By Seth Richardson
One of the most common canards heard from atheists is the claim “atheism isn’t a religion.” True enough, from the lexicological point of view, but the canard is not intended as a definition of atheism, it’s dragged out as a means of evading criticism of the ideological, and frequently religious actions of Atheists in the real world.
It’s supposed to be a debate-stopper in response to the common theistic canard “atheism is just another religion, so it’s no better than any other religion.”
The cognitive disconnect in both sides of this “is too, is not” byplay is that everybody seems unable to distinguish between religion and theism, particularly Atheists. It’s not really that they cannot distinguish, it’s more that they refuse to do so, and they refuse to acknowledge that in many instances, atheism is expressed as a religious belief every bit as much as belief in God is.
But Atheists hate to be lumped in with religion, in part because they consider themselves to be the intellectual superiors of anyone who holds theistic religious beliefs. It would be demeaning to their reputations, and harmful to their anti-religious rhetoric to be classified as “just another religion.”
Ignoring for the moment the hubris of claiming intellectual superiority over historical religious philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, it may be observed that religion is as religion does.
Religion, in fact, is not what you believe (whether you believe in Jehova, Zeus or Thor is irrelevant), it’s how you practice your beliefs, whatever they may be.
How does PZ Myers enter into this discussion? Well, it seems that Myers has seen the light and is not just admitting to his religious anti-theistic, anti-religious beliefs, he’s proselytizing and exhorting his minions and acolytes that they too should acknowledge their status as religious believers.
In a blog entry at his website, “Pharyngula,” Myers writes,
“…nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it’s solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.”
Good boy! You get a pat on the head for engaging your reasoning faculties.
Myers is exactly right. Nobody “becomes” an atheist without forming a set of beliefs and associated practices. The trick to understanding this is that there is a difference between “atheism” and “atheist.” Atheism is, in dictionary form, “a lack of belief in gods.” But atheists are more than dictionary definitions. They are, to murder a metaphor, what they eat.
Myers agrees with me and goes on to say,
“Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You’ve got a discussion going, talking about why you’re an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that “Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.” As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses.”
Dumbasses indeed, and the world is chock full of them. Thanks for having the courage to point this out, PZ, it puts you head and shoulders above most other Atheist “philosophers.”
Of course, it’s likely that Myers cribbed this notion from me, since I’ve been expounding this sort of argument for several years now, including at the now-defunct Richard Dawkins discussion forum, and at the “lifeboat” replacement, Rational Skepticism. I wonder if the opprobrium heaped on Myers is anything like the truckloads heaped on me for having the temerity to challenge Atheist dogma. It’s pretty much like calling Mohammed a pederast, without the strap-on bombs.
But I digress.
In philosophy, there are several flavors or varieties of atheists or atheism, which is to say the practice of atheistic beliefs. The most convenient in this context is the distinction between “implict atheism” and “explicit atheism.” As described by Libertarian and atheist author George H. Smith in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, “Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it”. Explicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it.”
Implict atheists are infants and children, the mentally defective, and the exceedingly rare person who has never been exposed in any way to theistic concepts. Explicit atheists are everyone else who have been exposed to theistic concepts and have evaluated those concepts and claims, and have made a decision to reject them as untrue.
Myers has more than a little contempt for those who claim implicit atheism when clearly they are explicitly atheistic,
“If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing: asking why you are a person who does not believe in god is not answered when you reply, “Because I am a person who does not believe in god.” And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn’t just makes you dogmatic and blind.”"
Right on PZ! Myers goes on to do the unthinkable in atheist dogma, he acknowledges that theists are not simply deluded boobs incapable of rational thought,
“You are an atheist — take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn’t arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren’t always accounted for by stupidity.
But here’s where Myers goes astray in his otherwise rational examination of the conceits of atheism.
“…there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it’s actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. My atheism is not solely a negative claim about gods, but is based on a whole set of positive values that I will emphasize when talking about atheism. That denial of god thing? It’s a consequence, not a cause.”
Here’s what makes Myers’ position an expression of religious belief; The only thing that science can say about the existence or non-existence of God is that there is insufficient critically robust scientific evidence in the record upon which to base any conclusions, pro or con.
This is true because while it is true that theists have not provided science with critically robust scientific evidence for the existence of God, that fact does not infer that God does not or cannot exist.
“The absence of evidence,” goes the aphorism, “is not evidence of absence.” In fact, it may merely be evidence of the primitive state of humanity’s understanding of the physical universe, much less our complete and utter ignorance about the nature of any other universes or dimensions that may exist.
