Comments by zoro

1. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34551 by zoro on April 24, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Ilesere:

Wow! There sure seem to be troubles in trying to communicate.

You state: "As a result your indication that a particular opinion is 'undesirable' could only be so because it is offensive to someone." Not so! I tried 'undesirable', then 'inaccurate'. How about 'unwise'? How about "a tactical blunder"? Or, again, "undesirable" – from a tactical viewpoint.

Re. your "we atheists": of course I understood the "atheists"; I was challenging your premiss that you could speak for them. On the other hand, perhaps you miscounted my ballot! Those damn hanging chads.

You state: "By making this small change in our language [using 'think' rather than 'belief'] I think we can make inroads into some of the vacuous arguments made by the theists." Of course I support making any and all such "inroads", but my point (again) is that the key is not 'think' vs. 'believe' but weighting one's beliefs in proportion to relevant evidence. Another option (which I pursue in my referenced book) is to evaluate probabilities – but I know that's a "tough sell" for "the masses".

2. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34527 by zoro on April 24, 2007 at 11:31 am

I think Jonathan Dore makes a good point.

Ilesere: I'm not following you. I didn't use the word "offensive", I used the word "undesirable"; maybe a better word is "inaccurate"; you seem to be reading more than what I wrote. But more to the point:

1. You're skating on thin ice when you say "what we do NOT do." Who is this "we"?!

2. There's a crack in the ice running between "think" and "believe" – and I know it's there, because previously I tried skating in that neighborhood.

3. My conclusion is that it's inadvisable to abandon a perfectly good word such as "belief" to the theists.

Here's some advice – in my opinion, good advice – from others:

"Believe nothing… merely because you have been told it… or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide." [The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama)]

"A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence." [David Hume]

"To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and folly." [Volney]

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." [Mark Twain]

"Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." [Ambrose Bierce]

"It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence." [William Kingdon Clifford]

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin… The foundation of morality is to… give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." [Thomas Henry Huxley]

"We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife, immortality, heaven, hell, etc." [Julian Huxley]

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way… So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues." [Bertrand Russell]

"Credulity is belief in slight evidence, with no evidence, or against evidence." [Tryon Edwards]

"In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality." [Clarence Darrow]

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." [Richard Dawkins]

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." [Dan Barker]

"We ought to do what we can towards eradicating the evil habit of believing without regard to evidence." [Richard Robinson]

"The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination." [Peter B. Medawar]

"Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants." [Arthur M. Jackson]

"Here by 'evidentialism' I mean the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if 'it is proportioned to the evidence'." [Peter Forrest]

3. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34508 by zoro on April 24, 2007 at 9:35 am

Ilesere: I don't know what "article" you're referring to, but anyway, the "think" comment is undesirable: even religious people think! Better to say that we hold our beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants.

4. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34477 by zoro on April 24, 2007 at 7:20 am

Up front, my apologies for the length of what follows, but

1. It provides "a case in point",
2. It's your fault, since this site introduced me to D'Souza's spewings,
3. You can always ignore what follows, and
4. For me, it was just a "cut and paste job."

It unfolded as follows.

A) After D'Souza damnable rant against atheists (reposted at this site; it was linked to the Virginia Tech massacre), his next blog was a stupid criticism of atheists, in which he provided a "logical analysis" of how many angels could dance on a pin. So I blasted him as follows (in which the quote is his)

"Of course the atheist may laugh and say that angels don't exist. But equally obviously the atheist doesn't know that. His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do. And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably. You see, my atheist friends, it's a simple matter of logic."

Are you really as ignorant as your writings suggest? Do you think before you write? Do you read anything besides the tabloids? Before you write anything more about "existence", "logic", and "atheists", may I suggest you study some relevant books (even my own, at http://zenofzero.net ). If you do, and if you try very hard to think, then maybe you'd be able to understand the following.

1. Any claim for "existence" of anything is a hypothesis, and any hypothesis of any value must have testable prediction. For example, the hypothesis "I exist" provides the testable prediction that, if I do exist, then I should be able to finish this sentence. It worked; therefore, I have one more piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that I exist. For contrast, consider your hypothesis that angels exist. What testable predictions does your hypothesis provide? And if you can define any tests, then what are the results of your tests? Since I have found no confirmation for the hypothesis that angels (or gods) exist, I dismiss such ideas as "mere speculations". That conclusion is not "faith-based"; it's based on a lack of evidence.

2. "Logic" is based on the premisses that A is identically equal to A (i.e., things exist) and A is not identically not-A (i.e., things are distinct). Therefore, logic can't be applied to things that don't exist – and THAT conclusion, not yours, is "a simple matter of logic."

3. I challenge you to provide evidence to support your hypothesis that there exist any atheists who would consider you to be a "friend".

And I admit that what bothers me most is that our education system seems to be failing us so badly. Why are people such as you and Cho being granted high-school diplomas – let alone being permitted to enter our universities?

B) A fellow non-believer, "Stian" then criticized me for being "rude and disrespectful" [a militant atheist?], so I responded as follows:

Stian: For the first 40-or-so years of my life, I went along with your:

"I don't see how it helps our cause to be so rude and disrespectful as you are! Please stop it!"

But subsequent evidence (such as the World Trade Center) convinced me that I was wrong. I've found that it's useless to try to reason with them. As someone else wrote (and I'm extremely sorry to say that, even with Google, I can't find the author's name – please provide it if you know):

"It turns out, the myth of peaceful, easy change is just that: a myth. There is no polite way to tell people they are deluded hypocrites. And it's not like we have infinite time. It's not just selfishness that makes me want to bring about rationality in my lifetime: the planet is in danger. Faith in the sky-daddy will not reverse overpopulation or global warming. If we don't hurry up and get rational, there might not be a hundred years from now for atheists to finally, gently, convince everyone else to behave like adults."

As per usual, Sam Harris said it well:

"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and – all too often – what they will kill for. Consequently, we are living in a world in which millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy…"

And of course, so did Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion":

"Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith."

But even the brilliance of both Harris and Dawkins leaves me with the impression that they're pessimistic about the possibility of success. I think that C.W. Dalton saw the reason in his book "The Right Brain and Religion":

"Believers are interested in fulfilling emotional and spiritual needs, not intellectual needs. In some cases, one might as well try to use reason on a dog. For many people God is primarily a warm feeling. How can one argue with a warm feeling? Arguing with someone who places reason below faith and biblical authority is blowing against the wind."

Yet, I think that Thomas Jefferson saw a solution (in his 1816 letter to Van der Kemp):

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…"

From what I can make of what happened in Europe – why they are so far ahead of the U.S. in ridding themselves of the god meme – is that Voltaire ridiculed religions and the religious.

I've therefore concluded that the best way to proceed is the same way that little kids try to change the behavior of other kids who are "real brats": 1) ridicule them, 2) set a better example (e.g., as humanists) and 3) exclude them from cooperative activities (e.g., working to exclude the Pope' influence on the EU, working to exclude the religious from holding public offices, etc.). Elsewhere, I do what I can applying step 2) and 3). For the case of what I've been reading here, Jefferson's method seems best: ridicule them. I would welcome your giving the matter more thought – and then, of course, urge you to continue you to do what you think is best to "help… our cause."

P.S. to Phil:

That's an extremely dangerous error. It's called the "pleasure-principle fallacy." Nietzsche said it well:

"An agreeable opinion is accepted as true: this is the proof by pleasure (or, as the church says, the proof by strength), which all religions are so proud of, whereas they ought to be ashamed. If the belief did not make us happy, it would not be believed: how little must it then be worth!"

Think of the pleasure it gives the suicide bombers (and their mothers!) for them to die for their Jihad.

C) Then, this "believer" Phil (see the postscript in the above, in which I was responding to his "whatever-feels-right" argument) suggested that I was religious", to which my (relevant) response was as follows.

Re. your "YOU have a belief which could be construed as religious", I agree. My religion is similar to that of many other humanists, as illustrated with the following few examples.

