Comments by MouthAlmighty
1. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan
Comment #104644 by MouthAlmighty on December 29, 2007 at 4:07 am
The Holy See has issued a denial...
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55627
...which will probably get much less coverage than the original story.
It's hard to ignore the evidence though - competition will always drive policy. As automath notes, this move reflects the rise in competition from the Pentecostal movement in the same way that the 'rethink' on 'limbo' for dead pre-baptismal children reflected the growing interest in Islam in areas beset by high infant mortality.
The Catholic church's ability to recruit people to the priesthood is in crisis and it's haemorrhaging adherents by the day. We'll likely see an increase in opportunities for lay preachers and/or a relaxation of the chastity vows in the not too distant future.
2. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!
Comment #59544 by MouthAlmighty on July 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm
"Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating."
Couldn't agree more PZ – a bit like setting up a campaign to paint atheists as a downtrodden minority whose civil and human rights are routinely abused; passing them off as victims of rampant institutionalised social injustice; telling them what they should think about themselves; accusing them of heresy if they're not quite comfortable with the prescribed image; encouraging them to rally round a unified symbol and proselytise the masses and denouncing them as trolling agents for the 'enemy' if they don't get with the programme.
And while we're at it can I get an "Amen!" people?
Personally – I couldn't give a monkey's chuff about the t-shirt. It's a perfectly legitimate way for a non-profit organisation to raise funds and awareness. In that sense, it is indeed "just a t-shirt" and you can take it or leave it. For the record; if you decide to take it, then all power to you! If you want to buy it because you're contributing to a worthy cause, that's just fine. If it makes you feel good to announce your non-belief to the world and be part of a wider and growing community, that's great. If you want it to help you actively engage people in conversation about atheism, then that's just dandy! But don't imply that not wearing the t-shirt means that I'm 'in the closet' that I'm a victim unwilling to take a stand against my own oppression, or worse, that by implication my inaction endorses the oppression and hinders the efforts of other more heroic individuals.
"…share your idealism… COME OUT of the closet! You'll feel liberated… your example will encourage others to COME OUT… Let the world know that we are not about to go away… help others understand that atheists come in all shapes, sizes, colours and personalities…" etc., etc.
This isn't a sales pitch for a t-shirt; it's a recruitment campaign for soldiers in a sacred cause complete with instructions for the required votive behaviour. Some of you have expressed outrage at the 'sheep mentality' references made here, well like I said, all power to you. But it doesn't matter which way you slice it, this is shepherding!
3. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!
Comment #59279 by MouthAlmighty on July 28, 2007 at 5:23 pm
"COME out, REACH out, SPEAK out, KEEP out, and STAND out."
I think you missed "SELL out."
Now for fuck sake, CHILL out before you FREAK out.
4. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'
Comment #28387 by MouthAlmighty on March 29, 2007 at 3:39 am
More sloppy journalism; Dawkins did indeed say these things, but as I read it the dummy analogy was merely a means of succinctly summarising the arguments presented by his opponents. There are times when perhaps he'd do well to moderate his tone without weakening his argument but this wasn't one of them.
Anyway to be fair - the speakers against the motion did do a fairly good job of presenting all the best attributes of mankind; compassion, empathy, yearning, creativity, courage, etc.. failing only to acknowledge that upon all these things organised religion is parasitic.
Comment #27895 by MouthAlmighty on March 27, 2007 at 6:26 am
I don't see Harris' proposition as a straight representation of the Monty Hall dilemma. Sullivan isn't being pushed into a win/lose situation. To me it looks more like this...?
1 = Goat
2 = Lexus
3 = Lexus with all the trimmings in Sullivan's favourite colour
We know "with absolute certainty" that the goat is off the menu, so the question basically is, "How utterly distraught would you be if the Lexus turned out to be just a regular run-of-the-mill Lexus without all the extras, in silver instead of powder blue?"
Harris then assumes that he wouldn't be in the least bit upset, so the following question is, "So, why do you so vehemently insist on a Lexus with all the trimmings in powder blue and dismiss all other Lexuses (Lexi?) as unworthy even to be considered as forms of transport? Right now in the real world – how can you justify thinking that?"
6. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image
Comment #27698 by MouthAlmighty on March 26, 2007 at 7:14 am
This is an amusing story - made all the more so by the conspicuous absence of riots and official decrees of divinely sanctioned murder.
7. The many forms of fundamentalism
Comment #27683 by MouthAlmighty on March 26, 2007 at 6:00 am
Corylus - thanks for the summary.
Further to your comments on the feminist aspect of postmodernist thought, a good friend of mine is a mathematician specialising in fluid dynamics who just loves this little bit of wisdom from Luce Irigaray...
The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
8. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'
Comment #27672 by MouthAlmighty on March 26, 2007 at 4:39 am
There was a similar incident in 2003, when Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel made some inappropriate remarks in an article about the Miss World contest... "What would Mohammed think? He would probably have chosen a wife from one of them."
Her personal account is here...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,896926,00.html
When I browsed through the Google news site I read the fatwa by the Zamfara state government through their spokesperson, Mamuda Aliyu Shinkaf. "Like Salman Rushdie, the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed. It is abiding on all Muslims wherever they are to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty." I felt calm. It was then I realised that there was no going back to Nigeria.
200 people died in the riots, but of course this was also probably "fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources" so - nowt to worry about there then.
Comment #27352 by MouthAlmighty on March 24, 2007 at 7:56 am
I have some difficulty fully endorsing the position promoted by MouthAlmighty (435/#26875 reply to gelf) and other recent posters.
To alleviate your trouble, read the post again and you'll see that I wasn't "promoting" anything. This erroneous assumption is also evident in your reading of the wider debate. A more considered reading will show that I didn't offer any recommendations, make suggestions, give advice – the kind of things you'd expect in a promotion. I merely pointed out the flaw in gelf's reasoning: i.e. that it is not possible to forcibly relieve someone of their strongly held beliefs by means of rational discourse. You'll also be very hard pushed to find anything in the polemics of Dawkins & Co. that constitutes a recommendation to try. The authors certainly hope that the polemics themselves will induce de-conversions, and many commentators have consequently labelled them as "evangelical atheists." However, there is a whole world of difference between presenting a reasoned argument against religious belief in a book (or internet forum) and face to face evangelising. The latter tactic is almost exclusively to be found in the other camp.
Essentially what you've put forward for consideration is mostly the same argument as gelf, (albeit a little more thoughtfully illustrated) with the additional flaw of assuming motive on the part of the non-believer, if not motive, then some kind of reflexive impulse to de-convert.
If just now you're to receive a chiropractic adjustment for a very painful back problem, and your chiropractor is a religious believer with some appetite for philosophical repartee, I would suggest that laying out all the finest religion-trouncing arguments a la Harris at this moment might not be a great plan.
Similarly, if a crack addict who's just managing to turn his life around tells me that the reason he's able to make the effort is because of a revelation that Jesus (or Thor) loves him, I'm going to be hesitant in my "truth-telling". If a guy feels his only friend in the world is one that's to me plainly imaginary, shall I expend energy to put this before him?
I think this should be called the "atheist as witch-hunter" argument. It's the assumption that not only are people vulnerable saps apt to have their strongly held beliefs forcibly snatched out from under them whether they like it or not, but also we fundamentalists/intolerant/aggressive atheists, are just wily old tricksters or ravenous zealots who can't resist an opportunity to defrock believers whenever we happen upon them. We can't help ourselves; the mere presence of a fallacious belief expressed within auditory range, or the mere glimpse of a personal religious symbol is like a red rag to a bull. Yes, there's nothing we like more than 'the abuse of disabusement.'
Sorry – I'm taking the piss of course. But you do clearly have the view that atheists (certainly Dawkins et al and some people here) are incapable of moderating their intellectual outrage; that the polemics in books and internet forums constitute everyday attitudes and behaviour. It simply does not follow.
Let's generalize this. Assuming there's no true god, and many fictitious ones, don't some of you wish that something like the "nice guy" god of today's moderate Christians like Sullivan "spoke" to Stalin's commissars, Hitler's SS and Pol Pot's zealots before they carried out their grotesque actions, and that "He" left no doubt that they were being watched and would be judged on the choices they were making?
Yes.
However, this is no more an endorsement for the efficacy of irrational belief and the religions that peddle them than wishing for brain tumours capable of inducing the same inhibitions is an endorsement for the efficacy of cancer. Neither does it follow that the absence of such inhibitory factors was in any way responsible for the carnage.
(BTW: If you have an argument that stands up, you shouldn't have to resort to this kind of "say you agree or the kitten gets it!" tactic.)
If we were primarily reason machines, we could live secure in the world of logical argumentation. We (of normal, healthy brains) are in fact emotion and reason machines. We have to care about this, and think about it seriously--as science-oriented people. (See the articles with Scott Atran elsewhere on this site for more on this.)
Vocal atheists are not the heartless neo-Darwinian materialistic automatons that you portray. Standing up for rationality; expecting people to have good reasons for their beliefs, is not the same as advocating a puritanical rational emotion-free dystopia (a la the movie Equilibrium). However, human beings are to a very large extent "reason machines" - reason machines built on emotions. Without getting into a deep thesis, reason is not possible without emotion. The idea that reason and emotion represent two different types of experience, two different and separate ways of dealing with the world is a false dichotomy. We may find both in our "healthy brains" but they are not modular faculties selectively or reflexively deployed according to circumstances (for more on this I recommend Antonio Damasio – The Feeling of What Happens).