Theoretical physics has many theories, which are actually nothing more than educated speculations, about the possibility of alternate universes and their configuration, from bubble universes to membrane universes, to the “multiverse” theory of ever-expanding forkings of this universe.
Because we have so little actual knowledge of our own universe—we cannot even explain how it came into being with any certainty—and we have less understanding of other universes, no one can say with any credibility that the physical properties of another universe, or even this universe (and it’s many postulated dimensions), preclude the existence of some intelligent entity that has the capacity to manipulate time, space, matter or energy in this universe that might reasonably be defined as “God” by human beings.
Arthur C. Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Or, if I may be so bold, indistinguishable from divine action.
And it is this evident scientific ignorance that makes Myers’ assertions about “scientific attitude(s) that value evidence and reason” and “positive values” into religious beliefs. Value evidence and engage in reason, by all means, St. Thomas Aquinas and a host of other philosophers have done so, so you’re in good company, PZ. But do not succumb to what I’ve coined the “Atheist’s Fallacy.”
This fallacy is a fallacy of circular reasoning in which one of the premises of an argument against the existence of God is drawn from one of many human-created theistic claims, which premise is presumed to be true in reaching the conclusion that God does not exist:
The error in reasoning should be obvious. The premise falsely presumes that the Christian claims about God’s actions are true. If the Christian’s claim is false, or erroneous, the conclusion fails because one cannot base a rational, logical conclusion on false premises.
The circular reasoning is seen in the “God doesn’t exist because what Christians say about God isn’t true.” Whether or not the claims of Christians are true has no effect on whether God actually exists, or doesn’t.
God, it must be recognized, if He exists, is not constrained or created by man’s observations or claims. God must be greater than our dim, fallible view of him, or He would not be God. To constrain God to the boundaries of human understanding or description is plain error.
But how is it that Myers and his ilk can be defined as being “religious” about their atheism merely because they hold “positive views” about theism and religion?
Religion has a number of accepted authoritative definitions, and naturally the primary definitions include references to theistic concepts, but that’s not the only definition of religion, and it is generally acknowledged that a number of “atheistic” religions exist, including Buddhism and Secular Humanism.
As I said before, theism is what you believe, religion is how you go about practicing your beliefs.
The relevant definitions that apply to Myers and innumerable other self-professed (and therefore explicit) atheists include:
“Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience;”
“A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects;”
” The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.”
Myers and his fellow-travelers indisputably hold beliefs about theism and science, and Myers in particular strongly believes in and devotedly follows his atheistic beliefs as a matter of ethics and conscience.
“I oppose religion because we can see its effects on even otherwise brilliant people: it short-circuits skepticism and leaves them open to dangerous and erroneous ideas.”
He’s so devoted to his beliefs that he’s made something of a pest of himself to legislators and theists, and he regularly proselytizes the faithful at his web site, Pharyngula.
And that’s why PZ Myers, and a whole bunch of other Atheists (and I use the capital “A” to denote those atheists who qualify as members of the Atheist religion deliberately) are in every relevant respect, persons of religion and members of a religious congregation. So are his acolytes, sycophants, minions and worshipers. So are hosts of other Atheists who hold similar beliefs and engage in similar religious practices.
So, next time you encounter an Atheist, go right ahead and tell them that their belief set is “just another religion,” because it’s true. They have no better hotline to the straight skinny on the existence, or non-existence of God than you do, or anybody else does. When they object, refer them to me, I’ll help set them straight about their apostasy and heresy.
© 2011 Altnews
“Of course, it’s likely that Myers cribbed this notion from me”
You’re not that important.
Not all Christians believe the creation event occurred 6,000 years ago. Young-Earth creationism is just one viewpoint.
Seth,
I don’t like using all caps for anything, but I can’t get the italics to format in your site. So, wherever I’ve used all caps, please read them as italics, not as shouts.
You say: “While Ockham’s Razor is a useful scientific tool, and does, as you describe, help prevent scientists from coming to the conclusion that “God did it” when they are unable to discover a simple, naturalistic answer for something, it’s not, as we can see, infallible.
And that’s the point, and the only point I’m making about it. It’s not a “law” it’s a cognitive assistant.”