"Choose to live and choose to love; choose to rise above and give back what you yourself were given. Be moderate as you flee for survival in a boat that has no place for riches." [Shin-eqi-unninni, ~1600 BCE, author of the most famous version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, from which the Bible's myth about Noah was plagiarized, bowdlerized, and ruined]

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful… For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love – this is the eternal law… Be lamps [or islands] unto yourselves. Be a refuge unto yourselves. Do not turn to any external refuge… Owing to their creation of a Supreme Deity, men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious, and perverse in views. Thus, for those who fall back on the creation of a God as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor the effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed… " [The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama]

"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others… Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness… When we see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves… While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve spirits {of the dead}?… While you do not know life, how can you know about death? [Confucius]

"I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world… There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." {Or maybe better: There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal.} [Socrates]

"Have I done something for the general interest? Well then I have had my reward. Let this always be present to thy mind, and never stop doing such good." [Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome]

"My country is the world, and to do good is my religion." [Thomas Paine]

"To have a positive religion is not necessary. To be in harmony with yourself and the universe is what counts, and this is possible without positive and specific formulation in words." [Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]

"Our civilization is not Christian. It does not come from the skies. It is not a result of 'inspiration'. It is the child of invention, of discovery, of applied knowledge – that is to say, of science. When man becomes great and grand enough to admit that all have equal rights; when thought is untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing useful things; when religion means the discharge of obligations to our fellow-men, then, and not until then, will the world be civilized." [Robert Ingersoll]

"Is it a small thing to quench the flames of hell with the holy tears of pity – to unbind the martyr from the stake – break all the chains – put out the fires of civil war – stay the sword of the fanatic, and tear the bloody hands of the Church from the white throat of Science? Is it a small thing to make men truly free – to destroy the dogmas of ignorance, prejudice and power – the poisoned fables of superstition, and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of fear?" [Robert Ingersoll]

"The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation." [Emma Goldman]

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests." [George Santayana]

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men." [Bertrand Russell]

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." [The Dalai Lama]

"Finally, I would like to assure my many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim friends that I am sincerely happy that the religion which Chance has given you has contributed to your peace of mind… Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is the best of all to be sane and happy. Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future." [Arthur C. Clarke]

"Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug superstition to their breasts." [Isaac Asimov, when asked why he fights religion with no hope for victory]

And I'll end these quotations with the following excerpt from "A Letter to Mankind", which starts "Dear fellow humans" and was signed by the following twelve, brave, former Muslims: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, and Ibn Warraq. The full "Manifesto" is at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/manifesto .

"We urge the Muslims to leave Islam. Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Stop dividing mankind into 'us' vs. "them" and Muslims vs. Kafirs. We are One people, One mankind! Muhammad was not a messenger of God. It is time that we end this insanity and face the truth. The terrorists take their moral support and the validation for their actions from you. Your very adherence to their cult of death is a nod of approval for their crimes against humanity.

"We also urge the non-Muslims to stop being politically correct lest they hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims. To Hell with their sensitivities! Let us save their lives, and the lives of millions of innocent people.

"Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out! 'All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.' Do something! Send this message to everyone in your address book and ask them to do the same."

******************

And thus my summary: I advocate both "militant" (in-your-face) atheism AND scientific humanism. I think that both prongs are needed, both to do what we can to curb religious lunacy and to try to help humanity to continue to evolve.

5. U.S. 'Satisfied' With Religion's Public Role, But More Want Less

Comment #20517 by zoro on February 3, 2007 at 3:59 pm

If it were a linear system, then in the results we could find some encouragement: 20 to 30% in five years, only 35 years to go! And on the other hand, because it's a nonlinear system, there's either encouragement or discouragement. Discouragement in realizing that there's some diehards who won't change, almost no matter what. But encouragement from "the butterfly effect" (as in the reality that a butterfly can initiate a hurricane): only during the past five years have "butterflies" such as Harris and Dawkins started to flap their wings; now, if only another Voltaire would take flight!

6. Massachusetts Atheists?

Comment #20486 by zoro on February 3, 2007 at 3:45 am

Liveliest Crib: Thank you for your informative post (#20466). It never ceases to amaze me how little I know and how helpful Google can be -- once one knows what to look for! I had never previously heard of the "Political Questions doctrine". What a complicated history it has had. (In contrast, for more than 30 years, I led a "sheltered life" doing scientific research.)

I'll rely on your judgement that, from a legal perspective, the Newdow case was "quite obviously not a political question". (I did read his brief shortly after he submitted it to the Supreme Court; therefore, I did see his complaint.) Yet I wonder (but wouldn't ask you to spend any more of your time answering my naive questions) if the Court's next step (in reaction to Newdow's new submissions) might be to broaden the scope of the "Political Questions" doctrine, because given Congressional reaction to "the Pledge case", it's obviously an extremely hot "political question."

Personally, I'd certainly prefer if the Court basically said "let the people settle this", rather than issue another of its (to me, maddening) "de minimis" or "ceremonial deism" rulings. Otherwise, I'm worried that humanists lose whichever way the Court rules: if it rules in favor of Newdow (and as far as I'm concerned, obviously it should, since "under God" is a clear violation of the Constitution), then I wouldn't be surprised if a "suitable" Constitutional Amendment will gain sufficient support to be enacted, weakening the wall between Church and State; on the other hand, if the Court rules against Newdow, then I expect that we'll find it even more difficult to exterminate the god meme in this country. Thus, again, I hope that the Court, once again, finds a way to duck the issue -- but this time (as you suggest), not "with a departure from standing law... whose consequences might not be... innocuous."

7. Massachusetts Atheists?

Comment #20386 by zoro on February 2, 2007 at 5:19 am

Liveliest Crib: Thank you for your posts. In your latest post (#20363), you state (re. the Newdow case): "the Supreme Court, in a rather cowardly move..." I had a similar reaction to the Court's decision, but then I began to wonder.

Now, what I wonder (and solicit your opinion) about is your view (from your legal perspective) of the idea that if, in any democracy, its judicial and legislative systems are to survive (or at least, not be severely embattled), then they must follow (not lead) customs. As the saying goes: "Custom is king." A case in point seems to be our Supreme Court's first abortion decision, which seems to have been ahead of custom -- and the result was a strengthening of the "Religious Reich".

No doubt the relevance of my inquiry to "freedom from religion" is obvious, but let me "spell it out" as some questions. Do you think that Michael Newdow's (courageous) attempts are in reality ill-advised? Would "the humanist cause" be better served by efforts such as those of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al. to try, first, to change "customs" -- and then, maybe decades from now, let the (cowardly -- but in their own way and for their own purposes, "wise") politicians and justices just follow the people? Do you think that, in spite of Newdow's bravery and intelligence, he's actually doing more harm "to the cause" than good?

8. Grief Without God

Comment #19542 by zoro on January 28, 2007 at 6:37 am

Although my story certainly isn't so moving as Carol's, perhaps if I share "the rest of the story", then the reluctance of so many "nonbelievers" to "come out of the closet" (at least in the U.S.) may seem a little more "reasonable" -- and maybe those who choose to do so will be able to choose their paths more wisely, profiting from my mistakes.

And since the story is rather long, let me put the "punch line" at the outset: in many cases, "coming out" can be dangerous (for oneself and one's family). Cases have been mentioned on this website dealing with damages to one's career as a result of "coming out"; certainly there have been cases of physical harm from "religious kooks" (e.g., John Lennon and of course all the victims of Muslim fanatics); but in my case, with my now being retired and not particularly worried about my death, my concern is with possible repercussions to my children and grandchildren. Thus, although of course I agree that the more who "come out", then the safer it'll be for all of us, yet I consider it to be immoral for me to jeopardize the financial and physical well being of my children and grandchildren to benefit others. Such must be their choices; not mine -- and my grandchildren are too young to make that choice by themselves. Therefore, I continue to remain in the closet, using "zoro", here, and as author of the book posted at my website, I use the pseudonym "A. Zoroaster". But maybe others can identify better approaches for themselves.

Now for the story. I won't go back to the beginning; I sketch that in the Preface of my book (at http://zenofzero.net). Instead, I'll start with something I read (a few months ago) at the Brights homepage (http://www.brightsonline.net/) dealing with the National Public Radio's (NPR's) "This I believe" series. Moved by some of the "essays" that I read (at http://thisibelieve.org/index.php), I submitted the following (restricted to 500 words) to NPR.