Again, acknowledging this reality is not an endorsement of irrational belief. The fact that emotion plays a role in reason does not mean that our irrational beliefs which claim only emotional roots should be given equal weight. We owe our entire civilised history to the primacy of reason in the way we approach, apprehend and deal with the world.
I want to suggest that science might very well point us to that "god-shaped-hole".
Whilst the sciences may provide evidence for an underlying yearning for purpose, knowledge, acceptance, transcendence, etc, that is by all accounts seemingly universal among humans - something theologians call the "god-shaped-hole" - this is not an endorsement for anything and everything that claims to fill it.
Yes, some of these needs are partially filled in different ways: birthday parties, concerts and plays, guidance counsellor and psychologist offices, even pubs and sports events and movies & TV & internet discussion groups!
You've answered most of your own question so I won't elaborate further than to say that the desire to mark important occasions in the passage of human life in a communal, public fashion is again fairly universal in human cultures and most (if not all) of its rituals (naming, marriage, succession, death) can be shown to pre-date any organised religion. Neither the need nor the solution is dependent on any particular religious doctrine. This seemingly innate human need for a "priest-shaped-officiator" may be the reason why we have organised religion, but it is not an argument for religion.
But we need to ponder with brutal honesty how far we are from having organizations to which people are strongly committed ready to replace all--never mind all; how about 20%?--those churches and synagogues.
Perhaps we should simply ponder (no need for brutal honesty) the fact that enormous swathes of the human population all over the world are capable of getting on with life without going near a church (many millions more than in the pre-Enlightenment world). More importantly, we really should ponder (and here the church could use some brutal honesty) the unavoidable fact that the most socially well adjusted of the countries in the world are the ones whose populations manage to do this in the greatest numbers. This is not a consequence of everyone losing their "god-shaped-holes" – they're just filling them, quite naturally and without coercion, with something else.
Like many of you, I applaud the emerging atheist self-confidence, and I admire Dawkins, Harris and the others. I also see a tendency to trivialize the charges of arrogance against the new vocal atheists, and this may not bode well for its success.
OK, simple question, in what way are the "new vocal atheists" arrogant? A bit of sincere reflection will demonstrate that these accusations of arrogance are trivialised here because the supporting arguments are at best trivial and usually non-existent. They are born of the reflexive sense of respect that society has developed for religious beliefs whereas all other irrational beliefs are expected to stand up to rational scrutiny – and rightly so. There is a worrying underlying pejorative tone to this kind of criticism. To my mind "arrogant atheists" sounds all too similar to "uppity black folks."
---------
EDIT: BTW, my thanks to those of you who have offered kind words of encouragement. It is much appreciated.
Comment #26913 by MouthAlmighty on March 22, 2007 at 9:10 am
Reasoning about faith is a paradox.
Ha! This reminds me of my favourite Elvis Costello quote, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
He's basically claiming that there is an inherent epistemological problem (a bit rich at this stage in the game). As a consequence, any weakness in his argument doesn't amount to a fault, it's entirely down to the fact that 'reason is an inappropriate tool for the job' or some such other bollocks.
Some readers have asked when I'm simply going to surrender to Sam. Well: in many ways I have surrendered.
He's almost flaunting his 'intellectual honesty' here. Methinks he doth (not) protest too loudly. If that's even possible :)
I'm fascinated by what reason can illuminate about faith - and have found Sam's arguments enriching to my own faith.
How could this possibly be so? At the very least he's obliged to explain how reason, whilst being entirely inappropriate for the task of understanding faith can yet manage to "enrich" his faith. I'm struggling to read this in any way other than, "Wow, isn't it cool how I can still manage to believe even after such a sound rational arse-kicking."
But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it. I really have no choice in the matter. But I hope to understand it better and to see it in the truest light possible.
If this isn't just unadulterated doublespeak it is at root an admission that regardless of what arguments are presented, regardless of his utter inability to defend his position, he steadfastly refuses to even countenance the possibility of shifting.
Dawkins says:
The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
…however, in Sullivan's case it seems that rational inquiry is not unconsciously discouraged, but consciously and explicitly ruled out.
Comment #26880 by MouthAlmighty on March 22, 2007 at 5:51 am
Sorry - that last sentence was daft - should have read...
"Frankly – this particular view of those at the forefront of the current 'atheist movement' (I hate that image) is more fitting of the pre-Enlightenment church and its pessimistic view of humanity which is celebrated to this very day.
Comment #26875 by MouthAlmighty on March 22, 2007 at 5:26 am
I'm sure Dawkins and his crusade to smash old thinking and old tradition and will help us all have a great leap forward...
Dawkins needs to think about the consequences about what he is proposing and whether he really is offering something better......But I guess scientists are arrogantly above the consequences of their actions. Just because you can prove the entire religious basis for a sciety wrong does not mean that your replacement is superior nor does it make your point of view correct.
I've seen a lot of this kind of reflexive response attacking Dawkins et al for their arrogance in assuming that they know what's best for people. Though gelf stops short of actually saying it here, it's usually coupled with the accusation that they are trying to "take religion away from believers" and that (in addition to being pompous and arrogant) talking people out of their beliefs is at best inconsiderate and at worst down right irresponsible. The entire project is couched in militaristic, combative terms painting the 'New Atheist' hordes as plundering invaders out to rob ordinary decent people of their faith in god leaving them exposed, destitute, and vulnerable. In a sense, Dawkins is accused of ripping god out of their "god-shaped-hole" and leaving them with nothing in its place. Or (surely only to add insult to injury) proposing that the hole be filled with a cold, shallow, sterile, inhuman science.
This entire line of argument is built on a flawed assumption - that people can be forcibly relieved of their faith by means of rational discourse and further, having been so egregiously robbed, that they'd be left with a vacuum of non-belief. It reflects the worst kind of misanthropy; it completely discounts personal agency and ignores the entirely voluntary process of giving up fallacious beliefs as part of a sincere process of reasoned self reflection (something Sullivan has already interestingly ruled out as a possibility for himself).
The notion that having selfishly robbed the ignorant fools of their comforting delusions Dawkins et al should provide them with something of equivalence is just silly. Coming to the realisation that one's lucky talisman is not in the least bit responsible for one's good fortunes does not require that it be replaced by another lucky talisman. As I've said elsewhere, being free of fallacious beliefs is not a means to an unspecified end - it is an end in itself. If you are persuade by means of rational discourse to see the fallacy of religious belief you will not fall into a pit of despair. The very idea that a pit of despair is awaiting you following such a realisation is in itself an indicator of your having not been persuaded.
Given enough time and sincere reflection, any fallacious belief will eventually succumb to reason. In the process, the degree to which one feels under attack; that one's interlocutor is forcibly taking something from you, is proportional to the degree of comfort and security one derives from one's beliefs and their vulnerability to reasoned argument. It is not an indication of 'intellectual violence.'
Frankly – this particular view of those at the forefront of the current 'atheist movement' (I hate that image) is more fitting of the pre-Enlightenment view of humanity celebrated by the church to this very day.
Comment #26718 by MouthAlmighty on March 21, 2007 at 9:38 am
Does anyone know if this 'blogologue' has a predetermined life span? Is there a contingency in place for bringing it to a close? A moderator to declare a victor? A limit to the number of posts in the exchange perhaps?
If not, anyone care to speculate on how it might end? It's surely in sight.
FWIW, my money is on Sullivan acknowledging the weight of Harris' argument, thanking him for his civility, and (whilst not admitting defeat), declaring some kind of epistemological impasse and making courageous exit under a few flowery prose about divinity, grace, beauty, etc.
Anyway, when all is said and done I think this dialogue amounts to a pretty priceless resource; at the very least it's an excellent rejoinder for all the hacks out there bleating about the validity of garden variety religious moderation, secular extremism and atheistic intolerance.
14. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'
Comment #26420 by MouthAlmighty on March 19, 2007 at 7:34 am
For those of you wondering just what the Christians in the UK are getting bothered about; aside from the recent public policy complaints about faith schools and gay adoption it's the usual "they're killing christmas" bollocks.
For those of you who can be bothered, here's an example, though I'd hesitate to say that this is representative.
For those of you who can't be bothered here's a brief summary...
Secularists hate christians, evolution is just a theory, anthropic principle proves creation, rampant secularist/materialist views license all kinds of moral outrages (genetic engineering, human experimentation, etc., etc.) atheists are out to impose a totalitarian secular state and destroy the family and turn everyone gay, yada, yada, yada...
The Christian Faith is the only defence against intolerant secularism
Last January I had the great honour and pleasure of preaching the Sermon at the Banqueting House at the annual commemoration of Charles the Martyr. King Charles I went to his execution rather than countenance that his beloved Church be turned into a mere sect. The great peril in his day was rampant sectarianism and the desire of the puritanical sects to disincarnate the sacramental Church and put in its place a narrow, opinionated, moralising institution based on their own whim – or what the Prayer Book calls their own private fancies and interests. We inherit the logical development of this privation today and it is even worse than it was in King Charles' day: it is rampant secularism and public atheism.