I reply: I appreciate your example prior to the above statement, concerning the hypothetical future scientist believing wrongly that Roundup evolved naturally because of his fidelity to Ockham’s Razor. But it doesn’t show, as you intended, a fundamental flaw in scientific method, unless you believe any truth algorithm that fails to make the unknowable known is, ipso facto, flawed. The fallibility you decry in the scientific method is covered in the method itself, which is far more than just Ockham’s Razor, which I’ll explain below.
Is Ockham’s Razor a law of science or of logic?
First, when I look in the index of THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY, I find “Parsimony, Law of (see Ockham’s Razor).” So at least some lexicographer accepts Ockham’s Razor as some kind of law, since he indexes it as such.
Second, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (vol 7, “Scientific Method,” p. 341) states: “Newton formulated his [four] guiding principles in the ‘Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy’ . . .
Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. . . .
Rule IV: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate or liable to exceptions.”
Notice that Newton places his version of Ockham’s Razor first—as he should—among his guiding principles. My online dictionary defines “principle” as “a general scientific law or theorem that has numerous applications across a wide field.” We can quibble over whether Ockham’s Razor is a law or a theorem, but either way, as a principle, it’s indispensible to rational, scientific thinking.
Notice also that Newton’s Rule IV allows for the possibility that new information may cause a scientist to alter his conclusions about any given phenomenon. HE may be wrong in his conclusion. But the scientific method isn’t therefore wrong, because it’s just reason extended to the natural world, a truth algorithm. And the method is a part of that natural world. As such, the scientist is willing, as an aspect of the method guiding him, to consider improvement to the method itself. If the future scientist is unable to learn the true nature of Roundup’s genesis, it’s not because his method is flawed. That method is a distillation of the best thinking human beings possess.
Using your approach, Seth, we have to consider the possibility that no researcher at Monsanto engineered the development of Roundup. It COULD have been an invisible genie that placed the idea in his head. Inadequate scientific knowledge stands in our way of ever knowing for sure.
You’re free to hold your opinion that Ockham’s Razor is only “a cognitive assistant,” but if you don’t practice it from one minute to the next, you’re opening yourself to the possibility that an infinite number of imaginary things exist and that belief in those things is just as rational as belief in the experiential world, that belief in the tooth fairy is as rational as belief in the tooth, that belief in a tree god or a mountain god is as rational as belief in the tree or in the mountain.
An offshoot of Ockham’s Razor is Popper’s Falsifiability Principle. There’s no way of proving you wrong, not even in theory, that a God in some form exists, anymore than there’s a way of disproving that individual gods inhabit every tree and flower and mountain (animism).
You say: “What science views as “supernatural” may not be at all supernatural, it may be entirely natural, but simply inexplicable by our present level of scientific understanding.”
I reply: I answered this quite extensively in my last post. I’ll just add here that this kind of “reasoning” can justify belief in anything the human brain can imagine, from unicorns to alternative universes. I can imagine myself orbiting around Earth now, gazing back on the continents and oceans but I’d be insane to believe it or to give equal credence to that possibility and to the fact that I’m at my computer typing this. Perhaps I’m only dreaming the latter from my orbit . . . maybe a supernatural entity has tricked me . . . maybe I’ve read too much Descartes . . . or . . .
You say: “The hubris of science is in assuming that it knows enough about God to dismiss the concept by labeling it as supernatural. I’m saying that science cannot rationally, or even in accordance with Ockham’s Razor, make this determination and remain logically and rationally consistent.”
I reply: I wasn’t aware that science assumes it knows ANYTHING about God, much less that it knows “enough.” There’s nothing to know about a mental construct for which there’s no evidence. All one can do is ask for a description of that construct and then see if it comports with the known world. Perhaps you can describe in a way making Him worthy of worship a Being who allowed, for example, the holocaust when He could have prevented it? Forget what science says: Isn’t the very concept of an all-loving, all-powerful creator inconsistent with the known world? If the scientist must begin his investigation with a hypothesis, how would he word it? The hypothesis that such a being exists is so arrantly incoherent that no scientist would bother.
You say: “The true intellect says Yes, God, in some form, may exist. But there’s no proof compelling me to believe that He does” while at the same time remaining open-minded towards both the naturalistic possibilities for explaining God, and an open mind towards new evidence that might lead to the conclusion that God, or something we might or perhaps ought refer to as God, comes to light.
The true intellect is also tolerant of the perhaps misguided beliefs of theists, when they remain peaceable in their beliefs and actions, knowing that for all the dogma, there may exist that single grain of truth that is at the nucleus of belief that is objectively, scientifically true.”