****

I don't remember what I was doing when I learned that my oldest child had crashed his car. Most is just a blur. But I do remember that, during the subsequent week, I totally rejected "belief" in God, replacing it with more appreciation for human accomplishments.

During the 30-or-so years since I had refused to go to church any longer, I hadn't given the "God idea" much thought: I was too busy getting my degrees, raising my family, working in science, and so on. What rekindled my thoughts about God was an ignorant cleric who came around to the waiting room outside the intensive-care unit, where I waited days and nights for my son to regain consciousness.

Just as I had seen him do to others, he came to me and asked: "Would you like to pray with me for your son's recovery?" Angrily, I said "No." To me he seemed like a vulture, swooping down to devour the most helpless prey. Everyone in that waiting room was stressed to the limit.

Sitting there, hour after hour, I wondered: should I give in? Should I pray to God for my son's life? I remember my conclusion: "No. The 'God idea' is stupid. It doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. If I give in and pray, I'd be abandoning science."

Within about an hour, the doctor came to me and said: "Your son has regained consciousness" – and he added: "Thank God." That blew me away: not only because my son would live, but because of that stupid "Thank God."

It wasn't God who should be thanked. Thanks go to the person who saw my son's car go into the irrigation ditch and immediately called 911, to the rescuers (one of whom jumped into the ditch to hold my son's bleeding head above the water, so he wouldn't drown), to the ambulance team, to the doctors and nurses, and so on: to the inventors of the telephone and the automobile, to all the other humans who had created everything from sirens to good roads, to a public knowing what to do when they hear an ambulance, to the developers of all the instruments and capabilities in the hospital, to the inventors and producers of electrical power, and so on, on and on.

I remember telling my other children, while driving home from the hospital the next day, that the only god that should be thanked is the "Human GOD" – an acronym for "Human Greatness On Demand."

During the subsequent quarter century, frequently I've been disturbed by how much harm has come from the ignorant "god idea" – and yet, more frequently, I've been thankful for how much help has come from human intelligence, kindness, bravery, and perseverance.

Think of 9/11 and think of the future. What's needed is not a war on terror but to continue the battle against ignorance, epitomized by the "god idea".

****

Now, for "the rest of the story" (as Paul Harvey would say). Subsequently, our local NPR station contacted me, as shown by the following e-mail (with identities removed):

****

Hello there,

The producers of This I Believe have forwarded us the scripts that have
come from [the local city] that they like, but cannot fit into the national
broadcast, they have encouraged us to use the essays on air and we plan to
do that before the end of the year. We like to invite you to record the
essay with us, but we'd also like to go a bit further and interview you so
we can mix the two elements into something more than just the essay.

Is this something you may be interested in? If so, please contact me so we
can set up a time to have you read the essay over the phone.

****

I talked to my children about the possibility of my agreeing to the interview, and although the idea didn't bother any of them, even my oldest granddaughter (who is 16) couldn't seem to make up her mind -- and it seemed inappropriate for me even to ask the younger ones. So, my decision was as described in the following e-mail, sent back to our local NPR station.

******

Thank you for your recent invitations to record my little "essay" and to be interviewed.

I've given your invitations some thought and during the Thanksgiving break, discussed possibilities with family members. Let me summarize this way:

• Given that there have been so many violent offenses against "atheists" ("nonbelievers", "infidels", etc.) -- undoubtedly stimulated by the injunctions to kill them that are found in various "holy books", including the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon,

• Given such stupid statements as the first President Bush's "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God", and

• Given the recent "hate mail" including "death threats" received by such "atheists" as Michael Newdow, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, and many others,

then I assume that you'll understand why I'm reluctant to accept your invitations, both for my own safety and for the safety of my family.

On the other hand, I think that the reluctance (even fear) of "Brights" to "come out of the closet" is, itself, an important, "news-worthy" story -- reflecting a serious social problem and one that I'd like to try to help solve. To be blunt, any society is sick when the well being of people is threatened if they express their opinions about something as seemingly esotoric as how life began and how the universe was created. After all, those are "scientific questions" and, therefore, should be "off limits" to all religions! In addition, there is the social question: is it desirable to have scientific questions settled by slick lawyers in courts, weapons in the streets, and the return of the torture rack? Besides, in reality, there are no atheists: we just think that, given the odds and the options, Pascal's wager is a foolish bet.

Consequently, my conclusion is this: I'd be willing to accept your invitations -- provided that my anonymity is preserved, e.g., through my use of the pseudonym [xxx xxxxxx]… If this is agreeable to you, then please contact me...

*****

In response to that, I received the following e-mail -- undoubtedly meant NOT for me but for others at the local NPR station.

*****

You gotta READ THIS!!!!!!! Um...do we really want this guy to do our "This
I believe?" Kinda odd.

*****

After responding to the author of that note and contacting the station manager, the Director of Programming and Assistant General Manager's response was as follows.

****

XXX [the station manager] passed along your note for my response. Please accept our apologies that one of our employees was careless in both her response and her use of e-mail.

Given that you appear to have some detailed concerns about how the content of your original essay might be received by listeners, then perhaps it is best if we close our communication on this topic.

****

To me that suggested the Program Director, also, wanted nothing to do with me or the topic. My response was twofold. One was to respond to the e-mail as follows.

****

Thank you for your response. I agree: it's best to close discussion on the topic. In this closing communication, however, perhaps you both may be interested in the following two thoughts.

1. Yesterday (with my continued writing on my current book thwarted by my anger), I spent some time looking into the origin of the This I Believe series, and found the following quotations from its founder, Edward R. Murrow, to be "inspiring":

This I Believe.

By that name, we present the personal philosophies of thoughtful men and women in all walks of life. In this brief space, a banker or a butcher, a painter or a social worker, people of all kinds who need have nothing more in common than integrity, a real honesty, will write about the rules they live by, the things they have found to be the basic values in their lives.

Except for those who think in terms of pious platitudes or dogma or narrow prejudice (and those thoughts we aren't interested in), people don't speak their beliefs easily, or publicly...

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it...

If we confuse dissent with disloyalty – if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric, or unorthodox – if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the… confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought...

I have always been on the side of the heretics against those who burned them, because the heretics so often turned out to be right. Dead, but right...

Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information...

No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.


2. An additional idea of his (copied below) suggested something else to me. His statement is:

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising, and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales, or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this.

I have no experience with what he describes, but upon reconsidering YYYY's

You gotta READ THIS!!!!!!! Um...do we really want this guy to do our "This I believe?" Kinda odd.

my thought was this: print, radio, and television reporters, editors, directors, and executives consider themselves the "gate keepers" of communications -- as they are -- but all the walls have been breached by the internet!

So, in concluding my communications with [your radio station], I'll now get back to working on my book -- which I'll soon "publish" -- on the internet!

*****

My second response was to proceed directly to putting my (draft) book on the internet (even though I hadn't originally planned to do so until it was finished), posting an additional chapter every week, i.e., continuing at the rate at which I had been sending chapters (or letters) to my 16-year-old granddaughter during the prior 30 weeks.

And I apologize for the length of all the above, but maybe it'll help some other people who are wrestling with the questions "When will it be safe to come out?" and "How?"

9. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19443 by zoro on January 27, 2007 at 8:16 am

Does anyone know if similar studies have been done for religious denominations?!

10. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18374 by zoro on January 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

ludaesch (#18367)

Thank you so very much. It's very rewarding to find that at least one person [well, no, that's not right: I know at least one other person, my now-favorite (!) niece] who seems to think that it might be of some value.

11. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18354 by zoro on January 20, 2007 at 2:36 am

MeIM (#18324):

"So, the question is asking for a cause of existence. But, the cause itself would have to be an existent and both exist (to be a creator) and not exist (to be created): a contradiction. Creating something out of no parts (nothing) with no creator (nothing) is not an option. Creation is inside existence. 'Nothing' is not a type of 'something'."