Three out of four firms refused to put up Christmas decorations last year. The majority of Christmas cards no longer featured the Nativity scene. More shops and stores than ever opened for business on Christmas Day. These are just the outward signs of an increasingly militant secularism, for the fact is that the progressive elite in Britain today detests Christianity and wishes to destroy it. The country is not being destroyed by alien terrorists. Rather, our traditional way of life and selfunderstanding is being undermined by aggressive secularisation.
Chain bookshops marketed the atheist Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as their "Christmas Book". Liberal newspapers, and especially the BBC, have established a pattern of debunking and sneering at traditional Christian doctrine. TV and radio documentaries repeatedly dismiss as rubbish the belief that the world was created by God. That is, they explicitly deny the Christmas Gospel where St John states emphatically All things were made by Him. And, in case we are too dim to understand that, repeats And without Him was not anything made that was made.
St John was writing at a time when the biblical doctrine of God's creation was being attacked by fashionable Gnostic philosophers who claimed that the world was not made by God but by a lesser process called the Demiurge. We have our own Gnostics today and their Demiurge is a facile doctrine of evolution. These crass materialists like to claim that the argument for natural selection and blind chance has disproved intelligent design. It has not.
Modern physics reveals to us a world which does not look at all as if it's made of bits and pieces of matter, but is really rather ethereal. Less as if it's material stuff. More as if it's mind stuff. Moreover, it looks overwhelmingly as if the universe was made with us in mind, for, if it had been ever so minutely different, we wouldn't be here. The odds against the universe happening by accident to be so accommodating to us are so astronomical as to be virtually impossible. And, note, it is not theologians who are making this point, but scientists.
They have even coined a phrase to refer to the hospitableness of the universe: they call it The Anthropic Principle – because the world seems to have been constructed with man in mind. Dawkins and his school might reflect on the fact that we are able to understand at least a little of the universe only because the universe is intelligible. It is the innate intelligibility of the universe which makes science possible. That intelligibility was not created by man or imposed on the universe – at least that much must be conceded if science itself is to be regarded as a way of discovering truth, and not merely a game.
In a vivid sentence, the great astrophysicist Professor Fred Hoyle said, "Life evolving by chance has the same likelihood as a tornado blowing through a scrap yard and leaving behind it a fully-formed jumbo jet". And once God and intellectual rigour have been discarded, there is bound to follow the collapse of morality. And this is just what has happened. Promiscuity to the extent of casual sexual relationships among any number of people, regardless of their sexual orientation; drinking and shopping 24/7; vicious hedonism pursuing all that is merely trivial; an infantile and narcissistic cult of celebrities – and all built on a mountain of government and personal debt and an amnesiac culture of designer drugs and oblivion. What used to be a mortal sin is now only a lifestyle choice
The moral and social consequences of the crass materialist ideology are predictably horrific. For if human beings – so called – are nothing but bits of genetic material, they can be experimented upon, have their parts transplanted, their embryos and DNA manipulated and frozen as if by the machinations of a latter day Frankenstein. Their very existence may be terminated when this existence is discovered to be inconvenient to the hedonistic careers of those who make up our society of utilitarian materialists – what F.R. Leavis called our "technological-Benthamite culture". The most disgraceful example of this nihilistic amoralism is of course abortion on demand, abortion used as a form of contraception, resulting in 200,000 embryos being ripped untimely from the womb every year in Britain alone.
It may surprise you to learn that teaching Christianity in state schools is now illegal. It is permitted only to teach about religions. Absolute relativism rules OK. All religions must be taught as equal. The only perspective from which you can teach such equality is atheism. Christianity used to be at the centre of public life and it was strongly represented in the mass media, particularly in broadcasting. What we have now on the BBC is only a veneer of religion glossing over a soft left political agenda – secular social conscience as if there could be such a thing - a whiff of Third-worldism; the aroma of Fair Trade coffee and the infallible dogma of global warming.
At the centre of the secular atheistic project is the destruction of the historic basis of our way of life: marriage and the family. This has been achieved by the secular doctrines of rights and egalitarianism according to which childbearing and adoption procedures are extended to homosexual couples. Government economic and social policy consistently discriminates against marriage and in favour of any alternative cohabiting arrangement. It is getting to the stage when the Vicar will have to watch out for the politically-correct commissar before he ventures to preach against adultery.
The Christian era which held sway in this country for 2000 years was not oppressive – unlike the totalitarian secularism which threatens to replace it. After the Restoration in 1660, various Acts of Toleration allowed dissenters leeway provided they kept the peace. But it was always tacitly understood that you belonged to the Church, to Christian civilisation unless you opted out. All that has changed.
What can be done? The antidote to the destruction of our society by rampant secularism is for the church to recover its wits and its confidence. The philosopher and President of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera spells it out: "Christianity is so consubstantial to the West that any surrender on its part would have devastating consequences. Will the Church and the clergy and the faithful be able to be purified of the relativism that has almost erased their identity and weakened their message and witness?"
We need to pray that God will give us a large helping of King Charles' devotion and courage. The restoration of the Christian Faith will not be accomplished by the semi-secularised bishops and synods. This restoration cannot be left to them. It begins with us here in this place – our beloved church of St Michael.
I mean so far as understanding goes,
A thing available only to those
Whose souls are purged of shadows, and who find
The love of God, and with it their whole mind,
As a man may if he will only glance
At his own limits and his ignorance.
by Antoine Heroet (1492-1568) trans C.H. Sisson (1914-2003)
The St Michael's Foundation for Spiritual Understanding
St Michael's Programme, March to September 2007
15. Non-believers can be bigoted too
Comment #25782 by MouthAlmighty on March 15, 2007 at 5:40 am
Russell Blackford makes some good points. Of all the critics out their, Malik is among the few we shouldn't write off. As I said earlier, he has some very interesting things to say and I recommend his writings to anyone looking for an informed and thoughtful critique on a range of important contemporary issues from someone who has a firm grasp of Enlightenment ideals.
Given my second contribution to this thread, this may appear a little incongruous. However, I think those comments are justified on the basis that the article in question represented a superficial engagement with Harris' arguments and was not in keeping with his usual output.
Malik comes from a political tradition that has some very odd ideas about religious belief and the role it plays in society. Even within this narrowly defined spectrum he's among the best of the bunch. My primary criticism with the comment emanating from this quarter is that whilst their accusation of political naivety towards Harris and Dawkins are sometimes well founded, their own naivety is more of a burden to secular progress. Malik will not shy away from a fight with the religious over matters of free speech and he fully expects his opponents to take offence. However, he and others still manage to maintain a naive belief that there is a sense in which religious beliefs should not be criticised and that the offence caused in doing so bespeaks political naivety rather than the vulnerability of the believer to logic, and the weak foundations upon which his beliefs are built. At the very least they seem to believe that there are ways to criticise religious belief per se without causing offence. When he says...
Such 'tone deafness' is a particular problem, Baggini added, when atheist philosophers tackle the question of religion. Too often they are interested solely in the question of the truth and falsity of a religion's creed, and tend to ignore the other dimensions of faith.
...he doesn't quite go as far as Eagleton, but he's headed in the same direction. If the "other dimensions of faith" are found in the subtleties of identity politics, etc. then perhaps he has a point. But all too often this is merely an argument for the 'sanctity' of privately held religious beliefs; they're products of the human spirit; part of the ongoing desire to explore and explain reality; an example of the uniqueness of the human animal and are thus deserving of respect despite their inherent irrationality.
These are all characteristics which should be celebrated - but if that means that irrational religious beliefs are off limits to logical criticism or reductionist explanations then all they've actually managed to do is reinvent the 'soul' in a secular guise.
16. Non-believers can be bigoted too
Comment #25636 by MouthAlmighty on March 14, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I decided to write to the editor - probably too long to get printed but FWIW...
Dear Sir,
Re: "Non-believers can be bigoted too," by Kenan Malik, March 14th
In his critique of Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" Kenan Malik warns against the dangers of taking things at face value; ignoring the subtle nuances and overlooking historical and political context. Then he proceeds to commit the very same crimes himself.
He begins by making the mistake of thinking that Harris is talking to Christians in general. On the contrary, in his devastating little book, Harris speaks directly to a particular type of Christian; the type that responded to his first book 'The End of Faith' and showed themselves to be, "murderously, intolerant of criticism." (1)
These Christians demonstrated little of the "harmony and rhythm" that Julian Baggini advises philosophers to look out for in matters of religious faith. Harris acknowledges that whilst such bellicose attitudes can be attributed to human nature, the targets of 'Letter to a Christian Nation,' drew "considerable support from the Bible." (2) He knows this because, "The most disturbed of [his] correspondents always cite chapter and verse." (3) So if Malik is correct in saying that "Harris appears to take as literal a view of religion as the fundamentalists themselves" it's because his Christian correspondents had clearly set the tone and the agenda for the kind of conversation they prefer.
