, that agnosticism is the only truth founded basis for interaction between people who do not share faiths. Have I addressed your point?
Duncan, a comment on your interpretation of ‘agnosticism’.
Whether or not they believe knowledge to be possible is not, of necessity, a qualifier for the designation. Many agnostics just don’t think it has a high enough payoff to pursue the question.
For example, many Deists believe that God wrote the laws of the universe and our highest calling is to learn and apply them. Many Atheists believe there is not a God, so their choice is to learn the laws of the universe and apply them.
Many agnostics look at those two alternatives and say, ‘Is a choice necessary?’
“Have I addressed your point?”
Wellll…
I still don’t see how it can be said, other than totally subjectivly, that Atheists are more akin or likely to be collectivists.
And for the record, I am against passing any law surrounding any of these issues… separation of church/state and all that… As long as ones chosen belief doesn’t interferre with anyone elses, or their liberties and freedoms in general – hey, go sick.
Base your life on whatever you want.
An athesit trying to outlaw religion, is no better/worse than a religion trying to make their system law.
“Whether or not they believe knowledge to be possible is not, of necessity, a qualifier for the designation. Many agnostics just don’t think it has a high enough payoff to pursue the question.”
I see nothing to compel me to believe in god.
and so,
I will currently spend no time persuing the possibility.
thus,
For now, without further reason to look into it, my current opinion is that there is no god.
What does that make me in your book Mid?
Actually, while I confess to a little bit of baiting Uain (hense, the smiley :), there is strong reasoning behind my statement.
As a general pattern, agnostics retain doubt and with it the need for thought. It is difficult to resolve agnosticism with any form of group-think.
Atheists ‘know’ truth. Committed Atheism does not require an ongoing thought process and is not tied to individualism in any way. Some of the greatest collectives of history (USSR, China, etc) have held Atheism as doctrine. I think it is because they didn’t want their human subunits to think. It may lead to differing opinons. Thinking tends to compromise the collective.
Those last three sentences can be said for many, if not most, religions.
Faith of some kind, even Atheism, is essential for a collective.
Not being Perry, I can’t speak with certainty, but I think your opinions closely reflect his. Which, if I am understanding him correctly, I find quite rational.
I believe he considers himself an agnostic. I think that is probably what you are.
Not to kill this, but I don’t any definition of atheist that says they are not willing to ever consider the question again.
You use the term “Committed Atheism” – ok maybe there a atheists as devout as any religious zealot. But none the less, I consider my self atheist, seeing as I don’t believe their is a god, but would certainly reconsider if there was some compelling evidence to the contrary. I just don’t think that is likely is all.
As for the USSR and China etc.., those are states mandating a certain system for the purpose of control. They don’t want the competition from the church and or it’s leaders. It says nothing about atheists as people. Forced atheism my be used by governments to control people, just as you state. But this doesnt mean someone who considers themselves and atheist is likely to be a communist.
Note: I aplogize for all the atrocious spellingS, their instead of there, and other nastiness I introduce to this fine message board. I get into it, type fast and hit post even faster. I’ll try to stop littering it with typos.
Sincerley,
Duncan
Since the word ‘atheism‘ substantially predates ‘agnosticism‘, for semantic purposes I conclude anything that meets the much narrower definition of ‘agnostic’ (meaning without knowledge) to be excluded from my use of the word ‘atheist’.
To not do this would make the word ‘agnostic’ useless and make language less, not more, useful.
But it’s not like that really is it?
My *current* knowledge leads me to conclude there is no god.
We never have ALL knowledge about ANYTHING ever. But that doesn’t make us agnostic in terms of everything.
Duncan,
I just noticed that the difinition link I gave for ‘agnosticism’ is written even narrowing than the one given by the guy who coined the word and generally accepted usage.
Wikipedia makes clear that
And don’t worry about the typos. If they ever made mistake free comment a condition of expressing thoughts here, they might as well shut down. Just do like I do and make your best good-faith guess as to what the other person is trying to say.
The body of human knowledge that meets scientifics standards is huge.
My primary access to it is through faith in other people. Am I agnostic regarding scientific knowledge? If I personally do not prove the knowledge then I should say ‘yes’, right? No. Because by requiring adequate proofs before I consent to actions based on it, I have acheived satisfactory knowledge.
My opinions must make the transit to proven before I consent to have them enforced. This is why I oppose many environmental proposals. They do not meet my standards of certainty. They do not have the proofs available for demonstration.
I am perfectly free to act on my opinions when no one else is effected. I can have the opinion that blue cars run better. I may be nuts, but that’s my personal problem. But I may not seek interaction with others based on an enforced acceptence of my opinions.
It is important to maintain the distinction between belief (see def 2), and opinion (see def 1).