Be careful. You're assuming properties for "nothing" that science can't check: we have no experience with "total nothingness" -- save, perhaps, it might be what's "inside" Black Holes, but not many experiments have been done on them! Without such experiences, then associated with the concept of "total nothingness" or "total void", words fail. For example, I could say that "the total void" had two options: either sit "there" and do nothing "forever" or start fluctuating (which is what quantum mechanics shows Nature actually does), subject to the condition that in all such fluctuations, every "time" and every "where", always the "parts" summed to exactly zero, so that the total was always "totally zero". But a major trouble with such a statement is that, with no energy, then time has no meaning, and with no momentum, location has no meaning, so words such as "there", "forever", "always", etc. have no meaning.

Consequently, your statements that "creation is inside existence" and "nothing is not a type of something" are claims that, a far as I know, can't be substantiated. What can be substantiated (and in fact, has already found strong support, as I tried to suggest) is that the total electrical charge, the total linear and angular momentum, and the total energy of the universe, each, in total, sum to exactly zero. Those results suggests that this universe therefore came from "totally nothing", presumably caused by some symmetry-breaking fluctuation in "the total void" (which led to the Big Bang and which, no doubt, some people will want to call "God", i.e., still another "God of the gaps"). But stated in another way (directly contradicting what you wrote), evidence suggests that this "something" (which we call our universe) seems to be, in reality, "nothing"!

And thus, by the way, not only the "Zen of Zero" but also "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the real Tao."

EndlessForms (#18326):

"He's not saying that there was nothing, then something (a question for physicists, not biologists) but why there is anything at all? (whether or not there has always been something, or that something came out of nothing, that being besides the point here)"

Well, probably obviously, I disagree: it IS the point. If (as you say) his question is "why there is anything at all", it contains an unfounded premiss: that this "anything" is "something". My point is that evidence (for the total mass-energy, momentum, charge) points to the conclusion that, in fact, what's "here" is still "totally nothing", i.e., it all sums to exactly zero. Therefore, I disagree with your statement "whether or not… that something came out of nothing, that being beside the point".

It seems to me that the key is to see that we have had a misconception of the concept of "something", thinking that it can only be "positive" (e.g., the "congealed positive energy" that we call "mass"). In contrast, it appears that the concept of "something" has both positive and negative "components", e.g., positive and negative electrical charge, "positive and negative" momentum (which is rather silly way to describe it, since momentum is a vector, i.e., a first-order tensor), and positive and negative energy (which when Dirac first discovered "negative energy", for which he received the Nobel Prize, he wrote that he didn't understand what it meant). That's why I suggested that existence isn't a scalar, but a higher order tensor (and I would guess that it's of higher-order than a vector). Stated differently, the obvious mathematical way to get "something", say S, from "nothing", N (or zero) is N = 0 = S - S, where those symbols represent tensors of unknown order and contain all possible attributes (quantum charge, spin, energy, charm, color, whatever).

12. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18317 by zoro on January 19, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Good Lord! In an otherwise brilliant set of responses, how could HE possibly have said:

RD: There are some questions that science not only can't answer, but doesn't want to answer, things like, "What is right? And What is wrong?" … Science has nothing to say about "right" or "wrong." Moral philosophy does. There's another whole category of questions that science may not be able to answer -- the really deep questions of existence, like, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"…

In contrast to his statement that "Science has nothing to say about 'right' or 'wrong'," I submit that science is the ONLY endeavor that HAS something useful to say. Recall Edward O. Wilson's 1975 comment in his book "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis":

"Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and 'biologicized'."

Subsequently, Wilson published his book "Consilience", a great synopsis of which he published as a 1998 Atlantic Monthly article entitled "The Biological Basis of Morality" (which is posted at several locations on the web, e.g., at http://webpages.charter.net/dwhitlo2/wilson1.html).

As another good example (of many!), there's the 2004 book by Michael Shermer entitled (and notice the title!) "The Science of Good and Evil – Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule." In the text (p. 64) Shermer states:

"The codification of moral principles out of the psychology of moral traits evolved as a form of social control to ensure the survival of individuals within groups and the survival of human groups themselves. Religion was the first social institution to canonize moral principles, but morality need not be the exclusive domain of religion. Religions succeeded in identifying the human universal moral and immoral thoughts and behaviors more appropriate for accentuating amity and attenuating enmity. But we can improve on the ethical systems developed thousands of years ago by people of agricultural societies whose moral codes are surely open to changes. As we transition from kin and reciprocal altruism to species altruism and bioaltruism, and as religion continues to give ground to science, we need a new ethic for an Age of Science, a new morality that not only incorporates the findings of science, but applies scientific thinking and the methods of science to tackling moral problems and resolving moral dilemmas. We have done well thus far, but we can do better."

The final paragraph of Shermer's book is:

"The bright torch of science illuminates the darkness of humanity to reveal a human nature that is both moral and immoral, a product of our evolutionary heritage and our cultural history. We can construct a provisional ethical system that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative, a more universal and tolerant morality that enhances the probability of the survival and well-being of all members of the species, and perhaps eventually of all species and even the biosphere, the only home we have ever known or will know until science leads us off the planet, out of the solar system, and to the stars…"

In my own (free!) book (at www.zenofzero.net), I devote a few chapters to reviewing (for teenagers, explicitly for my 16-year-old granddaughter) what biologists have learned about the "scientific basis" of morality. Simply put, it's that "right" and "wrong" (and all shades in between!) have meaning only relative to some objective -- and the prime objective of humans, both as individuals and as a species (an objective dictated by our DNA molecules), is to continue!

In addition, in other chapters (starting with the first one!), I address "the really deep [question] of existence, like, 'Why is there something, rather than nothing'?" The answer is what I condense into my book's title (and the website's domain name) with "The Zen of Zero", by which I mean, that as near as science has been able to determine, in fact, there's "zero" (i.e., "nothing") here, just as before the Big Bang. That is, the "original zero" (or "total nothingness") has "just" been split into positive and negative components, as in 0 = (A - A) + (B + B) + (C - C) + (D - D) + (E - E) +…, with the "split" presumably having been caused by the first symmetry-breaking fluctuation in a total void, leading to the Big Bang. Thereby, for example, we humans (and the Earth, etc.) are "just" a few "chunks" of "solidied" positive energy, otherwise surrounded by a vast "ocean" of negative energy, which we call "space" (or "the vacuum").

That the total electrical charge and momentum of the universe are zero is relatively simple to see (courtesy Coulomb and Newton et al.). It's actually simple to see that the total energy must also be zero (from the first principle of thermodynamics, which is why, I presume, Hawking wrote on p. 129 of his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" the rather dogmatic statement "the total energy of the universe is exactly zero"). But the concept that the total energy of the universe is zero became more convincing with Edward Tyson's 1974 estimate of the total energy (based on available data and published in Nature, vol. 248, p. 296 under the title "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation"), which led him to his now-famous statement (contained in his article):

"In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."

Incidentally, for those mathematically inclined, it may be stimulating to contemplate that such results mean that "existence" isn't a scalar but a higher-order tensor (whose components are both positive and negative) -- which is something that someone should have realized a long time ago. If someone had, humanity could have been saved from the entire "God Delusion"!

13. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17375 by zoro on January 13, 2007 at 5:20 am

jeepyjay: Sorry, but from my viewpoint, you're playing word games. Among scientists, that's silly. On the other hand (and to repeat my original point re. Krauss' article), when confronting theologists, scientists must be careful with words.

Re. "Deductive logic never yields new knowledge." Okay: I yield that the wording could be better. Maybe it would be better to say "Deductive logic never yields new information" -- using information in the sense of "entropy". But that wording can also cause difficulties, because "entropy" can also be interpreted either as a property of the system (in Boltzmann's sense) or as a measure of the observer's knowledge of a system (in Shannon's sense). In view of that and following Popper's ideas (that in science, definitions are just short-hand notation and all such short-hand can be eliminated), let me offer a (long-hand) analogy for the point that I was trying to make.