Malik also accuses Harris of "Lampooning theology but ignoring the political context." That political context according to Malik is one in which the rise in religious fundamentalism reflects the failure of secular movements. However, one is only left wondering what the secular humanists got wrong in order to bring about a situation where, "Forty four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years." (4) The political context that Malik fails to recognise here is that the 'Christian Nation' Harris is addressing is modern day America, where the most absurd biblical truth claims are traded as fact between its leaders on a daily basis.
Addressing Harris' personal morality Malik once again is wide of the target. He contrasts Harris' criticism of various explicit biblical exhortations to violence with his own opinion that, "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Again context is cast aside here ignoring the chasm of moral difference between murder by doctrinal decree, and the necessary, judicious removal of a person who's powers of rational thinking have been comprehensively crippled in the service of such a doctrine.
However, Malik's most egregious piece of context-dodging is in the final paragraph where he accuses Harris of hypocrisy saying, "He flays religion for its bigotry and sectarianism but says to his Christian reader that 'Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes.'" Given the correct context, any reader will see that Harris' apparent indulgence in sectarianism as Malik would have us believe here, is merely a device to highlight the absurdity of sectarianism for his Christian correspondents. Given the seriousness of the accusation, the relevant passage deserves quoting at length:
"This letter is the product of failure—the failure of the many brilliant attacks upon religion that preceded it, the failure of our schools to announce the death of God in a way that each generation can understand, the failure of the media to criticize the abject religious certainties of our public figures—failures great and small that have kept almost every society on this earth muddling over God and despising those who muddle differently. Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well—by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God. This letter has been an expression of that amazement—and, perhaps, of a little hope." (5)
See what difference a little subtlety and context makes?
17. Non-believers can be bigoted too
Comment #25611 by MouthAlmighty on March 14, 2007 at 10:14 am
It's a shame - Malik has lots of interesting and productive things to say about human nature, multiculturalism and the politics of identity (islamophobia/fascism), etc., but here he seems just as guilty of that which he accuses Sam Harris - taking LTCN out of context and at face value.
If he'd taken the time to acknowledge that Harris argument is pointed very specifically at "Christianity in its most committed forms" as well as the social/historical/political context (21st century America) at least half his observations would fall pretty flat.
Comment #25593 by MouthAlmighty on March 14, 2007 at 8:11 am
Thanks DerrickB - surprised to find anyone still here!
Glad to see the latest by Sullivan - I admire his candor in the opening passages.
We find it very hard to think of ourselves as not being. That resistance is always there. There is no escaping it. I predict you will feel it at the hour of your death, if you have any time to contemplate it. This resistance to our own extinction is part of science and part of our genetic impulse to survive - but also why we feel ourselves connected to something eternal.
What he describes here is not 'resistance to our own extinction'. True, the human organism is dripping with mechanisms, both physical and mental, designed to unconsciously, reflexively maximise survival potential without having to wait for 'the ghost in the machine' to make the decision to survive. But what he describes is not a survival mechanism – it's a flaw in our cognitive machinery; it's simply not possible to direct the will to conceive of 'nothing' or as he puts it "not being." In every attempt at such a conception there is – necessarily – a conceiver. In this sense, the subject, that thing I (we) call "me" is indeed eternal. To imagine it "not being" is quite literally inconceivable.
I think this is at the route of most belief systems. The inability to conceive of nothing gives birth to the notion of eternal existence and thereby necessitates the invention of an afterlife and the wider unseen, non-physical/supernatural realm. It's creation in our imagination comes about by 'natural means' underpinned by biology and sound evolutionary reasoning – but that doesn't mean it has equal ontological status with the rest of our natural world – it's still imaginary.
Having established this natural foundation for 'otherworldly' musings, he comes out with this very moving passage…
My own faith came alive most fully when I believed I was going to die young. It came alive as I watched one of my closest friends die in front of me at the age of 31. During that "positive hour," to quote Eliot, I also experienced religious visions, I heard a voice inside of me with a distinct tone that seemed to me divine, I experienced a moment of terrible doubt followed by a moment of complete, unsought-for relief. Maybe all this was a function of fear and existential panic. Maybe it was all a coping mechanism. Maybe it was grief, wrapped up in shame. But I am far from the only person to have experienced such things. Maybe these psychological and spiritual experiences are simply the best way that humans have devised through countless millennia for coping with their own conscious knowledge of their own mortality.
…and to be frank there's little I'd disagree with there. But then…
But what that really means is: we have learned how to be human through religion. And how can we not be human? And who would want not to be human? What you are asking for, as I have argued before, is salvation by reason. But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?
No - we have reflexively reconciled our subjective sense of eternal existence with the brute realities of the natural world. That rationalisation is assisted by the subsequent invention of ritual practices, doctrines etc that reinforce and support that notion (as well as creating/justifying a slew of other irrational beliefs/intuitions).
Putting the cart before the horse like this is just a variant of other religious 'reasoning' like "the bible is the source of morality – people are moral – we get our morality from the bible."
So; not wanting to die is "human" (as well as being evolutionarily sound) therefore imagining that we can survive death is "human" (not to mention comforting) therefore there are entirely natural reasons for having faith in the fact we will survive death so to be "human" is to have faith in a life after death. And to think otherwise is to, "not be human!"
I suppose that Sullivan is already inclined to celebrate the Wizard of Oz, but closing his eyes, clicking his heals together and saying, "There's no place like the afterlife! There's no place like the afterlife! There's no place like the afterlife!" doesn't make it so.
19. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Comment #24710 by MouthAlmighty on March 8, 2007 at 6:37 am
Re moral absolutes, some good observations above. My own view is that whilst it's generally measured subjectively against happiness and suffering, morality will always resist being nailed down to a universal standard - certainly to absolutes. However, pragmatism allows that one may act in one's life as if such absolutes were in place and commonly held yet maintain the flexibility to react in the same spirit to situational challenges.
I think it was Kant who said that one should act as if (and wish) each of ones actions were to become a moral law.
The trouble is that this implied personal responsibility for establishing, monitoring and managing one's own set of flexible, situationally responsive moral absolutes puts the willies up most people, especially the religious. The whole idea of a religiously inspired and immutable moral absolute is that it is external to mankind and therefore not susceptible to or tainted by his selfish dispositions.
Owning up to the fact that in reality it is a man-made invention is a damn good reason for keeping the faith.
20. Long live satire
Comment #24519 by MouthAlmighty on March 7, 2007 at 3:32 am
I thought a religious belief was supposed to be the rock; the very foundation of one's life. I thought it was supposed to be an anchor providing infallible security against the storms of adversity. Surely its ultimate truths are transcendent; beyond the infantile and fallible conceptions of man. And isn't it supposed to be unlimited in its transformative power?
Shame it can't stand up to a bit of satire.
Comment #24350 by MouthAlmighty on March 6, 2007 at 5:45 am
It's quite unsettling to see the degree to which 'atheist' really is a dirty word in the US. I think it's fair to say that the stigma is entrenched enough to have a significant impact in any survey that attempts to get anobjective measures of disbelief in the states.
This kind of report may not look like much, but having people seen on TV admiting to being atheists whilst not obviously being child-molesting devil-worshipers has got to help. The old "fundamentalist, dogmatist, extremist" epithets will continue to be attached to "ateist/secularist" by those most purterbed by the trend, but I think this kind of mainstream exposure is priceless. It's also a helluva lot better than 'rebranding' atheism - "bright" makes my skin crawl.
BTW: Anyone else think that Harris looks like a mafioso button-man in his shades? :)
Comment #24205 by MouthAlmighty on March 5, 2007 at 9:09 am
*Phew* I believe this is going to be the last post on this article. If any of you reply, I will certainly read it, but I probably won't respond. I'll still be commenting on other, more current article though.
In light of this I'll try to keep it brief and summarise instead of tackling each issue in turn. Of course, I need not point out that not specifically countering a comment does not equate to accepting it. Even "supernaturally!"
Re: The supernatural. Our positions could not differ more radically here.
If as you suggest, the supernatural be given equal ontological status with the natural (despite being "diametrically opposed"), i.e. that it qualifies as a valid explanation alongside naturalistic explanations, it rules out the possibility of ever drawing any demonstrably sound conclusions about the universe. The necessarily (and intellectually honest) provisional nature of science is therefore an open invitation to the supernatural (along with endless 'no conflict' arguments) which unlike the naturalistic process that clarified the situation before it's imputation, once it's on the scene, is not open to critical examination. Any 'understanding' we have of the supernatural you impute is based on creedal statements which rely on the unverifiability of the supernatural for their veracity.
The supernatural by definition, does not conform to rules and laws of nature and is hence, mysterious. Therefore, apprehension of the supernatural is necessarily a process of speculation which, since it is unconstrained by reality, inevitably gives rise to self-fulfilling, circular pseudo-hypotheses about the universe (excellent in the task of confirming intuitions, not so good for objectively understanding reality). Speculations given ontological credibility under the heading of 'supernatural' resist critical examination since there is no objective measure against which they may be compared. The only rule they conform to is they don't conform to any rules. The supernatural, being necessarily mysterious and unknowable is therefore not a foundation upon which to build knowledge about the universe, no matter how coherent and consistent it may be with certain historical literature or how good it feels.