Beliefs are relevent to agnosticism. I think opinions are just opinions.
Well I wasn’t making the point that we can’t “personally” know everything based on first hand experience, but that in fact, we can never really know everything period. I can look at a rock for hours and do tests, and throw it at thingsstill technically not know “everything” about it – though certainly enough to comment on it, or at least file it aways as “known” as far as is useful to me — despite the fact might knowledge of it is still incomplete at least to some degree.
In that vein, I personally feel I have enough knowledge and experience to venture that there is no god and feel pretty safe in that assumption. Am I’m denying that there can’t ever be something that would make me go “Whoa hey… there IS a god.” No, but it would require MORE knowldedge and experience than I currently have, and quite honostly find unlikely. Until then, if asked if there is a god, I would reply, in my opinion, no, there is not.
To be honost, the term agnostic IS sort of useless.. as I would bet most agnostics at a given time have an opinion of whether or not they believe in god based on what they know.
Uain,
On your examples of how religions know the Gods of other religions don’t exist; all your examples just state they don’t exist, they don’t say how they know.
I suppose the implication is some sort of argument from authority – prophet X says he represents God, and because he represents God what he says must be true. Somewhat circular. Dawkins on the other hand gives other reasons for his belief – he has explained at great length exactly how he knows the evolution is true, and those who would deny it wrong. Where are the corresponding explanations from J and Mo?
J’s main supporting argument seemed to be a long list of miracles – and if such miracles continued today science could detect them and draw the obvious conclusion. Mo’s was that if you didn’t believe you’d burn in hell, so you’d better believe, right? You don’t think that’s bitter?
Atheism doesn’t make the individual God. Nor does it feel the need to assert they are the truth just for the sake of having an answer. Dawkins’ views come not from his atheism, but from evidence. And if you can put the contrary evidence up against it he’ll change his mind. The religious are only bitter about it because they don’t have any. 🙂
Mid,
“Something that is clearly established or assured”, “Freedom from doubt”
It is clearly established, after a thorough consideration of the evidence, that the probability of Gods existing is so fantastically remote that it may to all intents and purposes be considered impossible, and I am free from doubt about it. Therefore it is certain that no Gods exist, right? How is English the problem?
The Riemann hypothesis is something taken to be true for the purposes of argument or investigation, so it certainly seems to fit. Why do you think it doesn’t? Your point seems to be that it still relies on belief – my point is that it relies on only a very tiny amount of belief and a huge slice of evidence. It’s consequences have been checked by numerical experimentation. That’s about ten trillion pieces of supporting evidence.
“You over estimate me. I can’t easily generate an infinite number of anything.”
Then allow me to assist. Consider the set of sentences “There are n invisible unicorns” for all positive integer values n. There are infinitely many positive integers, and therefore infinitely many hypotheses in this set. Easy, huh?
Infinite simply means without end. All you need to do is consider a rule for generating more that doesn’t come to an end, and that’s infinite. If I had said “you can easily generate an unending stream of hypotheses…” would you have been happier?
“how do you calculate plausibility?”
By assessing the evidence, and considering how well it fits into other evidence-based theories that have been developed. No, we don’t do it by feelings and intuition, except to the extent those intuitions are evidence-based. Many are.
“The point of your entire argument seems to be to get me (and/or others) to admit certainty as having varying probabilities.”
You seem to believe there is a class of statements which because one cannot ascribe an exact numerical value to their probability are somehow beyond being more or less likely than each other. On the contrary, it is perfectly normal not to know the exact probability of things, and yet still be able to say with confidence that one is more likely than another. Sometimes the ranges overlap and you truly can’t tell, but it’s not as if the question is nonsensical.
“In a world w[h]ere certainty is required before ideas are incorporated into laws”
What world is this?! Certainly not this one!
I believe the phrase is “beyond reasonable doubt” for precisely that reason. Do you require certainty that a future President intends to abuse absolute power for you to enact laws preventing him getting hold of it? Or would the mere plausibility of one abusing such power be sufficient? There are better examples, but I hope you get the point.
“You are trying to get me to cut some slack for beliefs that you hold without proof and that are comfortable to you.”
No, actually I was trying (and failing) to get you to address the question of how religions can cheerfully deny the existence of nearly all of humanity’s Gods, and at the same time claim that such a denial in the case of the tiny remainder is unreasonable and irrational (and apparently evidence of personal bitterness). I had presented Dawkins’ proof of God’s non-existence because you asked about such proofs, but only as a sideline.