What I meant by "deductive logic never yields new knowledge" is that using deductive logic is like baking a cake. All the knowledge/information is in the recipe. Once the recipe is specified (including exact amounts for all ingredients, mixed exactly in a specified manner, cooked at exactly the specified temperature, for exactly the right time), then the outcome is "baked in the cake". Similarly, in the case of deductive logic, once all the premisses are specified (Euclid's axioms, Newton's principles, Maxwell's equations, Einstein's ideas, whatever is appropriate), including all the premisses inherent in the mathematics that are used, then the outcome is "baked in". At the end of the deductive process, you may say: "Wow, I sure didn't expect the cake to taste this great!" -- and so, for you (or Einstein or...), that's "new information"(or better, "new knowledge"), but in reality, the information about how the cake would turn out was already contained in the recipe. E had to equal mc^2.

Next, re. your criticism of my use of "objective knowledge", my view is that again you're looking for too much "information" in my short-hand. As an analogy for what I was trying to say, it's like the woman who drives her car into the shop and says: "It goes 'clunk-clunk' every time I turn left." The service attendant takes her car out for a drive and says "I think the trouble is in the differential or the transmission." When the woman returns two days later, worried sick that the repairs will cost thousands, the mechanic says: "Nah, it was just crud in the left-front wheel bearing; the seal was leaking; I cleaned it out, repacked it, and replaced the seal."

What I meant by "objective reality" was like the car with the bad seal. Corresponding to that reality, there's a certain amount of "information" (or entropy). Before he worked on the car, the mechanic didn't change the (Boltzmann) entropy of the system. Further, for the mechanic, knowledge of the system didn't change (no change in Shannon entropy), because he immediately knew what the problem was. The mechanic is my "objective observer" (maybe better, "knowledgeable observer") of the "objective reality".

Thus, what I was again trying to say was: once a competent mechanic looks at your car, once the recipe is dictated, once the premisses are specified, then the rest follows: you won't get a bill for thousands of dollars (if your other premisses are correct, such as the honesty of the service department), the cake will be as it's destined to be, and you will get E = mc^2. The premisses dictate the outcome; the objective reality doesn't change -- although granted, different people's "knowledge" of it does.

Finally, re. your statement "all I'm arguing against is your thesis that seems to regard 'reason' as somehow unscientific", my response is "Great! Then there's nothing to argue about, because if I ever wrote that, I certainly didn't mean to!"

My "thesis", instead, is that reason is a subset of science. And since I seem to be on an analogy kick (which is something I usually try to avoid), let me try the following. Scientific progress is like a wheel being pushed, with great difficulty, up a very steep and maybe endless hill. (Or better: many wheels -- 'cause I sure can't keep up with the wheels that other disciplines are pushing -- but let me skip that.) The rim of the wheel is a circle of inferences: a bunch of particulars, linked to a proposed generalization or hypothesis via induction, leading to deductions (from the generalizations), leading to predictions, leading to new particulars, etc. Thus, the rim of the wheel is reasoning. Holding the rim in place is a host of spokes (intelligence, instrumentation and analysis capabilities and their developments,… peer reviews, publications, perseverance,…), the hub is honesty, and the hill up which we're slowly advancing is a mountain of data!

Thus, the scientific method -- the entire process of gathering data, trying to make sense of the data, proposing hypotheses (by induction, by intuition, by a Dirac's desire for "beauty", however the Einsteins of the world do it), cutting the hypotheses to their essentials (with Occam's razor), trying to make sure that every hypothesis is consistent with well-established scientific principles (not because they're "true", but because if yours violates, for example, the second principle of thermodynamics, then you've hugely magnified your problems of trying to convince other people that your hypothesis is right), deducing predictions from the hypotheses, designing and conducting experiments to test the predictions, developing new instrumentation and new analysis capabilities, gathering data, trying to make sense of the data, and so on, without end (and oh yes, by the way, there are the minor problems of trying to get your research funded and your results published!) -- is hugely more than "reason".

Is it all "reasonable"? I certainly hope so; empirically, it seems to be so. But is it all just "reason" (viz., "logic", viz., based on A is identically A and not identically not-A)? Of course not! That would be a case of "irrational mysticism". And that was my original point: giving kudos to Krauss but concerned that he was yielding to the clerics' attempting to put science under reason (of course, in turn, under their glorious "faith"), which is totally back asswards.

Enuff said. I gotta get back to work on my book -- which, in case I haven't advertised it enough (cause I can't get that stupid Google crawler to read beyond the welcome page!) is at www.zenofzero.net. [Hmmm. There's another analogy waiting to be drawn: clerics are a lot like computers -- they can't think for themselves, they're programmed with exact instructions, their premisses must be inviolate, their ritual must be exactly so,... Stupid, damn computers! Anybody with half a brain can see that you're supposed to just... Talk about bad links!]

14. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17222 by zoro on January 12, 2007 at 5:44 am

jeepjay: As Popper recommended, don't get hung up on words. Deduction certainly can lead to new insight or new understanding or even new knowledge -- for the individual. But insofar as it's correct that there's an objective reality "out there", upon which we can all eventually come to agreement, then "objective knowledge" of it can't be increased via deduction. To do that requires science.

The essence of deduction is: "if these generalities (or premisses), then the following particulars." For example, if Euclid's axioms (along with his definitions), then... (including Pythagoras' theorem, which by the way, was known to the Sumerians, ~2,000 years before Pythagoras). As another example, if Galilean invariance and if the speed of light is the same for all observers (plus, importantly, if the premisses of algebra, such as associativity, commutativity, etc.) are right, then E = mc^2 (and atomic bombs should work). Certainly new "insight" can result from deductive arguments: not even Einstein had the insight to see that the experimental result that the speed of light was the same for all observers implied that E = mc^2, but in fact, such "objective knowledge" was there, in the premisses, waiting for someone as smart as an Euclid or an Einstein to "deduce" the details.

Meanwhile, the essence of induction is the opposite: "if these particulars, then the following generalities." For example, given that the sun has risen every morning, then it'll similarly rise every morning. As another example, if (as Michelson and Morley found) the speed of light was independent of the speed for one observer, then it's true for all observers.

But beware! Both these cases of inference (both deduction and induction) are extremely dangerous. The dangers of induction are obvious and can be horrible, e.g., I met three people who were misers, they were Jews, therefore, all Jews are misers. Similarly, the dangers of deduction are obvious and can be equally horrible, e.g., Allah told Muhammad…, therefore, crash the airplanes into the Twin Towers.

The scientific method is the only way known to try to avoid such dangers (and to gain new knowledge about "the objective reality"). For deduction, the challenge of science is to determine if the premisses are "true"; for induction, the challenge is to determine if the generalities are "true". But the huge difficulty (as Popper showed) is that we can never determine what's "true" -- we're stuck with just testing to determine which premisses and which generalities are false.

But in addition, in cases in which some premiss or some generality can't be tested (such as the premiss that any god exists), then the only sensible procedure is to toss the premiss into a wastebasket labeled "stupidity". And although it takes a little while to show, yet since I expect that you'll consider the result to be obvious, let me add the following. The reasons why "the god idea" can't be tested, are, first, because another principle that seems to be correct is "if an idea contains no information, then there's no way to test it" and second, in fact, the statement "God exists" contains no information (because "existence" has only phenomenological meaning, e.g., to determine if a tree "exists", kick it).

And thus Phillips' point and also the reason why I describe all clerics as "damnable deducers". They posit a premiss that contains no information (and therefore is untestable), and from that premiss deduce atrocities: God exists… therefore… physically abuse your children ("He who hates his child spares the rod"), mentally abuse them (indoctrinate them in the God garbage, so the clerics can continue their parasitic existence), treat your women as dirt, label homosexuality a "sin", murder the infidels, and on and on, continuing on for thousands of years. All of which leads to Dawkins' question "What makes anyone think that 'theology' is a subject at all?" -- and to my exclamations: "Enough's enough! Throw all the damnable clerical deducers out on their dumb asses!"

15. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17136 by zoro on January 11, 2007 at 5:11 am

jeepyjay (#17075): I apologize for the "sparking"; it was a long day, straining my tolerance -- which even on "short days", isn't very high. [Somewhat as an aside: For me, Socrates' assessment "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance" continues to be powerful (and also, Goethe's even more powerful "There is nothing more evil than ignorance in action"). Both describe the clerics of the world so well. But then, in a interview at an American radio station about a year ago, Dawkins made a good point. I won't dig out his exact statement, but it was similar to: 'I'm ignorant about many things.' In that regard, of course everyone is similar, which then leads to my quandary: how to incorporate the idea that everyone is ignorant about many thing within the wisdom summarized by Socrates. I wonder if the Greek word that Socrates actually used doesn't really mean "ignorance" but something similar to "refusal to learn". That is, did Socrates really say something similar to "There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal"? Can someone enlighten me?]

Re. "infinity" -- naw, that's beyond me. :) One of my minors for my Ph.D. was applied math, which I subsequently taught for more than a decade, but "applied math" is an entirely different "animal" from "pure math". Realize that pure mathematicians aren't scientists: they don't use the scientific method. All topics in pure math are "simply" logical constructs -- and more power to them, especially since many of their constructs have been extremely useful in science (e.g., Einstein just "borrowed" their theories for his general relativity, and string theoreticians are now doing similar). Therefore, I think that your "Is it [infinity -- and actually, as you point out, pure mathematicians have an infinity of infinities] just fantasy...?" is right, in the sense that all infinities are meaningless to scientists -- because none of them can be measured. And therefore, I agree with your suggestion that "it's all a… Platonic religion". But again, more power to them: as far as I know and unlike so many clerics of the world, they don't demand that we think as they do and they don't seek to dominate anyone.

Some other thoughts, which you might think are relevant, come to mind. One is related to an article entitled "New Survey: Scientists 'More Likely Than Ever' to Reject God Belief" (by an unidentified author and that was posted at http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm). The article deals with the survey (reported in Nature) on "God Belief" among members of the National Academy (I think it means members of the U.S. National Academy). Here's one paragraph:

"The follow-up study reported in Nature reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in 'personal god', only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed 'personal disbelief', and 20.8% expressed 'doubt or agnosticism'. Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death, declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the 'human immortality' tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed 'doubt or agnosticism' on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields – only 5.5%."

Besides the disgrace that 7% of the surveyed members of the Academy still "believe" in something for which there's zero evidence (Do they similarly "advise the government on public policy" on the basis of zero evidence?! And re. the post by savroD, Collins is probably one of them -- I agree, he's an embarrassment to science -- and to humanity), my point, here, is to call attention to the result for the mathematicians: 14%, ~ twice as bad as the average. To me it seems consistent: pure mathematicians (as I bet most of the Academy mathematicians are) build logical edifices on premisses that in many cases aren't supported by science; thereby, they're probably more prone to accept the clerics' constructs, none of whose premisses are supported by data.

The most familiar example of mathematical edifices constructed on untested or even untestable premisses is, of course, Euclid's assumption that parallel lines would never intersect (i.e., a claim about infinity). The history of challenges to that untestable premiss, the basis of all "Euclidean geometry", is amazing -- of course eventually leading to development of non-Euclidean geometry. But I saw in a recent article by Guth & Kaiser (Science 307, 11 Feb. 2005, p. 884) that our universe does seem to be Euclidean: with the value unity if it's "flat", the latest experimental results show the value to be between 0.990 and 1.03 .

In addition, you might want to explore another fundamental premiss of math, which I've never seen anyone do (but probably someone has). Russell's famous attempt (with Whitehead) to develop algebra from logic (leading to the huge Principia Mathematica, about which he famously quipped that it proved there were three feet in a yard!) was of course based on Aristotelean logic, in turn based on the scientific results (discovered by fish and monkeys) that things exist (A is A) and are distinct (A is not not-A). From that, and definitions about numbers, algebra follows.

Meanwhile, though, in reality, things don't necessarily remain distinct. Applying Aristotle's logic to people, for example, runs into brick walls -- because we change: you are, and simultaneously you're not, the same person you were a minute ago. As you can find on the web, many advances have been made in understanding how to modify logic to account for such changes (in fact, if you think about it, that's the thrust of calculus), but even for inanimate things, they needn't remain distinct -- so our Aristotelean logic (and resulting algebra) fails.

For example, if you have one apple and then get another apple, you have two (distinct) apples, but if one cosmic Black Hole merges with another, then how many are there? Or simpler: if you have one hole in your jeans and then get another hole in your jeans adjacent to the first hole, then how many holes do you have in your jeans? In such cases, 1 + 1 = 1. Admittedly they're bigger "holes", but if a Black Hole is actually a reconstruction of the "total nothingnes", then you'd have 1 + 1 = 0 -- or in that case, would it be the inspiring result 0 + 0 = 0 ? I don't know if there's a branch of pure math (which, then, actually, should be a branch of applied math!) developed to handle such cases. Can anyone enlighten me on that, too?

16. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17031 by zoro on January 10, 2007 at 8:06 am

Yes, but no & no. "Yes" to the "long bow" analogy -- but this war won't be won using just darts.

"No" to the claim that "all science is deductive" (using "deduce" in either its primary or secondary sense, viz., "to arrive at a fact or conclusion by reasoning; draw as a logical principle"), since science can be equally said to be "inductive". Further, at least since since the time of Archimedes, science can be intuitive ("Eureka!"), always (we hope!) it's logical, for Dirac it was "simply" beautiful, and so on. So, turn it around: not that science is some limitation, but that science is all the above, and more. Alternatively (and again), as Feynman said: "Science is simply a way of trying to make sure we're not fooling ourselves."

But more forcefully, no to the "preposterous…" suggestion that Krauss is buying into the clerics' terminology. Once again defending him, JohnC may be "sure" that Krauss hasn't, but based on the data (his article), the opposite conclusion seems more obvious. Making an inference from his awards is inadequate. Nonetheless I admit, on the other hand, that I didn't google him to determine what else he has written. Perhaps he has made the distinction elsewhere, but it seems appropriate for me to start with (and address) what was posted. Further, going beyond personalities, I maintain that there are (at least) two important points, not only to make but to hammer home. Popper introduced one well:

"In science, we take care that the statements we make should never depend upon the meaning of our terms. Even where the terms are defined, we never try to derive any information from the definition, or to base any argument upon it. This is why our terms make so little trouble. We do not overburden them. We try to attach to them as little weight as possible. We do not take their 'meaning' too seriously. We are always conscious that our terms are a little vague (since we have learnt to use them only in practical applications) and we reach precision not by reducing their penumbra of vaugueness, but rather by keeping well within it, by carefully phrasing our sentences in such a way that the possible shades of meaning do not matter. This is how we avoid quarrelling about words.

"Our 'scientific knowledge', in the sense in which this term may be properly used, remains entirely unaffected if we eliminate all definitions; the only effect is upon our language, which would lose, not precision, but merely brevity… There could hardly be a greater contrast than that between this view of the part played by definitions, and Aristotle's view. For Aristotle's "essentialist definitions" [i.e., in which words are burdened with "capturing the essence" of some thing or process] are [imagined to be] the principles from which all our knowledge is derived; they thus [are imagined to] contain all our knowledge; and they [are imagined to] serve to substitute a long formula for a short one. As opposed to this,… scientific… definitions do not contain any knowledge whatever, nor even any 'opinion'; they do nothing but introduce new arbitrary shorthand labels; they cut a long story short.

"The problem of definitions and of the 'meaning of terms' is the most important source of Aristotle's regrettably still prevailing intellectual influence, of all that verbal and empty sholasticism that haunts not only the Middle Ages, but our own contemporary philosophy [and all religions!]… The development of thought since Aristotle could, I think, be summed up by saying that every discipline, as long as it used the Aristotelian method of definition [such as any religion!] has remained arrested in a state of empty verbiage and barren scholasticism, and that the degree to which the various sciences have been able to make any progress depended on the degree to which they have been able to get rid of this essentialist method."