When it comes to verifying and explaining reality, unconstrained speculation is the quintessential "slippery slope!" The reason you don't see it as such is because you imagine that your supernatural speculations are anything but "unconstrained." You see these speculations as being entirely coherent given the existence of god. Whenever other speculations under the heading of 'supernatural' (flying spaghetti monster, fairies, celestial teapots, etc) are offered you no doubt immediately dismiss them as laughable. Why are they self-evidently so? Because in judging them invalid you make a reflexive appeal to authority; the authority of the biblical god. The necessary ontological constraints merely consist in the biblical account of the creator/interventionist god who, by definition, writes his own rules. It is your faith in these constraints that blinds you to the obvious, logical and unavoidable fact; on ontological grounds, that the biblical god has no more credibility than flying spaghetti teapot fairy monsters – he's just older and more popular.
Basically: if the supernatural explanation is just as valid as the natural and all it requires is a bit of logic, longevity and popularity, why bother with science? Why even bother with logic?
Re: Logic: I have to admit that for the most part your reliance on logic is quite sound. At the risk of sounding like a complete dolt, this is partly your problem.
I'm not a logician, but I know enough to know that logic is not a governing universal truth. Logically valid does not equate with true. It is possible to arrive at a satisfyingly true (or false) conclusion from false premises provided the inference is valid. In essence, it is just as possible for reasoning to be logically correct yet flatly wrong as it is for a sentence to be grammatically correct yet utterly devoid of semantic content.
This is perfectly logical, and I'm guessing you won't argue with the premises:
Premise 1: Things which are designed have a designer
Premise 2: The process of design is evident in things which are designed
Premise 3: The universe exhibits evidence of the process of design
Inference: This implies that the universe was designed
Conclusion: The universe had/has a designer
Logically, this is a satisfyingly true conclusion that the universe has a designer, but the premise number 3 is specious; it contains an additional undeclared premise. What the universe actually exhibits is complexity, regularity, order, etc. In contrast, "evidence of the process" presupposes a designer, thereby affirming the consequent. For the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty the premises must be restated accordingly.
To do this requires the admittance of evidence and agreement on ontological terms which takes us back to the top of this entry. If Premise 1 was, "God can do anything" there would be little need for logic.
Like I said, whilst as far as I can see, most of your logic is correct, there is an inherent circularity in the 'supernatural nature' of god with its inherent inaccessibility, and the 'verifiable existence' of god based purely on logical inference. Faults in the latter observation rely on conditions set by the former for their logical integrity. Your invocation of the supernatural is necessary to reconcile your beliefs with reality. Having invoked it, the existence of the supernatural itself is justification for the belief.
I would say only that God's existence necessitates that He be unexplainable using naturalistic methods of inquiry
That about says it all really.
Comment #23717 by MouthAlmighty on March 2, 2007 at 7:36 am
Biz; thanks for taking the time to address some of my comments. I appreciate that keeping track of all the battles you're fighting here isn't going to be easy.
I understand this, yet we have still never actually observed a black hole; we have only observed its effects on light and stars. My point was simply that direct observation of X is not necessary for belief in X. Often, even in the natural world, X is inferred from its effects. The supernatural may not be directly observable, but it could easily be argued that we can infer it from its effects.
Direct observation of X may not be required for belief in X; existence may legitimately be inferred from effects; but as I'm sure you're well aware, this does not mean that all inferences from effects are legitimate.
"Without this particular verification act, you can make up anything and that's dangerous."
As I've already argued, the supernatural explanation can only be given on the condition the event in question was clearly supernatural. Therefore, your "slippery slope" argument does not apply.
OK, accepting your premise for the moment, on what objective grounds is an event judged to be "clearly supernatural?" I think I'm licensed to expect objective evidence from you here since "clearly-" implies the possibility of an event being "possibly-" or "partially-" or "almost supernatural". What evidence in your mind qualifies the apparently emphatic attribution of "supernatural?" To put it another way, what criteria enable you to apply the breaks on the otherwise "slippery slope?"
"Collins merely states that god is beyond the tools of rational enquiry and hence cannot be reached by the tools of rational enquiry."
If you are meaning to say that God's inherent properties cannot be explained using naturalistic methods of enquiry, yes, I would totally agree with you. But that is dodging the question of God's existence.
And if you mean that Collins was doing the question-dodging then, yes, I agree with you too.
I argue that God's existence is inferred from Creation, but no theist (including myself of course) will try to argue that the complete NATURE of God can be inferred from nature. In other words, you are confusing the properties of God with God's existence itself. The two are very different concepts.
Sorry Biz, but I'm not confusing anything. Your method of reconciling the a priori existence of god with contradictory evidence requires that you reshuffle the deck in this manner. Inferring the existence of a designer from the appearance of design may be logically sound and legitimate; I'll even accept that belief in the designer does not require direct observation. So far we haven't parted company from the natural world or logic. However… to then deal with the demonstrable non-existence of said designer by simply asserting his existence and attributing "non-accessibility" as one of his inherent characteristics is a complete departure. In what way is this not simply a creedal statement designed to undermine the evidentiary fact that the designer can not be found and the consequential rational and logical inference that he does in fact not exist?
Forgive the deliberately simplistic view, but it goes something like this…
OBSERVATION: This looks like it was designed.
INFERENCE: There must exist a designer!
OBSERVATION: I can't find a designer anywhere.
INFERENCE: My 'designer' idea was wrong.
OBSERVATION: Despite there being no designer, evidence for a designer is everywhere! I really don't like the idea of a world without a designer, but try as I might I can't find him anywhere.
HYPOTHESIS: If one of the designer's fundamental characteristics is "unfindability" then I should not expect to find him. This would then neatly explain how he could exist, design and yet be entirely unobservable.
OBSERVATION: Hey! I really can't find the designer!
CONCLUSION: Now, since the evidence and inference are logically sound and direct observation is not required for belief… there is a designer!
The "unfindability" is the 'least plausible hypothesis' designed to 'affirm the consequent' and this is where we part company. Not because either of us is breaking any laws of logic, but because one of us is open to the persuasive influence of objective evidence that questions our intuitive, logical inferences, whilst the other to the persuasive influence of the circular, self-fulfilling, optimistic speculation of creedal statements which terminate investigation and offer panaceas to cure the anxiety of not being so persuaded.
Your thinking has the appearance of 'reasoning;' it entails observation, evidence, inference, logic, etc; and I'm sure it is 'internally consistent.' But it is little more than logical wish-fulfilment.
Now, I will say that there are certain aspects of God's *existence* that can be understood in a sense. For example, as I've stated before, we can understand from reasonable inferences that God does not necessitate a cause. He exists because He exists. Now this is obvious question begging, but my argument is still valid in that at the beginning of the causal chain, there must have been an un-caused cause that simply existed because it existed. Atheism does nothing to solve this, for Atheism's starting point is matter. But can you explain why matter exists? No, you can only say that it exists, well, because it exists.
This is not my field (what is??), and what follows requires a bit of abstract (though not illogical) thinking, so at the risk of inviting difficult counter arguments I'd suggest that your insistence of a universal first cause entails a logical flaw.
Intuitively, our conceptions of the universe as an entity are centred on us as 'conceivers' in objective relation to 'that which is conceived.' Mental conceptions of the universe incorporate spatio-temporal data which are invalid. For example, when we conceive of an expanding or contracting universe we tend to conceive it as a large bubble-like object, with us (the conceiver/observer) standing in the 'space outside' the universe. When talking about the universe (the totality of extant things) there is no such thing as 'space outside' the universe. Similarly, we conceive the universe as having a beginning 'at some point in the past' and naturally infer from this that there must have been something before this time. Just like the 'space outside' the 'time before' and all the 'things' that might be posited to exist on this intuitively sound though logically specious spatio-temporal basis, do/did not in fact exist.
Logically: What is there outside the universe? There isn't. What was there before the universe? There wasn't. Anything beyond that, however intuitively logical it may seem, is entirely nonsensical. To intuit a 'space outside' and a 'time before' is understandable. However, to infer objective facts from this is not in the least bit legitimate.
Anyway, since you set so much store by this implied beginning of all beginnings, how do you respond to Polkinghorne's view? As a physicist of some note, I'd expect him to have given more critical thought to these kinds of propositions. The quote I offered for your consideration in my last contribution suggests that he has indeed done so, though the conclusion he offers is little more than hand-waiving. So, which one of you is making, "a terrible theological mistake?"
As I said, I'm not a physicist or cosmologist and I don't pretend to even be comfortable with the implications of explanatory models let along understand them. However, my reluctance to attribute causation to a supernatural being is not founded on any kind of 'faith in his non-existence' or 'illogical inference of a non-existent natural cause.' It's founded on intellectual honesty.
""something above/beyond/outside and certainly not 'confined' within the realm of the natural.""
I fail to see how this definition is significantly different from the one I provided.
And in a sense that's the problem. It looks very much like you're trying to say that "supernatural" is just another kind of "natural" – a bit like… "It becomes so tiresome to me when the lawyers that I debate recoil in horror at the word "illegal". It simply means that which is legal outside the known confines of the law. (More on that below…)
My point was that the term "supernatural" implies an existence of a process, concept, etc., that is not bound by natural laws or principles, and is able to supersede them. We understand the natural laws and properties of matter and space to a good enough degree to understand what clearly defies them, therefore we can infer supernatural causation for certain events.