Actually, I’m quite comfortable with the idea of Gods, and like many mathematicians have a soft spot for Namagiri – the Goddess who comes nearest to providing believable evidence. 😉 I find the idea amusing, anyway. But I regard religion as akin to fantasy fiction like Tolkien or Lovecraft – enjoyable and generally beneficial escapism – but not to be taken too seriously, and most certainly not the truth.
Perry,
I chose the words “absolute moral code” carefully. I agree you can form a moral code in the absence of “God”. But your moral code (not you personally; you as a society) is relative, and based on whatever the current social conditions are. So it can change, and quickly, too. If you look at the history of Imperial Japan you can see how this can be destructive.
Also, all violations in an atheist moral code must be enforced with worldly punishments, no? After all, with no afterlife there’s no reason not to violate the code if you can get away with it. If that isn’t a recipe for an overbearing state, I don’t know what is. At the very least you’ll end up with Japanese-style bullying.
Jonathan, while it’s true rational self interest can be the basis of a moral code, the interests of society and the interests of individuals can diverge sharply. This is the “prisoner’s dilema” writ large – if the belief in God can influence individuals to do what’s best for society, the society will be stronger in the end.
Eric, do you really only derive the way you behave towards others by looking at the risk of external punishments (be they the laws of man or the vengeance of God)?
Perhaps you are mistaking laws for moral theories. Moreover, your statements would make more sense if highly religious theocratic states like Iran did not have to use ‘worldly punishments’ to enforce their religious edicts and all that was needed was the fear of what will happen to ‘sinners’ in some after-life.
I do a great many things because I think they are the correct things to do. I am sure that I could murder certain people I know either because I dislike them or there is potential profit in it for me, and I suspect I would probably get away with it as I am a fairly smart guy… but whether or not I actually could get away with it is irrelevant, all that matters is that I think I could and therefore I am not deeply motivated by the prospect of ‘worldly punishment’.
Yet I do not do go around killing people with carefully laid plots (you will just have to trust me on that) because I do not think it is morally acceptable to act that way unless defending yourself. Yet I need nothing more than my own notion of what is and is not acceptable behaviour to come to that conclusion.
I think you are starting to argue in circles, Midwesterner. Faith in something for which there is no physical evidence (such as the Reurrection, existance of Allah, or whatever) is not the same as the rational faculty. Yes, to state that one’s life is one’s own and not owned by the collective is a value judgement, just as preferring to live and do what is necessary to sustain life rather than drop dead is a value, but the point I am making is that that value does not have to come from some other source outside of a human mind. It does not have to implanted by a God.
I am not sure what your position is, but many people continue to argue that our values are not somehow the products of our reason, but are either arbitrary preferences, like a liking for chocolate ice-cream, or are implanted by a supreme, but unseeable, Deity.
I think I have made it clear by now that I support neither of those latter contentions.
In the Wired article:
Atheists make their stand upon the truth.
So is atheism true?
What is truth? Is mine the same as yours?
–Pontius Pilate according to Jesus Christ Superstar.
Ah, there’s the rub.
Logic and science operate in such a narrow playground, and there is so much more spread out among the outliers on the scatterplot.
We have a radically solipsistic and subjectivist ethic now, that I don’t think atheists can really stand on truth. We’re way too pomo-deconstructionist for that.
I have the same question to atheist prosetylizers as I do to the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on my door:
By what authority do you presume to teach me your truth?
**********************
Dawkins wants to legislate his morality and illegalize the teaching of religion. He wants an atheocracy made in his image and likeness. No thanks, I’ll choose freedom.
***********************
Re evolutionary psychobiology: if we infer from our nature what is and should be, then I have some new stuff to complement all the justification of male infidelity that happens in this theory.
Warrior sperm. Some sperm function only to attack the sperm of another male, while the swimmers go for broke eggwards. Therefore, there should be female infidelity. It leads to hybrid vigor. Hey, it’s just how we’re made. LOL
Oops, misitalicized. “So is atheism true?” is also from the Wired article.
Perry,
Of course not. I think my moral code comes from my parents, and also somewhat from a social concensus among my fellow citizens. But if I have children what will I tell them if they ask me why something is wrong? It’s wrong because… it violates a social contract? Doesn’t that argue for situational ethics?
Not at all. Morality and legality derive their legitimacy from different sources. This is the crux of my argument. The legitimacy of the state, and, by extension, the law derives from the necessity of social organization. This need not have anything to do with religion or morality, but rather Jonathan’s “Rational long-term self-interest”.
But the legitimacy of morality, in my opinion, must ultimately derive from a belief in “God”. I realize you can be a moral person and an atheist, but only because enough of your society believes in God to give morality a social foundation for unbelievers. If the number of believers falls far enough that social foundation is undermined.