I heartily agree with Popper (and therefore find distasteful all bickering over words, such as with "reason" vs. "logic" vs. "science", "inductive vs. deductive", and so on). Further, I expect that with training similar to mine, Krauss has developed a similar distaste -- and therefore I wouldn't be surprised if he wouldn't worry about the difference between "reason vs. faith" and "science vs. faith", since to scientists, it's all silly word games. Notice, however, the first two words of the above quotation from Popper: "In science…" In politics, in contrast (and therefore, in all religions), words matter. And to make political progress in booting all religion into the dustbin of human mistakes, it's imperative that we not let the damn clerics get away with definitions that promote their cause. From that perspective and toward my second point, therefore, consider again what (the fool) Pope Benedict XVI said at the University of Regensburg on 12 Sept. 2006:

"The university [of Regensburg] was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question…

"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition… of part of the dialogue carried on… by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both… The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an… It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point… which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue… "The emperor… goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable… "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably… is contrary to God's nature. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly…"

"And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is… the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

"Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding… The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably… is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."

My response, again, is don't buy it! This foolish pope sticks his foot out, trying to arrest a slamming door. He claims that his religion (but not Islam) has always been a religion of reason (aka logos). But his ploy is familiar: he plans to manipulate words. He claims that reason is more than the scientific method ("We will succeed… only if… we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable"). Yet, it's the scientific method that's more general: it not only contains reason, it goes vastly beyond it. Who finds quantum mechanics "reasonable"? Both Einstein and Feynman admitted that they found it not only unreasonable but even incomprehensible. Yet, it's predictions have been tested so many times, who doubts that it must be approaching a correct description of nature?

Let me try to put it another way. The basis of reasoning is a few simple principles of science (i.e., discoveries of "the nature of reality") that were established by fish, monkeys, and people, ages ago, and that finally Aristotle identified. From such principles (which, actually, have their limitations), classical logic -- reasoning -- follows. But subsequently, perhaps a hundred other scientific principles have been discovered, usually identified with the discoverer's name (Galileo, Newton, Coulomb, Darwin, Faraday, Darwin, Maxwell, Boltmann, Plank, Einstein, Heisenburg, Dirac,…). And now, this foolish pope would have us subsume all such science, all such principles, not only under "reason" but of course subsume both reason and science under his grander umbrella of "faith". My response (I've spend a lifetime trying to be polite; it doesn't work with the damnable clerics): "Blow it out your ear, you nincompoop; you've got it back asswards!"

Looked at one way, first came the foolishness of his kind, with their "faith" in magic and miracles; next came Aristotle with his simplistic reasoning (but what an enormous contribution he made!); of late, courtesy the likes of Bacon, humanity is making progress via science. But look at it, also, in another way. The "realists" -- the scientists -- have always been with us, usually unsung (and commonly persecuted) by "the faithful". Way, way back, somebody figured out (probably by herself) how to start a fire. About 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, somebody else figured out (probably by himself) how to make a wheel spin on an axle. And so on it went. Oh, to be sure, these brilliant, unsung heros had "faith" (or better "trust" or "confidence") -- in themselves! And no doubt they used reasoning ("Hmmm, I guess there ain't no way that the bush is gonna start burning -- let alone talking -- on its own"). But above all, the prime reason for their success was undoubtedly their use of the scientific method: "guess, test, and re-assess".

And now what? The "talking- and burning-bush boys" are back (or better, they're trying a new con): the damnable excuses for humans who used fire to burn the "unbelievers" and who used the wheel to torture the "infidels", the clerical fools who (2,000 years ago) used Hero's steam engine to con the Ancient Egyptian people into carrying their useless carcasses, the same fools who today don't see that their stupid birth-control policies, in fact, destroy human dignity,… they now want in on the game -- so that we can help them con the people into carrying their useless carcasses still longer. They now say: "Yes, yes, we like being cozy by the fire, we like the wheels on our limousines, we like all the scientific achievements, but don't you see, we've always been on your side: science is part of reason, and reason has always been part of our glorious faith."

No! In fact, religion is just primitive science -- the part that long-since has been debunked. And I heartily agree with H.L. Mencken: "The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses…" So, no: don't yield to them. Kick them out of the universities. By definition, "theology" is the study of "the gods". Relying on evidence (or better, the lack thereof), my estimate is that the probability of the existence of any god is less than one part in a google (and I expect that it's closer to 10^-500.) That's vastly smaller than the probability that all invisible flying elephants are pink. Based on that and what Steve Eley wrote (replacing his "Unicorns" with "Elephants")

"Invisible Pink [Elephants] are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink [Elephants] is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

that is, given such reasoning, such logic, such "glorious faith" in Invisible Flying Pink Elephants (IFPE), surely all schools of theology in all universities should be transformed into schools of IFPEology -- to indoctrinate the students, so they'll carry the useless carcasses of another generation of foolish clerics.

Finally, re. the complaints about my calling all clerics "fools", I rely simply on the idea that anyone who doesn't try to correct his errors when he's shown a method (in the case at hand, the scientific method, viz., a way of trying not to fool yourself) is a fool. And in case they need more help in applying the scientific method to their field, then I'll give them two hints: first, collect all relevant data; second, in those rare cases in which not even the tiniest shred of data can be found, choose a new field.

17. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16959 by zoro on January 9, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Electric Monk (#16953):

Well, thank you for the good suggestion, but not only have I read many of Popper's tremendous contributions, I lived Popper's principle, working in and teaching science for more than 30 years.

I tell you what: if you'll read the first 35 chapters of my (free) online book (at www.zenofzero.net, a book expressly written for my 16-year-old granddaughter to try to help her and other kids slough off their religious indoctrination), and I especially recommend that you read the chapters dealing with the scientific method and logic, then by the time that you're finished learning that material, I'm quite confident that I'll have posted the chapters (now in draft form and being posted at the rate of one per week) in which I describe (and critique) Popper's ideas.

Beyond that, I'm pleased to report that even some elementary kids in the U.S. are now being taught that the scientific method is "guess, test, and revise" (or "and guess again" or "test again" or "re-assess"). As well, there's Feynman's great definition: "[It's] simply a way of trying not to fool yourself."

18. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16938 by zoro on January 9, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Sorry, I missed Quine's perfect reply (#16921).

Electric Monk (#16928):

"10. (n.) Hence: To carry on a process of deduction or induction, in order to convince or confute; to formulate and set forth propositions and the inferences from them; to argue.

- sounds a lot like the scientific method to me."

Good heavens. Check out the meaning of the scientific method! Data anyone?

19. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16936 by zoro on January 9, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Michael: No! Doubly no! First, recall the beautiful story (which you can find on the web):

"When Bertrand Russell claimed to a colleague that from a false statement he could prove anything, he was challenged as follows: 'Prove that if 0 = 1, then you are the King of England.'

"To this he replied, 'Simple. If 0 = 1, then, adding 1 to each side, 1 = 2. Since the King and I are two, it follows that the King and I are one, and hence I am the King of England'."

Second, don't treat the damn clerics gently. Think of all the miseries and murders their stupidities have caused. They don't belong in academia. Would you mind if I quoted Richard Dawkins?!

"A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and 'theology.' It remarked that 'People want to know as much as possible about their origins.' I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

"Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

"It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

"What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"



In sum, your way has been tried for hundreds if not thousands of years, and yet the parasites still infect places such as Harvard. I therefore recommend that we follow Voltaire's lead -- who may be the primary reason why Europe is farther ahead than the U.S. in eliminating religious stupidity -- and try eradicating the clerics with insults, ridicule, mockery, and laughter. As Mencken said: "One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it's vastly more intelligent."

20. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16890 by zoro on January 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

In response to jeepjay (#16882) and agreeing with Quine ((#16880):

I understand your point, but still I recommend that we refuse to play the clerics' word game.

Here are a dozen definitions of reason, from http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/reason/.