Forgive the regional vernacular but that's just utter bollocks! For me, I find that the "HYPernatural" is preferable to "supernatural" because it implies an existence of a process, concept, etc., that is not bound by natural laws or principles or by logic! Which makes it far more amenable since it not only supersedes the laws of nature, it is not necessarily anchored to logic. Positing such a dimension of reality is unproblematic because since we fully understand the natural laws, from which we are able to legitimately infer the supernatural, when the supernatural fails to conform to logic, voilla! It's hypernatural!
Granted, the natural realm is not defined as only what we know of the natural realm, but given that we can only discuss the issue in terms of what we do know, the Universes' existence clearly points to a supernatural cause.
Dealt with above – but I think this again clearly shows that you're trying to acquire the same ontological legitimacy for "supernatural" as "natural." True, there are things yet to be discovered and once they are they'll be part of the natural world and enjoy equal status with its evidentiarilly (is that a word??) supported denizens. The fact that you can logically infer a definitionally supernatural cause doesn't mean that it automatically qualifies for ontological status, even if only provisional. [Incidentally that's another favourite Polikingornianism (yes that definitely is a word!) can't believe you differ so on the big bang] This is diametrically opposed to the provisional nature of as yet undiscovered hypothetical though natural phenomena. Their ontological legitimacy is not affected by the fact that they are unproven because the proposition in which they consist conforms to natural laws.
The reason us narrow-minded stick-in-the-mud atheists get so tetchy about this kind of equivalence is that "supernatural cause" propositions require no hard work to come into existence, they require no foundation in reality, they spring spontaneously from an enthusiastic imagination and demand 'equal rights' yet they do not admit of critical reasoning. Quite literally there are no rational limits beyond the creedal statements of whichever world view in which they originate.
"Which scientific discipline should we be employing to achieve this?"
Theology, perhaps? ;-)
Alas, there is clearly no hope - I'm tempted to pray for you.
Here's what I find interesting. Atheists accuse Christians of having blind faith, when they are the ones who will argue on the basis of what *might* be discovered in the future, despite overwhelming evidence against such a concept as say, a self-creating Universe.
The fact that you can logically posit a beginning of the universe derived from your intuitions about the nature of space and time does not constitute "overwhelming evidence." It merely conforms entirely to your intuitions; intuitions which when examined are ontologically unsound. Being familiar with the counterintuitive quantum world, Polkinghorne, were it not for his obstinate reliance on close reasoning, might be a good source of opinion here.
In fact, research in the realm of astrophysics continuously re-affirms that the creation event cannot be explained using naturalistic methodology. In other words, you are arguing on the basis of evidence that you simply DON'T have, and against all the evidence that suggests against your conclusion and/or the possibility of such evidence existing. I fail to see how this does not qualify as a less than reasonable faith.
You fail to see it because you see the intuitions inherent in your conception of the universe as self evident facts. You don't question them. Research in the realm of astrophysics probably does show that we're struggling to understand how the nature of the universe reconciles with our spatio-temporal intuitions. In doing so it highlights the inadequacy of our current conceptual tools, not the inadequacy of the laws of physics. Uncertainty in this arena certainly doesn't license the invention of an entirely new set of supernatural 'laws' to fix the perceived impasse. As H. L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
"You're begging the fuck outa that question! :)"
Come now, unjustified claims aren't going to get us anywhere. Please elaborate (although I might have answered your claim a few paragraphs above).
Shirley – you can not be serious.
"Or are you really trying to tell me that you're belief that god exists is the same as my belief that my mother exists?"
It may not be as easy to see, but yes. I may be able to see your mother, but I can certainly see the effects of God. I could also point out that my own experience as a Christian has indeed served to strengthen my level of certainty in God's existence, but I understand that this is not an evidence to be considered seeing as how I am the only person able to perceive it.
You're misunderstanding or misreading my question. I gladly grant that you may well be as sure of god's existence as I am of my mother's existence, but you know that's not what I was asking. The question was posed in response to your insistence that all beliefs entail faith. I was expecting you to 'calibrate' your levels of faith in god's existence against my levels of faith in my mother's existence. If you do so truthfully you'll see the inherent flaw in your close reasoning in this regard.
I have no doubt that your life is replete with experiences that strengthen your certainty in God's existence and I appreciate your honesty in not proffering this as evidence that I should accept. However, in all honesty, doesn't the fact that this enormous weight of 'evidence' is completely meaningless out here in the real world, not cause you to question the rational you apply to achieve its internal consistency?
Comment #23520 by MouthAlmighty on March 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Just a quick word on the accusation of trolling directed at my good buddy, Bizarro - I for one am satisfied that he's genuine.
Comment #23518 by MouthAlmighty on March 1, 2007 at 11:56 am
I believe you're misinterpreting what Collins said and setting up something of a strawman. His statement does indeed assume the existence of God, but it does so in order to explain a particular attribute of God in order to serve as a premise on which to defend His existence. It was meant only as a proposition regarding the nature of God's existence, not as a proof of God's existence per se. I fail to see how this is improper.
This is circular nonsense. Collins merely states that god is beyond the tools of rational enquiry and hence cannot be reached by the tools of rational enquiry.
"It is common for religious apologists like Collins to talk about things "outside nature" or "the supernatural," but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything "supernatural" exists."
I beg to differ. The fact of our existence is evidence enough for me, and I'm not an easy person to convince. It becomes so tiresome to me when the atheists that I debate recoil in horror at the word "supernatural". It simply means that which exists outside the known confines of nature.
No it doesn't. Supernatural means "something above/beyond/outside and certainly not 'confined' within the realm of the natural." It doesn't mean, "something entirely natural but only insofar as it is within the confines of nature which just happen to be as yet unknown confines."
Are the 'confines' of nature malleable? Moveable? Porous? Flexible? Is god a merely natural creature and all we have to do to examine him is somehow push the boundaries of nature out far enough to encompass him? Which scientific discipline should we be employing to achieve this? Cosmology? Astrophysics? Pharmacology?
Collins' conception of god is typical of contemporary theological thought. It makes all the right noises but is ultimately meaningless. Whilst it may be 'internally coherent' for him, all he has managed to do is shift god into an imaginary realm beyond rational enquiry – his own as well as ours.
The concept of the supernatural is supported primarily by the Principle of Universal Causation, being only one among a list of other supporting evidences. It is rather simple reasoning. If every event is caused, then there must be a cause for every event (of course, we could get into agency theory and the such, but I would assert that agency theory is logically invalid without invoking a supernatural agent). When this causal chain is traced back to the Universal origin, then we are led to a rather obvious inference: there must have been an un-caused cause to "start the chain" so to speak. Now we have never observed any phenomena in nature defy the Principle of Universal Causality, but the logical implication of said principle implies that the creation event did in fact disregard this principle. Therefore, since the creation event defied the principle of causality, then it was a supernatural event. Supernatural events require supernatural causation by their very nature. This seems like good evidence to me.
I'm not a cosmologist or astrophysicist so I won't pretend to fully comprehend the implications of current explanatory models. However, I am fairly confident that if the perceived beginning of the universe can be demonstrated to be an actuall beginning then it will be done so in the language of science which deals exclusively with the natural. As it stands, simply labelling the as yet unexplained elements of cosmology as 'supernatural' and the posited 'uncaused cause' as god is little more than a 'god of the gaps' argument. One that (your hero?) Polikinghorne is keen to avoid…
(Polkinghorne, CiS Lecture) Stephen Hawking supposes that if his highly speculative ideas about the very early universe are correct – so that time then had a very different nature and there was no dateable beginning to the cosmos – then God would be left with nothing to do. It is as if the only thing a Creator was needed for was to light the blue touch paper to set off the big bang. To think that way is to make a terrible theological mistake. God is as much the Creator today as God was fourteen billion years ago, for the real role of the Creator is to hold the world in being. Only the steadfast divine faithfulness rescues the universe from collapsing into nothingness. The doctrine of creation is not concerned with how things began but why things exist. It is the answer to the great question posed by Liebniz, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
"Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?"
This is very shallow reasoning...
Look at the question again – is it possible even in principle to observe something outside of space and time? If that's where you (or Collins) place god in what sense are you observing him? In what way does he impinge upon this drab, mundane ordinary natural world in which we find ourselves shackled to space and time?
This is presupposing however that God is restricted by natural laws, namely that of causation. This however would cause God to cease to be God. God by His very nature must exist as a supernatural entity or His Creator status, along with his general God status, would be compromised. It only logically follows that God, being defined as a supernatural entity, does not necessitate an explanation. In other words, God is His own cause, therefore His existence does not require further explanation.
You're begging the fuck outa that question! :)
"A big problem with this approach is that it tends to put a damper on further investigation."
This statement is highly ambiguous.
"Pot calling kettle! Pot calling kettle! Are we still black? …over." :)
"Thus, if not strictly the opposite of one another, faith and reason are certainly incompatible."
Once again, this statement demonstrates very shallow reasoning. Faith and reason are not diametrically opposed concepts. In fact, faith is a necessary condition for belief. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.