The overlap between law and morality is this: If the great masses of people do socially benificial things as a result of a moral code you can get by with a minimal state. Otherwise the state needs to be big enough and powerful enough to force people to act in a socially benificial way. This is why, as an atheist, it concerns me when too many other people start to think like me.
Do you think the number of “moral” (however you define it) Britains is more or less than a generation ago, and if you think less do you really suppose it has nothing to do with those empty British churches I keep reading about? And further, are you surprised that the masses turn more and more to the state as a guarantor of social order in the form of cameras and ASBOs?
Sure, but why? I’ve no doubt you live by a moral code of some sort, but what is the basis of that code? I trust you would’t kill anyone even if there were no chance of punishment (especially since you’re far away), but why not? What is your rational basis for including actions in the “do” and “don’t” columns in your particular code? I’m willing to bet this is a result of the social climate in your formative years. That social climate was based, at least in large part, on Christianity.
Pa-
“… they don’t say how they know.”
Sure they did, read the texts and they said they were in communication with God. Jesus used his miracles as proof, Mohammed used the sword. By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with you that Mohammed was a bitter, violent old man. As I said in a previous thread, other claimants to “God’s Own” required their followers to die for them, Jesus died for His followers.
“Dawkins’ views come not from his atheism, but from evidence. And if you can put the contrary evidence up against it he’ll change his mind.”
If you read the article cited and Dawkins’ other statements/ books, he is completely immersed in his religion, he makes alot of quid from it, and if he decides otherwise, it will be a death bed conversion, I’m sure.
Midwesterner-
“People who “know” are inclined towards collectivism because they accept knowledge without thought.”
Yes, but I think that you are looking at the end product, whilst I am looking at the path that got them there. Just from my own life experience, I have seen the recalcitrant Athiest revel in their complete “freedom” and “individuality”. Then they experience self doubt because their is no established reference to support their views. Then after being overcome with fear, they become collectivists, because all those “smart” people think like me. I think we agree but for that you are (rightly) describing the end result.
Johnathan Pearce-
“Rational long-term self-interest, which is the basis for a lot of what we call moral codes,”
I read an article about an excavation in Bath (England)
where they uncovered an old temple to some such Roman era god. Expecting to find heartwarming requests for health, fertility, family, the archeologists were horrified to find the inscribed tablets thrown into a scared well , were almost invariably curses on rivals.
It seems as more has been learned of old paganism, it delt with the acquisition and cultivation of personal magic, by which to subdue rivals. This was the culture that was abandoned by “free thinkers” of the time in favor of Christianity.
This is the natural state of the human heart in pre-christian England, to the extent we know, so it is what the athiest will likely devolve to, naturally, since the self is the sole source of guidance.
Uain,
Excellent! Thanks!
So the Church’s argument is that they read it in a book written by someone in contact with God.
OK, the Richard’s argument is that it was revealed to him by observation of the universe, which if you are religious, is a book unarguably written by God. So it meets the religious person’s requirements for authority as well as the scientist’s.
I can see on that basis why a religious person would regard atheists as religious – them claiming in effect that God told them He didn’t exist. 🙂
I’ll have to shift questions slightly, (and thanks for being so patient and answering the last one). So what do the religious think of other religions’ scriptures that use exactly the same argument? “My God is the true God because he told me so”? On what basis do they take these to be false, while their own scripture is true?
(I suspect the answer is “because my scripture says so”, and it must be true because it’s written by God. But I’d be interested to know if there’s anything out there slightly less… circular.)
Pa-
“I can see on that basis why a religious person would regard atheists as religious ….”
Nice job on the second part. Yes, I think that any firmly held belief/ conviction becomes a religion, in that there is the evangelistic aspect (books, lectures, etc..) and the ostracism of the unbeliever. In the case of atheism, this ostracism can get very nasty where people’s reputations or careers are mucked with…. so much for atheism equating to superior enlightenment.
“So what do the religious think of other religions’ scriptures that use exactly the same argument?”
As a history buff of sorts, but with only 2 weeks in summer to really dive into my library, I have the following observations, thoughts. Speaking of greater
Europe/ Middle East, early religions started out tailored to the culture. Hunter/ gatherer tribes had gods/ goddesses of fertility and the hunt, agrarians had sky gods of weather and the harvest. As tribes united (forcibly or otherwise) to form city-states, paganism was the natural way to keep the peace… to each his own.
But in my opinion, paganism then becomes culturally like atheism in that since there are so many gods, there is no unifying code of behaviour for the culture, so the concept of personal magic to give the individual power to compete, becomes the common thread.
This is how I think that many gods over time result in a personal mode of behaviour that is akin to one who believes in no god. This then is where Dawkins and his selfish gene would be at home philosophically in the pagan Europe/ MidEast of 2000 yrs ago.