I reply: Yes, God, “in some form, may exist.” I agree 100%. Damn it! This was getting good until we agreed. I just can’t imagine any form in which He could exist that would render Him worthy of worship. But that could be a deficiency in my imagination.
I think we agree that confrontational, militant atheism is disrespectful to theists and serves to make the atheist look bad. No one has all the answers. No one knows how the universe came to be. In religious debates, it may help (or it helps me, anyway) to keep uppermost in mind that truth has no emotions, no agenda, no feelings. That said, we do have the ability to identify contradictions. And all evidence proves to me that there is no all-loving, all-powerful Thing that created or now manages the universe. If Something DID create the universe, I have no reason to worship it. At least no one has given me a compelling reason to worship it. Until that reason is forthcoming I will remain a dumbass and WITHOUT RELIGION.
I don’t believe in any gods, ghosts, witches, or angels. I don’t believe that Barack Obama is moving to the center (not willingly, anyway). I don’t believe a magic goat keeps Earth in its orbit. Until these have compelling (to me) evidentiary support, I remain an unbeliever. Indeed, if everyone in the world believed in the above, I would remain an unbeliever. Does my lack of belief make me religious on these issues? I think not.
There is a fundamental law of reasoning in philosophy called Occam’s Razor. In the sciences it’s known as the Law of Parsimony. We are not to multiply hypotheses.
Your essay suggests that logic is equally balanced between a position of belief and one of disbelief. Is it?
Consider the nature of superstition. If I say that God caused the sun to shine today (or perhaps my throwing salt over my left shoulder last night), where is my proof? The very nature of superstition, any superstition, is that it lacks a rational cause-effect connection.
Given your reasoning, every belief—even those in the most mindless voodoo practices—deserves the same respect. After all, maybe the cause-effect relationship exists. We’re just too ignorant to have discovered it.
Granted, there may be a number of personality traits and belief-sets common among atheists. But that doesn’t constitute a religion. As you know, I too once frequented Dawkins’ website, and I found myself among atheists there who might as well have peopled an alternative universe from the one I know, for all we had in common.
Give me a Baptist, a Catholic, or a Muslim, and I can tell you fairly well what he believes. Give me an atheist, and I can say that he has no belief in god; I can say that and nothing else. To call that absence of belief a religion, stretches the meaning of “religion” to a point where the word no longer references anything whatsoever. It might just as well be replaced by the word “belief.”
Thought provoking, as usual, Seth.
First, Jim, Ockham’s Razor is not a law of anything, it’s an aphorism stated by 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. (Note that he was a Catholic friar…which makes it something of a conundrum for atheists, who rely upon his logic heavily). Fr. William said, so it is believed, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” There are many versions of this aphorism, but the one most often seen in Atheist argumentation is “The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.” The aphorism is usually dragged out as some sort of evidence that God does not exist by combining it with a favorite quote of Richard Dawkins and others who claim that because science can explain (however abstractly) how evolution happens, that this makes God “unnecessary.” This is a direct reference to Ockham’s Razor, but it’s a fallacious one because while science favors simpler explanations, such explanations are not always true. Evolution arguments against God are an excellent example of the misuse of Ockham’s Razor, the stretching of it’s intent beyond the bounds of reason.
Let us assume, arguendo, that evolution is a fact, and that organisms evolve over time through trial and error as evolutionary biologists claim. This is often claimed as a disproof of God because if all living organisms evolved from non-living matter, God is not “necessary” to life. This argument exemplifies the Ockham’s Razor thinking of science; find the simplest possible naturalistic actions that explain how a given result COULD occur, and presume thereafter that it is that mechanism that DID occur, in all circumstances and at all times. Ockham’s Razor seems to suggest that if evolution is true, God is not necessary to life on earth, and therefore God does not exist.
But the failure of this argument should be obvious. We will assume arguendo that evolution does indeed occur as described. But this fact does not preclude intelligent manipulation of evolution. This is also a scientific fact. Humans have proven that with relatively simple technology and understanding, human beings are capable of manipulating DNA in living creatures, thereby changing the course of “natural” evolution. Therefore, it is not rational or logical to say that “natural” evolution is the only way in which organisms develop over vast swaths of time, since we have objective proof that intelligence can manipulate DNA to change the course of evolution.