I'm sick of this fallacious close reasoning. If there is indeed logically valid to say that there is a base level of uncertainty in any and all beliefs then in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases such is so vanishingly miniscule as to be virtually non existent and totally unconscious for all practical purposes. Dealing with such generic uncertainly does not in any way shape or form require faith in anything like the guise required for the gargantuan levels of uncertainty inherent in religious belief. Or are you really trying to tell me that you're belief that god exists is the same as my belief that my mother exists?
Biz; the fact that you are able to ameliorate the anxiety of holding unjustified beliefs by subjecting them to what looks and feels like sincere critical reasoning does nothing to alter the truth value of those propositions. When you examine your belief and find god wanting, you simply slide him off the empirical table into an imaginary realm where the same rules don't apply and he is therefore impervious to further scrutiny enabling all of your previous beliefs to persist. All you're actually doing is pulling off a series of intellectual back-flips to arrange your thoughts in a logically correct manner around the a priori existence of god.
Comment #23480 by MouthAlmighty on March 1, 2007 at 3:21 am
This is from Collins in the debate…
Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.
…so is this version any less legitimate…?
Certainly the authorities should continue to see whether we can find evidence that might explain why things look so conspiratorial when in fact they are not. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might just be in my imagination is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why is life so unexciting and ordinary?", "What happens behind the scenes?", "Is there a conspiracy?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of conspiracies after examining the facts because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether there is a diabolical conspiracy, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.
Just a bit of fun :)
28. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins
Comment #23380 by MouthAlmighty on February 28, 2007 at 8:56 am
If you don't think religion is child abuse, go look at "Jesus Camp" on Youtube.
Yes, but if, like Dawkins, you want to make a point about religious education and children per se then it would be wise to pick a more representative example, which you'll find not so easy to accomplish.
If Jesus Camp is what Dawkins is talking about then 99.9% of all religious educational institutions have absolutely nothing to worry about.
29. Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?
Comment #23369 by MouthAlmighty on February 28, 2007 at 7:23 am
With regard to the old "atheism is a religion" bollocks, this is from McGrath's latest epistle in his Dawkins obsession. He's criticising Dawkins for having failed to define religion or distinguish it from a 'world view' before dismantling its foundations in TGD.
Some, [religions] of course, are religious; many are not. Buddhism, existentialism, Islam, atheism and Marxism all fall into this category. Some world views claim to be universally true; others, more in tune with the postmodern ethos, view themselves as local. None of them can be 'proved' to be right. Precisely because they represent 'big picture' ways of engaging with the world, their fundamental beliefs lie beyond final proof.
He's incapable of seeing atheism as the simple non-acceptance of the god proposition. For him atheism is 'a response to church authority' or 'a reaction to overly cerebral conceptions of god' or 'a means for motivating political descent'. Anyone who's read his "Twilight of Atheism" will already be very familiar with this. This says a lot about his own claim to atheism.
If Dawkins is guilty of not giving a sufficiently crystal clear account of the precise conception of religion he was attacking, are we hoping for too much expecting McGrath to give even a passing explanation as to why atheism should be considered a religion at all?
It seems so.
30. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins
Comment #23368 by MouthAlmighty on February 28, 2007 at 7:01 am
At the risk of opening up some old wounds... whilst being a great way to grab attention, can we not at least agree that Dawkins' conflation of "religious labelling/teaching of children" and "child abuse" as an argumentative tool is, to say the least, problematic?
There are important valid points that absolutely need to be made about the role of religion in the education of children... Lumbering kids with an exclusive religious identity and dogma is divisive and intellectually stultifying. Allowing it to persist unquestioned has real observable consequences for society.
If the debate is even to get off the ground, parents need to start to pay attention. Calling them child abusers is one sure way to get attention but not the best way to start a debate.
31. Faith
Comment #23361 by MouthAlmighty on February 28, 2007 at 6:05 am
MouthAlmighty suggested the following title, "Disrobed by Dawkins? - reclothing the emperor" for his/her up-and-coming bestseller. Will it include nude pix of Dawkins? None of David Robertson, please. You would not be that cruel!
Actually, David has already suggested that the cover be a picture of him spanking Dawkins butt-naked bent over a stack of bibles. :)
32. Faith
Comment #23091 by MouthAlmighty on February 26, 2007 at 8:23 am
Bandwagon time. I figure I could probably crank out a TGD book length response a la McWrath and make a few quid.
Now - for a snazzy title...
"Desperate Dawkins - crisis of faith in the world of the faithless!"
"The Dawkins Dilemma - dispelling the dogma of the secular psychos!"
"Disrobed by Dawkins? - reclothing the emperor"
"Dastardly Dawkins the Dogmatic Dictator - defying the dogma and deposing the despot!
33. Faith
Comment #23088 by MouthAlmighty on February 26, 2007 at 7:53 am
Another bloody irritating tactic...
"What I find really distasteful is not just the tone of their rhetoric, but their lack of doubt," she says. "No scientific method says that there is no doubt. If you don't accept there's doubt in all things, you're being intellectually dishonest. "
"Distasteful?" In other words: 'Present an argument by all means. However, don't make it so robust, well supported and unequivocal as to undermine my own position because I'll find that quite upsetting. Moreover, to do so in a forthright and confident manner, giving little consideration to my feelings is simply bad taste! Instead, please take care to moderate your argument with sufficient quantities of doubt and uncertainty, thereby expressing the required humility and leaving sufficient intellectual space for my own impoverished world view.'
This argumentative tactic might be described as "the imputation of a persistent conspicuous doubt as a prerequisite qualifier for intellectually honest reasoning"
The implication here is that any position which does not display an obvious component of doubt (like faith in god for example) is by default non-provisional, and therefore certain, impervious to scrutiny and hence, dogmatic. It treats doubt as both quantitative and quantifiable. As a consequence the validity of a proposition is judged on the amount of conspicuous doubt it entails. Again, the equal impossibility of proving/disproving god's existence implies that doubt should be evident in whichever position you hold. Continue with the usual assumption that "equally impossible" equates to "equally probable" and the amount of doubt one should expect to see in the atheistic position should be equal to that of the theistic. The presence of doubt becomes synonymous with "intellectual honesty" and therefore the essential weakness of the theistic position - that it is very doubtful indeed - becomes its strength.
Sneaky bastards!
34. Faith
Comment #23067 by MouthAlmighty on February 26, 2007 at 5:06 am
I have always thought of "Tu quoque" as the arguement of a petulant child that has nothing to offer, and is just an "intellectual term for "you smell of poo too".
Yes - that's one way of looking at it. But I think it's worth giving the person who uses it a little more credit - there is a subtlety to consider; if I were to say, "you smell of poo too" I would acknowledge that I do indeed smell of poo thereby attempting to ameliorate my smelliness by highlighting your own. Whilst this is doubtless at the root of much theistic critique of atheistic/secular views, I think it's fair to say that some theists are attempting to assert that, "All atheists are smelly! And never are they more smelly than when they are accusing us of being smelly!"
Well... I did say it was irritating.
35. Faith
Comment #23058 by MouthAlmighty on February 26, 2007 at 4:35 am
Religious people (and sometimes atheists) seem to believe that atheism is one giant movement, comparable to Christianity, but this simply isn't true.
For an extreme example of this see McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism" - the entire thesis is based on this fallacious construct.
BTW: Just started reading "The Dawkins Delusion" - ad hominem, straw men, thinly veiled insults, unsupported claims - and I'm only 12 pages in.
36. Faith
Comment #23055 by MouthAlmighty on February 26, 2007 at 4:26 am
@Coment 30 by Toivo.
I believe what you're describing is the method of argumentation known as "Tu quoque" or the "you too" approach. It's basically a defensive tactic that seeks to justify behaviour (or belief) on the basis that the person criticising allegedly partakes of the same behaviour.
I find it particularly irritating. Essentially by calling the atheist "fundamentalist/dogmatic" etc, the theist is attributing his inability to induce belief in the atheist to the atheist's reluctance to accept reasoned argument and evidence. This rhetorical sleight of hand simply presupposes the existence of such without actually introducing it. When you actually demand that the evidence be presented and judged accordingly, that's when the theist begins to flaunt his "doubt" and accuse the atheist of "arrogance" and "unwarranted certainty."
=========
(Aside: "tu quoque" is sometimes described as simply accusing your accuser of any crime, not necessarily the same crime of which he accuses you. I don't think the difference matters that much.)
37. Battle for Europe's secular values
Comment #22780 by MouthAlmighty on February 22, 2007 at 7:19 am
Sorry for the ramble everyone – got another slack day at work…
Atheism is a philosophy, just like all the other philosophies. It makes positive assertions about the world and how it operates. It provides a framework by which the individual can interpret the world around him.
OK - at the risk of sounding like a pedant… atheism is not a philosophy, it merely denotes a refusal to give up one's faculties of critical reasoning when it comes to the proposition that, there exists a creator/interventionist god/s regardless of how comforting such a belief may be.
The characterisation of atheism as a, "philosophy/religion/faith position" is a deliberate category error; a favourite tactic of the theist because it allows critiques of atheism to be couched in terms religious critiques; "If we stink so do you! Nugh! Nugh!"
Therefore, since a central claim is that God (or god(s)) does not exist, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard by which we can argue against what we perceive as evil actions.