In this cauldron was Judaism which was mainly a hermetic religion. Out of Judaism came Christianity which was a world religion. Jesus told his followers to go forth and make disciples of the world, which they did. Where Christian communities grew, economic activity and prosperity also grew, since people adopted the superior personal code of conduct from Judaism (the 10 Commandments).
So to finally answer your question;
Our Scriptures say that you can tell what is of God by the end result. For true Christians this is (God’s) peace, hope and love. Other religions do not use the same scriptures as Christianity, or if they do , they will bundle our scriptures with some of their own. The heart of Christianity is the Lordship of Jesus. There are many post-Christian Protestant denominations in which they meet in historic church buildings, but the religion of the present occupants is not that of those who built the churches, many years ago. The present occupants hold to the “many paths to Salvation”, as opposed to “I am the Way, no one comes to the Father, but by Me”
As I had said in previous posts, I have dear friends and acquaintances who are Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs who are people of good will and integrity. I think that Christianity has had a profound effect over the past 2000 yrs in that the Jewish 10 Commandments have cross pollinated many religions to the point that
there is now a common ground for people of completely different cultures. I would call these folks “Moralists”. So I am glad I live in a country where my co-religionists see these good people as allies to be welcomed to join our churches if they wish, as opposed to infidels without a soul.
Pa A,
I’ve been wondering why we are unable to communicate. It’s obviously much more than semantics. I’ve tried to narrow definitions in an effort for clarity and it’s made things worse.
There is some fundamental reason. I read back through our discussion looking for a clue. I think you found it but did not pursue it with your remark – “we’ll probably get sidetracked down some Bayesian vs Frequentist rabbit hole”
Not being a mathematician I didn’t understand it’s implications, only that I’d heard it before. So I went on a google to see what it meant.
Epiphany.
On this page, I found the following statement –
and everything fell into place. While this is no-doubt an over simplification, it is the root difference in our approaches.
To over simplify even further into philosophy rather than mathmatics, Frequentists insist hypotheses allow for unknown data. Bayesians insist hypotheses respect known data.
If I am even vaguely accurate in my over generalized understanding, then Bayesian methods will be far more useful in any real world problem. The will solve a lot of problems quickly, efficiently and accurately.
Frequentist methods on the other hand, will perform a lot of ‘unneccessary’ work. Often going off into random nowheresvilles and sometimes not seeing any way to ‘get there from here‘.
I’m from a family that spent millinia living from the sea. (My nom de net, not withstanding.) Maritime analogies spring quickly to my mind. It seems to me that one works well here. (With modern technology, we are never out of sight of land, so think back a few centuries.)
Bayesian v Frequentist correlates well with sailing within sight of land. By far the most maritime activity historically has been conducted within sight of land. Any new route proposed is based on known landmarks and existing ‘proven’ routes. Navigation makes use of known landmarks and is comparatively safe, very productive, and by far the better method for conducting businesses that required sea travel.
But this ‘Bayesian’ method of navigation has one short coming. It is unable to discover land that lies outside of the known world. Throughout history, the great discoveries have not been made by navigators getting a cargo of pottery to somewhere to trade it for wine.
The great discoveries have been made by out of sight of land. People who sail out of sight of land were in far greater danger. But you can’t find the new world if you don’t go somewhere that is outside of the known world.
Bayesians and Frequentists have not resolved their differences in ~60 years of dispute. There is probably no point in us pursuing the matter.
But for my side, I wonder if Einstein could have discovered his preposterious theory if he had not been sailing out of sight of land.
Duncan,
I chuckle. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a more vigorously qualified statement of certainty. Apparently you haven’t ever run into somebody who is convinced with certainty that there is NO God. (a ‘real’ atheist)
You sound to me like somebody who really wants to be called an ‘Atheist’ but realizes that knowledge and proof are unavailable. Or at least not demonstrated. You are, like many agnostics, of the opinion that there probably isn’t a God. That is not at all the same thing as having faith that there is NO God. Or believing the matter proven while being unable to present any of the proofs.
Call yourself what you like. When I consider your views, I consider them ‘Logical Agnostic’. There are plenty of agnostics who govern their lives with the same opinions and beliefs you hold.
Johnathan,
Since we are in total agreement on that statement, I think there is probably a communication break-down somewhere.
Johnathan,
I think it’s both. I logically divide us into two camps. People like you and me, who make a rational effort to reach values, and people who do fall into one of those other other-than-rational camps.
Reason is a value. And, regretably, not everyone shares that value with us.
Uain,
People arrive at ‘places’ from many different paths. But anyone who retains reason and moral discovery to their individual self, is going to be statisically far more likely to be an indvidualist than someone who outsources it.