What this means is that the presumption that evolution somehow provides critically robust evidence that God does not or cannot exist is simply wrong. Nothing precludes God, or some god-like intelligence, from meddling in the DNA of living, evolving creatures in order to guide evolution towards some pre-determined objective. And we humans would not have the technology to detect such “intelligent design” in the deep past, if the manipulations are subtle enough to pass for “natural” evolutionary changes. Taking this a step further, the origin of life on earth has not been demonstrated. Lots of theorizing and experimentation indicating how it might have occurred through the random combination of precursor chemicals into proteins, which then randomly changed over time and became more and more complex through evolutionary processes have been postulated, and many of the root processes have been demonstrated in the lab. Research into how non-living matter became living matter is ongoing. But let’s presume, arguendo, that science can demonstrate in the lab how precursor chemicals combine into amino acids, which combine into protein chains, which develop into self-replicating cellular structures, which develop into living organisms, which develop into human beings.
All this proves is two things: First, that intelligence can create life, and second, that it is possible for life to begin, and evolve, without intelligent design.
Science will immediately apply Ockham’s Razor to stop any further conversation about the origin of life on earth by saying that it has successfully demonstrated the “simplest” way in which life comes into being and evolves into complex organisms, and that therefore God is “unnecessary” to the process. Generally, this claim is then extended as some evidence that God does not exist on the claim that a) there is no critically robust evidence that God does exist acknowledged by science, and b) that because science has an “adequate” naturalistic explanation of how life began and evolves, that there is no “need” to resort to supernatural explanations like “Goddidit.”
The failure of the scientific argument is four-fold: First, evidence demonstrating that life COULD evolve spontaneously through “natural” processes is not proof that life DID evolve without intelligent intervention. Second, the fact that intelligent design is not “necessary” to evolution is not proof that intelligent design WAS NOT involved in the evolution of life on earth. Third, the fact that science has not accepted any critically robust “naturalistic” evidence that intelligent design has occurred does not mean that such design DID NOT occur, it means only that scientific knowledge and understanding is primitive and incomplete. Fourth, the implicit invocation of the Atheist’s Fallacy inherent in the argument at b) above, which dismisses intelligent design, and an intelligent designer as “supernatural” is unwarranted because nothing in science, physics or logic requires that God be “supernatural,” merely that God be a manifestation of, as Clarke put it, “sufficiently advanced technology” that we humans cannot detect, quantify or explain.
So much for Ockham’s Razor as a defense against God.
On to your other argument, which is a version of the “necessity” argument in which you hold that superstitions need not be granted “respect” because they lack a “rational cause-effect connection.” Shortened, this argument returns directly to the Atheist’s Fallacy by tautologically assuming that because a cause-effect connection is not seen or acknowledged by science in regards to some particular superstition, that this somehow proves that the underlying concept of God must be untrue. This is fallacy because the superstition need only be an imperfect description of a completely natural phenomenon to render the logic false.
So yes, I am saying that God may exist, and that because we are unable to subject God to scientific analysis at this stage in our scientific knowledge, we cannot say with any rational authority that God does not exist.
On to your third argument.
You say, “To call that absence of belief a religion, stretches the meaning of “religion” to a point where the word no longer references anything whatsoever. It might just as well be replaced by the word “belief.””
My premise, and indeed PZ Myers’ argument, is that “Atheism” is much, much more than simply an “absence of belief” in theistic notions. Explicit atheism is, by definition, a conscious rejection of theistic notions, which infers both knowledge of the claims of theism, and beliefs about the truth value of those claims. Beliefs are the essence of religion. Combine one’s beliefs about theism, about the truth value of theistic claims, the impact of theistic belief on society, culture and law, the effects of theistic beliefs on the thinking and practice of individuals, and other subjects that theism touches or affects, with actions, or practices, that demonstrate both faith in one’s own beliefs about the existence of God and the value of theistic claims, and which are followed with devotion and dedication as a matter of conscience or ethics, like writing books decrying the negative effects of theism on society, or petitioning government for laws to limit the influence of theism in society, or any of a thousand other actions in opposition to theism and/or theists, and one is clearly practicing religion as defined.
Seth,
You misunderstand Occam’s Razor (or the Law of Parsimony). It’s not a mere aphorism or a suggestion or a rule of thumb, but in fact a law of science and the first I was taught in Clinical Psychology before running our first experiments. It does not mean that you merely accept the simplest explanation, but rather the simplest explanation that accounts for all test results.