You're question begging. There is no "objective moral standard" which follows, logically or otherwise from the existence of God. I'll admit that there is a widely held presupposition of such a relationship, one clearly held by and relied on by you, but popularity is no guarantee of reliability.
You're free to correct me of course, but I get the clear impression that your enthusiasm for the equivocation of belief in/existence of God and objective/sense of morality relies largely on the implication of 'a source other than mankind' which derives its authority merely by virtue of its non-humanness. It implies that humans are incapable of formulating a moral sense or even recognising morality unless it bares the brand of a supernatural source. Worse than this, it implies that humans cannot be trusted to behave in a moral manner. This is what I am pointing to when I say you have a decidedly low opinion of humans.
In fact, here's an idea for you… if morality does have a divine origin, then anything I or any other secular humanist type says about the origin or validity of my morality is a delusion. No matter how vehemently I claim to be master of my own moral code, you know different. That doesn't mean I will act immorally, it just means I won't give credit where it's due (according to you). So when it comes to the proposed EU declaration, surely (despite the arrogance and ignorance of those who wrote it) this document is certainly guided by the hand of god in much the same way as the bible. If so, then what is it about the document that you find so disturbing? Given this reasoning, it seems all you're arguing for is the acknowledgement of some earthly source of society's moral diktats. It's an anti-secular position in much the same way as the Enlightenment was anti-church: nothing to do with the existence of god and everything to do with social authority.
"For instance, that it is better to do the right thing because one believes it to be right,"
But what if I feel that the right thing to do is burn Atheists on stakes as I denounce them as witches? Are you starting to see the big picture now?
With enough selective quoting (as above), ignorance of context, reductio ad absurdum, etc, you'll always be able to make an argument, in a twisted, postmodernist kind of way.
"I won't dispute that historical science differs from empirical science,"
And yet in one of your previous comments you said, essentially equivocating the two distinct realms of science,
No, actually I didn't.
Quit it with the boorish strawmen, please. Nowhere do I state or imply this. My point was simply that atheists' implied equivocation of the two realms of science is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters… There are certainly similarities between the two, but the differences are undeniable and must be acknowledged if any coherent dialogue is to occur.
Then you ought to give an example of how an atheist (or anyone for that matter) has either wilfully passed off historical science as empirical science or at least neglected to make the distinction in order to support an argument. My point is that if there exists any confusion or lack of absolute clarity between the use of both references then this is more likely inherent in the similarity of the two realms than in any underhand motives of the speaker. You appear to be making the assumption that the two are so different as to never be reasonably 'interchangeable' in coherent scientific discourse. If historical science was merely a story then this would certainly be the case. However, it amounts to a collection of robust explanatory theories founded on peer reviewed, evidence based reasoning. Much of empirical science is founded on the assumptions of historical science and vice versa. In many areas each is derived from and supports the other because they are founded on the same exacting standards. Whist I accept that caution should be advised when the two are used, quite legitimately, 'in the same breath' to make a point, given the inherent similarities, it is small wonder that this is not always the case. It doesn't always denote sharp practice.
Not quite. In fact, absolutely wrong. I imagine that God's existence can be shown to be reasonable or unreasonable. I don't like to use flawed words such as "proof". They're so shallow. I believe that in every belief we hold to exists an element of faith whether or not we acknowledge it. You cannot absolutely prove I can exist, neither can I prove you exist, but we can demonstrate each other's existence to be reasonable based on experience. Therefore any belief we have consists of reasonability and faith.
Christ! For someone who insists on clarity of terms at every juncture you're awfully keen on fudging them for your own purposes. How can the existence of anything or anyone be held to be "reasonable?"
Actually, I'm what I like to call a "soft agnostic".
You can call yourself whatever you like - there's nothing much soft or agnostic about your earlier statement...
If God says I have value, I have value. God says I have value, therefore, I have value. My justification has little to do with my opinion; it has everything to do with God's. Not to mention, my justification doesn't rely on circular reasoning
…which, in addition to being question begging, sounds pretty "absolute" and "certain" to me. Which makes the following a little difficult to accept…
I, like many other skeptics throughout history, choose to define knowledge as absolute certainty. I therefore do not believe that I can know of God's existence. I certainly believe it to be reasonable based on a fair amount of evidence and logical justification, but I agree that it cannot be known either way, that is, when absolute certainty becomes a necessary condition for knowledge. Bet you weren't expecting that…
Actually I was expecting something exactly like this. Your 'reasoning' is very familiar. I used to counsel alcoholics who were absolutely certain that they were dealing with their problem merely by virtue of the fact that they attended all the meetings, talked to all the advisors, kept their appointments, etc. Since they were making all the right noises, the fact that their problem survived the intervention and persisted was 'reason' enough to continue to indulge. Of course, the reality is that what looked and certainly felt like constructive intervention was merely a diversion for themselves and others. They never actually intended to let go of their indulgence. The fact that your belief in god incorporates doubt and entertains evidence and logic ensures that it has the look and feel of reason, but it's last refuge will always be belief without evidence… "well, you can't disprove it!"
"Your determination to characterise the proposed declaration as some kind of objective, immutable, totalitarian secularist creed is a straw man."
Now see what happens when you let emotion taint your arguments? You start making rationally unconnected claims. Where do I, in the statement you have cited in the box above your statement, even mention the declaration in the article? That statement was a response to a claim made in another comment, not the article. Do get a grip.
The reductio ad absurdum argument you employed requires the rigid characterisation of the declaration I described. This may be a reasonable tool of argumentation when propositions are already clear cut and precise, it amounts to little more than sophistry in regards to the spirit of the declaration. As for the straw man accusation, I acknowledge that perhaps I should have taken time to connect the dots.
"Because your "higher entity" has some very odd ideas about right and wrong…"
On what basis are you judging God? Your own? Very well then. On my own basis, I judge that your ideas about right and wrong are obscene. Without God, it's just my word against yours.
Again you're question begging with gay abandon here. On what rational basis do you so unequivocally equate belief in god with a sense of morality? Not to mention the existence of the moral sense with the existence of God? At the very least you should be able to demonstrate the necessity for god to exist, or at the very least, for a pre-existing belief in such an entity, in the explanation of a sense of morality or demonstrably moral behaviour by relying on something other than your personal conviction. If it stands to reason, then we are not expecting too much to see what that reasoning is. BTW: "God is the source of morality, people are moral, therefore god exists" won't wash.
Biz, you really have to get to grips with the fact that atheism is not a statement of faith. When an atheist says, "I do not believe that the proposed creator/interventionist god exists" it is not a statement about god, it is a statement about the proposition that god exists. There is an important non-pedantic difference between those two positions. Theists joyfully and wilfully ignore the difference because the a priori existence of god in their universe licenses it.
And please, for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't use the words "right" and "wrong". They have no meaning without an objective basis. My "right" can be different from your "right", and there is no logic or evidence anywhere in the Universe to demonstrate that either of us is right.
I'm sick of this postmodernist bollocks! On what "objective basis" are you operating? Really, your ability to bounce from absolutism to a relativism is quite mind boggling.
"No, actually I'm conflating religion and religion."
Oh yeah… of course… derr! Silly me.
"If the factual world of science impinges on the acquisition of that belief, well… that's what faith is for, no?"
No, not really. You're implying blind faith, whereas my faith is rational faith. There is quite a distinction.
Like I said before, you can dress up your faith with as much 'rational intervention' as you like, the fact that it survives and persists does not mean that it is anything other than a choice to believe despite the opposing evidence.
Besides the fact that you're overreacting a bit, I think you've misinterpreted my statement (or word?). It was meant somewhat as a joke, but also as an attempt to be discrete.
Please Biz, you really needn't go to such lengths to save my blushes :)
38. Battle for Europe's secular values
Comment #22645 by MouthAlmighty on February 20, 2007 at 6:02 am
I'm sure that Janus is more than capable of dealing with these without any help from me (in fact, the way things are going with the posts he probably already has) but I've got a slack day today so…
If Atheism is true, then it logically follows that there is no objective moral standard, no objective human worth, etc., therefore it is not too hard to justify evil actions.
WTF?
OK, first of all, atheism isn't a factual statement; it's not a proposition which can be held to measures of truth or falsity; it merely denotes the state of not accepting the proposition that there exists a supernatural creator/interventionist god/gods. As Sam Harris puts it, "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."
Therefore, what you're actually saying here is 'If atheists are right, and theists are wrong, and there is in fact no god, there is therefore no reason to observe any moral standards.'
This is morally repugnant. Some of the "noises" we reasonable people make relate to the fact that not only do we not need holy books and holy people to tell us how and why we should act in a moral manner, there are in fact better reasons for being good than are offered in holy books. For instance, that it is better to do the right thing because one believes it to be right, because one has a self generated, genuine, sincere concern for the wellbeing of one's fellows, rather than doing so merely out of fear of divine retribution for not doing so.
No doubt you'll be of the opinion that such intellectual freedom to decide what's right and what's wrong for myself without the external, immutable divine word upon which to anchor my morality, is an act of supreme arrogance. Once again this merely reflects the decidedly low opinion you have of human beings.
You seriously need to re-evaluate your understanding of science. Historical science carries nowhere near the same level of certainty found in empirical science. I don't eve