Mid,
Hmm. Taking a non-Bayesian approach to probability would explain it. But I got a bit lost with your nautical analogy.
One way to look at the question is to consider maps. The Frequentist sailor insists on drawing an accurate map before he sets out to sea. You cannot possibly figure out where you are without knowing the shape of the world you’re sailing in. You can figure out what you might see given the map, and so work out which way you have sailed. But it is dangerous not to start with an accurate map; your judgements are not grounded on firm foundations.
The Bayesian by contrast sets off with only a hazy scribble drawn in pencil, and fills the map in as he goes. Rather than sailing in a known world and asking about his path, he starts with the path he sailed and asks about the world. It does mean that for most of the time his map is badly wrong and he doesn’t really know where he is. Worse, if his initial scribble didn’t bear at least some relation to reality, his map will end up hopelessly distorted. And yet, the Bayesian approach more truly reflects the situation of the explorer, rather than the trader.
Frequentists argue that reality is reality and it makes no sense to talk of the probability of it being so. The Frequentist will say that a fair coin will come up heads three times in a row one time in eight, and a double headed coin will do so every time. It makes no sense to ask, on seeing three heads in a row, what is the probability of the coin being fair. Either it is or it isn’t. Probability 1 or probability 0: you just don’t know which. If you don’t know, if you don’t have an accurate map, you’re lost.
The Bayesian on the other hand finds it reasonable to see where he is – three heads in a row – and ask what is the state of the world around him – is the coin fair? He may well conclude the coin is bent, filling in his map with what he sees. He could do that if he thinks there are a lot of double headed coins around, or he’s just lost a lot of money in a ‘friendly bet’ with a stranger. On the other hand if this is just an ordinary everyday coin, not many of them are unfair, and so the one in eight chance is far more likely than the one in a million of it being unfair.
So getting back to God; the Bayesian finds it reasonable to look at the world and decide whether to draw God into his map. The Frequentist doesn’t even understand the question. Not only are you assigning a probability to something that cannot ever be other than it is, different people will assign the same event different probabilities depending on how much of the world they have seen. How can probability be a real property of the real world, and yet change with the winds blowing these poor lost Bayesian sailors about the sea?
Mid-
That’s assuming that they can maintain a frame of reference that is distanced from their personal preferences, prejudices, fears, lusts, anxieties, etc..
Pa A,
Definitely our difference is profound. Although I think I can maybe get something from your example and give something back.
When I am telling someone how to get from ‘A’ to ‘B’ I use the Bayesian method you describe. A rough scribble marked ‘shore’, another one marked ‘breakwater’ and a funny couple of hashes marked ‘locks’. You can guess and estimate at what I left out. Detail can be added as needed.
But that’s not how I sail when I’m exploring. When I explore, I set out, look around, go somewhere else, and somewhere else again, etc, noting everywhere I’ve been and what was there. In sailing, it is often called ‘gunkholing’. I don’t go looking for where the mouth of the river is so that I can find the mouth of the river. I sail somewhere, and if I find a river, I make a note of it. I don’t insist on an accurate map before I set out, I just make a guess and test it. Make another guess and test it.
While usually that would seem wasteful, it truly depends on what you are trying to achieve. I would never deliver a boat that way. But there are cases where it is far superior.
I’m quite comfortable that you can handle much more complexity than me so I’ll give this a shot.
Imagine a fog bound lake and a rowboat. You can find land by bumping into it. You can also take soundings with a sounding line, but that is a tedious and time consuming process. (And gets extremely more time consuming in deeper water.) You can bump into land and walk up the shore noting elevation. You can use all of this data in ways that further your endeavor. You start from with a boat drawn up on the shore.
The Bayesians will efficiently explore the perimeter of the lake and fill in much detail, adding greatly to the knowledge base. They will discover that land elevation gets lower and lower until it reaches the water, and then deeper and deeper as a function of its distance from shore. They conclude that land elevation increases with distance from shore and that the middle of the middle of the lake is very deep. A rational Bayesian would conclude that finding land in the middle of the lake is absurdly unlikely or at least a probable total waste of time. And consequentially, would never look there.
The frequentist on the other hand would say “if there is land, there is land”, make a guess and just sail to that place to find if it is there.
There is an island in the middle of the lake. Who found it? And who didn’t?
It seems to me as a total non mathematician, that both approaches are useful if chosen appropriately. And it seems to me that if one is seeking knowledge far beyond what is now established, (ie Einstein-relativity) that Frequentism comes into its own.
Knowing that this is an imperfect allegory, I hope you can interpret it generously to see what I am trying to say. I’m still not sure I’m grasping the fundamental characteristics of each, though.