1. (v. t.) To find by logical processes; to explain or justify by reason or argument; -- usually with out; as, to reason out the causes of the librations of the moon.
2. (v. t.) To overcome or conquer by adducing reasons; -- with down; as, to reason down a passion.
3 (n.) Ratio; proportion.
4. (n.) To converse; to compare opinions.
5. (n.) A thought or a consideration offered in support of a determination or an opinion; a just ground for a conclusion or an action; that which is offered or accepted as an explanation; the efficient cause of an occurrence or a phenomenon; a motive for an action or a determination; proof, more or less decisive, for an opinion or a conclusion; principle; efficient cause; final cause; ground of argument.
6. (n.) Due exercise of the reasoning faculty; accordance with, or that which is accordant with and ratified by, the mind rightly exercised; right intellectual judgment; clear and fair deductions from true principles; that which is dictated or supported by the common sense of mankind; right conduct; right; propriety; justice.
7. (v. t.) To persuade by reasoning or argument; as, to reason one into a belief; to reason one out of his plan.
8. (n.) The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires. Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.
9. (n.) To exercise the rational faculty; to deduce inferences from premises; to perform the process of deduction or of induction; to ratiocinate; to reach conclusions by a systematic comparison of facts.
10. (n.) Hence: To carry on a process of deduction or of induction, in order to convince or to confute; to formulate and set forth propositions and the inferences from them; to argue.
11. (v. t.) To support with reasons, as a request.
12. (v. t.) To arrange and present the reasons for or against; to examine or discuss by arguments; to debate or discuss; as, I reasoned the matter with my friend.

From such definitions and the familiar meaning of "the scientific method", I think it's clear that 'reason' is vastly weaker than the scientific method: with the scientific method (in which, of course, reason is employed), knowledge is gained (and consistently, the word 'science' is Latin for knowledge). Thereby, I reject your suggestion (as I'm sure all scientists would) that 'reason' includes 'science'.

And by suggesting that we refuse to play the clerics' word game, I mean that, even though we might go along with their claims that their concoctions are "reasonable" (in the sense that, as was mentioned by Quine, their arguments might be logically sound -- but they're based on faulty premisses), yet I would recommend that, after such an acknowledgment, we then hit such fools (as all the popes) with the figurative club: "Reasonable, yes; logically consistent, yes; scientifically sound, NO!"

21. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16822 by zoro on January 9, 2007 at 2:30 am

Kudos to Krauss, but I wish he wouldn't "buy into" the clerics' terminology: the confrontation is not between faith and reason, but between faith and science. Worst is his quotation from Pinker: "universities are about reason, pure and simple." That just ain't so! The foundation of every science department in every university is not reason but data -- or better, the scientific method.

Of course reason (or logic) is a great tool. But reason isn't based (as Aristotle claimed) on some untestable assumptions: A is identical to A and not identical to not-A are scientific principles supported by data from an incomprehensibly huge number of experiments. When's the last time you found that a tree limb was a banana?

Further, reason is a tool of limited utility -- and so easily misused. Deductive logic never yields new knowledge: it leads only to information that's consistent with the premisses. [Even Einstein's E = mc^2 necessarily followed from his premisses that the speed of light was independent of the speed of the observer (an experimental result) and that the "laws" of mathematics were consistent with A is A, etc. (also confirmed experimentally)]. Meanwhile, as Hume so ably showed, inductive logic doesn't lead to new knowledge: the inference that the Sun will rise tomorrow must, in the end, be confirmed experimentally.

Thus, although I totally agree with Krauss not to "buy into" any cleric's suggestion that faith and reason are compatible [because, for example, the essence of any miracle is that A is not equal to A; therefore, all claimed "miracles" (the foundations of all the dominant and domineering religions) are illogical], yet if religious stupidity is to be purged, I'm convinced that it's necessary to take our stand based on the scientific method: "Show me the data!" What evidence supports the weird speculation that some giant Jabberwock in the sky controls the universe? Show me how you determined that all invisible flying elephants are pink! What predictions follow from your hypothesis? How can they be tested?

22. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16813 by zoro on January 9, 2007 at 12:56 am

The points about 'faith', 'belief', and the need for evidence are excellent. Let me show some quotations from others who said similar. I've taken these quotes from my on-line book (which I wrote to respond to my granddaughter's question "Grampa, how come you don't believe in God?"), but in turn, a large fraction of these quotations are culled from Wayne Aiken's superb (and huge!) collection (so huge that it's now broken into two parts) at: http://htomc.dns2go.com/atheism/cookie.41a and http://htomc.dns2go.com/atheism/cookie.41b. [Sorry, I can't get that second one to work. Can someone fix it?]

BELIEF:

"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known." [Montaigne, 1533-1592]

"For what a man would like to be true, that he more readily believes." [Francis Bacon, 1561-1626]

"Earthly minds, like mud walls, resist the strongest batteries; and though, perhaps, sometimes the force of a clear argument may make some impression, yet they nevertheless stand firm, keep out the enemy, truth, that would captivate or disturb them." [John Locke, 1632-1704]

"The man scarce lives who is not more credulous than he ought to be. The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough." [Adam Smith, 1723-1790]

"Belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge… We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves." [Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832]

"Credulity is the man's weakness, but the child's strength." [Charles Lamb, 1775-1834]

"The practical effect of a belief is the real test of its soundness." [J.A. Froude,1818-1894]

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." [Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910]

"Today the intelligence of the world denies the miraculous. Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of Christianity has crumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fabric must fall. The natural is true. The miraculous is false." [Robert Ingersoll, 1833-1899]

"Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or may be found a little draughty. [Samuel Butler, 1835-1902]

"We have only to believe. And the more threatening and irreducible reality appears, the more firmly and desperately must we believe. Then, little by little, we shall see the universal horror unbend, and then smile upon us, and then take us in its more than human arms." [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,1881-1955]

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." [Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970]

"The word 'belief' is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis." [Carl Gustave Jung, 1875-1961]

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely. [Robert A. Wilson]

FAITH:

"The barbaric religions of primitive worlds hold not a germ of scientific fact, though they claim to explain all. Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground for his beliefs taken away, he doesn't stop believing. He then calls his mistaken beliefs 'faith' because he knows they are right. And he knows they are right because he has faith." [Harry Harrison]

"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been able to move real mountains… But it can put mountains where there are none." [Friedrich Nietzsche]

"Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves… [The] majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication or some passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves… Where there is the necessary skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that move mountains." [Eric Hoffer]

"We may define 'faith' as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions." [Bertrand Russell]

"Faith in the sense that religionists use the term, it turns out, is equivalent to the loss of confidence of the individuals of the human species to achieve their goals on their own. This seems to be borne out by the adherence to religion among the poor, the spread of religion in times of depression and conflict, and the greater success of all religions to proselytize among deprived populations wherever they may be." [Chester Dolan]

"I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat – an admission that the truths of religion [my italics, because "the truths of religion" is an oxymoron – he means "the assumptions (or assertions) of religion"!] are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only undemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith… Faith, by its very invocation, is a transparent admission that religious claims cannot stand on their own two feet… I just lost faith in faith." [Dan Barker]

THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE:

"Believe nothing… merely because you have been told it… or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide." [The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), c. 500 BCE]

"The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see." [Huang Po (a Zen master who died in about 850)]

"A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence." [David Hume]

"To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and folly." [Volney]

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." [Mark Twain]

"The house of delusions is cheap to build but drafty to live in." [A.E. Housman]

"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said "Think"; the many have said "Believe!" [Robert Ingersoll]

"Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." [Ambrose Bierce]

"It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence." [William Kingdon Clifford]

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin… The foundation of morality is to… give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." [Thomas Henry Huxley]

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." [Aldous Huxley]

"We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife, immortality, heaven, hell, etc." [Julian Huxley]

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way… So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues." [Bertrand Russell]

"Credulity is belief in slight evidence, with no evidence, or against evidence." [Tryon Edwards]

"In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality." [Clarence Darrow]

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." [Richard Dawkins]

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." [Dan Barker]

"We ought to do what we can towards eradicating the evil habit of believing without regard to evidence." [Richard Robinson]

"The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination." [Peter B. Medawar]

"Conviction is something you need in order to act… But your action needs to be proportional to the depth of evidence that underlies your conviction." [Paul O'Neill]

"Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants." [Arthur M. Jackson]

23. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16779 by zoro on January 8, 2007 at 5:22 pm

DavidJMH (#16770):

You may want to discontinue using the line:

"Science… is the art of trying to know more and more about less and less, until one eventually knows everything about nothing."

As I outline in the first chapter of my book (at www.zenofzero.net and which is expressly written for my 16-year-old granddaughter), it now seems reasonably clear not only that this universe of ours was created from totally nothing but also that, in fact, there's still nothing here [in the sense that, if all electric charge, moment