Mid,
I understand what you’re saying. Not a Frequentist as such (who would take the best map the Bayesians had drawn and just work with it), but certainly someone who didn’t pay much attention to probability (Bayesian or otherwise) might do.
The problem here is what statisticians call reporting bias, or ‘bottom drawer syndrome’. If you do an experiment to test an interesting hypothesis and it fails – it turns out not to be true – you normally shove it in the bottom drawer and don’t report it. It never gets published, and nobody hears about it. Only those cases where you do find something interesting does anyone hear about. That then gives a false impression of rapid and easy discovery.
So yes, you can often hear the inspiring story of the one who set off into the unknown and found land. You don’t get to hear about all the thousands who set off into the unknown, found nothing, and starved to death lost and alone when the grant money ran out. 🙂
How many people were trying to solve the luminiferous aether problem when Einstein was working on it? Thousands. Tens of thousands. And most of those attempts came to nothing. They had wandered off in the wrong direction.
Yes, a Bayesian will acknowledge that there is much they don’t know, and those blank areas on the map no doubt contain much that is interesting. They would fully support a journey of exploration to go see, so long as you pay for it yourself. What they won’t support is just drawing a big island in a particular place and scrawling ‘Atlantis’ across it, simply because you like the idea, without having gone there and gathered some evidence of its existence. Especially as it is a patch of ocean that has been well-explored by people looking for it and finding nothing. There are gaps between their criss-crossings that remain unexplored, but the ‘God of the Gaps’ has an ever-shrinking hiding place.
‘God’ is rumoured to be in the warm and comfortable waters of the Caribbean, just off Bermuda, where many boaters like to explore. Special relativity is in the frozen North up near Alaska, where it is hard to get to and takes luck and special training to survive. There were other explorers up there too, when Einstein figured it out. The equations of Special Relativity were developed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald. Hilbert published the equations to General Relativity five days before Einstein figured out where he had gone wrong. But it was Einstein who spotted the shadow on the horizon, and Einstein the new island is now named after.
We now have a pretty good idea that the remaining secrets are buried in advanced mathematics. Simple and symmetrical laws are elaborated on in ways that end up looking astoundingly complex. It’s hard work to get there, but rewarding when you find solid new land and know that yours is the first foot to step there. If there is a God to be found in this place, it is one who speaks the language of mathematics, not morality.
Let me tell you the strange tale of Srinivasa Ramanujan – in case you haven’t already heard it. Ramanujan was an Indian who lived in a small village, who without formal education or training developed the most amazing mathematical talent. One day he wrote down some of his theorems and sent them to one of the world’s top mathematians at Cambridge University, England, who immediately recognised their brilliance and invited the young man over to work there. Ramanujan generated the most amazing equations, but never seemed to write down any working, and rarely gave more than a sketch of a proof. And yet other mathematicians, at great effort, found him to be almost always correct. When asked how he came up with these amazing formulae, he replied that Namagiri, the local Goddess of his home village, whispered them in his ear while he slept.
By any standard Ramanujan’s notebooks therefore constitute divine scripture. They are clear evidence of an intelligence beyond what most humans are capable of. They are precisely the sort of thing you would expect from the divinity who created our mathematical universe. They are provably true, with a certainty beyond any other human field of endeavor.
Of all the Gods and Goddesses humanity has worshipped, only Namagiri has provided any evidence that could stand up to modern scrutiny. The evidence is insufficient – Ramanujan wasn’t quite good enough, reliable enough, to be firm evidence of something beyond human.
But if you want to persuade atheists that they are wrong, this is the standard of evidence you must provide. You cannot simply draw Atlantis into the map; you must provide a firm sighting, a location, maybe bring back some strange new plants from the New World. Those of you who claim direct personal contact with God, ask him to provide you with some cool new maths. Because scientists would flock to any religion that could turn them into Ramanujans.
This is one of the most enjoyable discussions I’ve had. All though at one point, when it appeared that we were living in different realities and I was alone in mine, I got kind of low. Fortunately, the fate I suffer is one of “non-Bayesianism”. Now that it has a name, I feel much better. 🙂
I wonder if you truly understand non-Bayesian thinking in an empathetical way. You are helping me understand facets of it but the bottom line is, I was thinking that way without any idea that it was even a choice to be made. Putting a probability on a hypothesis seemed to me from the start to be expediant, but fundamentally unsound. The extent of my knowledge of the word “Bayesian” was that it generally crops into the conversation just before people who speak in mathematics start swearing at each other.
I’m confident enough of what I think, to see some inconsistencies with Frequentism as you describe it. For example, –
That is not how my philosophy works. I’m fine with “just drawing a big island in a particular place and scrawling ‘Atlantis’ across it, simply because you like the idea” but at that point, the data must be tested. If the data doesn’t match the hypothetical ‘Atlantis’, throw it out and try something different. I may have to hypothesise a possibility in order to test for it, but that is far stronger than looking at data and guessing what it means.
Another thing is in reference to “bottom drawer syndrome”. In a non-Bayesian networking system (or at least mine), information tends to be exchanged in a negatively condititioned way. As in “does anyone know any good reasons why I shouldn’t sail there?”
The reason I think this way is data is reality. Hypotheses are mental constructs. I want reality in the drivers seat, not mental constructs. While I grant they are pragmatic and efficient and very useful for understanding what we know, they break down totally when it comes to what we do not know. They require a confidence that our knowledge and imagination are sufficient to discover all possibilities. While I happily accept positive (as in “this is true”) information coming from Bayesian methods, I reject negative (as in “this is not true”) information. Opinions of what can not be.
Starting with a Bayesian high probability (or any probability) hypothesis defeats the essential strength of non-Bayesian thought. Unless it inspires the imagination of unknown data. To paraphrase one of the authors in that link from earlier, not knowing what your looking for can be a strength. If you can’t see this, you are a Bayesian.
In any case, now I’m off to read this book(PDF).
Fair enough. Enjoy your book.
(I feel in fairness that I should warn you I had a quick look at it and am about 90% certain it’s tosh; but don’t let that stop you reading it. Most mathematicians will dismiss it, but thinking for a moment as a philosopher, different points of view are frequently interesting and useful even when they’re wrong. I’m not trying to have a go at it – all perspectives are welcome – but don’t be surprised should you devote a lot of effort and start quoting from it if you find that other mathematicians think you’re off-track. There’s some good stuff in there, but quite a lot that isn’t.)
As there are some of us who think that moral theories must have their basis in objective reality, I would reject the idea of mathematics and morality being a dichotomy.
Pa, thanks for the heads up. I’m not reading it with the intention of learning or understanding mathematics, but rather of looking at the mathematics/science interface and how somebody else describes the problem. I will also consider his proposals of course, but I’m looking for something that reflects my already held principles. I think you have already had a taste of how determined (stubbornly bullheaded) I can be against practices that are incompatible with them.
I’m am absolutely certain that something, somewhere, between the two fields is either deeply flawed or totally broken. But this is like someone from the outside looking at a broken marriage. The symptoms may be subtle and what the exact problem is may be well concealed, but one can know that something is wrong.
PS
Clearly a Bayesian putting a probability on a hypothesis.
As a non-Bayesian, I won’t.
“As there are some of us who think that moral theories must have their basis in objective reality, I would reject the idea of mathematics and morality being a dichotomy.”
Certainly not a dichotomy, no. Being a mathematician does not in itself preclude an interest in morality. I would expect a mathematical facility on the grounds of what we know of physics. I’d be inclined to doubt a moral obsession on entirely different grounds (in biology, history, and anthropology mainly) that I’ve discussed previously. There’s no point in going over that same argument again here.
Unless you want to, of course. 🙂
I did not mean that at all… if as you suggest (and I agree) that mathematics is a way of expressing aspects of the nature of reality, what I am saying is that moral theories too must be based on the best understanding of the nature of reality, therefore expressing the truth about reality via better mathematical theories can only be of value to all theories which are based on the best understanding of reality (obviously), such as moral theories.
Pa, I’d just like to say “Round of applause”.
Rich
Richard,
He is very patient, quite durable and willing to be a foil for someone who’s way of thinking is so diligently counter to his own.
I really do appreciate it. This thread is turning out to be one of my favorites. And it is certainly giving me insight into the way I and others think.
Pa, I hope your not too Annoyed.
Lovely commentary, aside from the curious spelling. But, whatever happened to the question about gods?
Perry,
Yes I thought that was what you meant. In my opinion, game theory has a lot to say about morality. However, it was not one of Ramanujan’s (and hence presumably Namagiri’s) interests.
Mid,
Not annoyed at all. I far prefer a good argument to a bunch of people all agreeing with me. After a hard day at work, it’s a wonderful de-stresser. I only have to be a bit careful not to get anyone upset who sees the issue as more important than opinion/debate/entertainment.
(For reference; if anyone is ever upset by what I say, I’d rather you just let me know than have things get unpleasant. And I tend to assume that if you keep on arguing then you’re happy to discuss it. Participation is voluntary.)
It seems to me that it is just as ignorant to tout the fact that god cannot be disproven as an excuse to go on about believing that god is the truth, as it is to claim that your understanding of scientific probability gives you right to deny any possibility of things beyond human understanding. Furthermore i believe that to put absolute faith into any finite thing, (even science) , is to limit your potential for true knowledge of anything outside of that realm.