Ignoring this law opens the door for belief in all kinds of nonsense. For example, before our understanding of the circulatory system, the nervous system, the organ system, and the physiology governing those systems, there was a prevalent belief in vitalism. This was belief in some mysterious force that ran through the body, keeping it healthy. But now that we understand more fully the physical systems I’ve mentioned above, it’s no more than a superstition. There is no place for it in a cause/effect relationship anywhere in medicine.
Unfortunately, however, there are still those who don’t accept the Law of Parsimony as sound, and therefore fall prey to every quack looking for a sucker, from the acupuncturist to the practitioner of therapeutic touch, both of whose methodologies (along with a fair amount of chiropractic) are founded on vitalism.
We call the proper practice of medicine “science-based” or “evidence-based.” The other, we call quackery. Can I prove that “qi” doesn’t run along “meridians” and keep “yin” and “yang” in balance? No, but it would be a violation of the Law of Parsimony to believe it.
So, yes, to me, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. But to anyone who thinks He is a necessary hypothesis, I would ask, “If you think some Being was necessary for life to begin, then by that same reasoning you must believe that another Being prior to It was necessary for It to come into existence. And another Being prior to that Being and so on, ad infinitum.
Call me a pessimist, but I doubt we’re going to solve the question in this blog as to how the universe or mankind came to be. But I’d bet that if a God does exist somewhere, He’s asking Himself the question, How did I come to exist? And with no more success than we’re having.
Your “four-fold” “failure of the scientific argument” is nothing but a silly come-back. Of course, I can’t prove any number of negatives. I can’t prove that evolution as you say “DID evolve without intelligent intervention,” any more than I can prove that a thousand invisible angels aren’t dancing around me and supplying me with my thoughts now. If I believed in such an absurdity, could you prove me wrong? Does the fact than you can’t mean that you’re a dumbass (your word) for not believing that the angels might exist? After all, what law of logic says these angels are a fatuous construct? Maybe Occam’s Razor?
That, as you say, “intelligent life can create life, and . . . that it is possible for life to begin, and evolve, without intelligent design” is in no way comparable to creating the entire universe ex nihilo, which the theist believes.
You say: “So yes, I am saying that God may exist, and that because we are unable to subject God to scientific analysis at this stage in our scientific knowledge, we cannot say with any rational authority that God does not exist.”
I reply: Yes, God, in some form, may exist. But there’s no proof compelling me to believe that He does. Until there is I’m not going to undermine my own intellect by believing in something (on nothing but faith, whatever that is) that could be no more than a subjective construct born of wishful thinking on the part of others. That would be nothing but authoritarianism. The only thing I can say for sure, after years of studying world history, of learning about many of the horrible things that have happened in this world, is that it certainly wasn’t created by, nor is it governed by an all-powerful, all-loving creator. But I think for most believers, anything less isn’t God. And this is the entity for which I have not a trace of belief in my mind. If you want to posit some wispy Thing that might have sparked the Big Bang, how can anyone oppose you?
Of course, at this point, arguing along the same line that you’ve taken, someone will say, “Yes, but He IS all-powerful, just not in the way you understand. And, yes, He IS all-loving, just not in the way our puny minds understand the term “at this stage in our scientific knowledge.” And he adds, ‘“We cannot say with any rational authority’ that God isn’t all-powerful in a sense that hasn’t occurred to us or that He isn’t all-loving in a sense that hasn’t occurred to us.” But words have meanings and those meanings are functions of our present knowledge. By what logic should we accept belief in something because those meanings might change in the future?
Ultimately, we have to decide if we’re going to believe things that fly in the face of all experience and all rationality. Maybe a smarter person than me will prove that a thousand invisible angels really are dancing around me now. But until the proper experiment is conducted, I’ll just limp along with my flawed intellect and remain a doubter. Occam’s Razor may be the only thing that stands between freedom and an insane asylum.
Concerning your last point, that atheism “is much, much more than simply an absence of belief.” I thought I answered that in my last response. I cannot tell what a person believes insofar as his ethics or his politics are concerned or how he might otherwise conduct himself in society by his absence of belief in a deity. I certainly wouldn’t take his profession of atheism to be his religion, even if he did things “like writing books decrying the negative effects of theism on society, or petitioning government for laws to limit the influence of theism in society, or any of a thousand other actions in opposition to theism and/or theists.” If logic dictated that I called atheism a religion, it would also demand that I called the Democratic or Republican Parties religions.
Atheism is no more a religion than science-based medicine is a superstition. If you argue that atheism is a religion because it constitutes a lack of belief in a supernatural being, then you must say that science-based medicine is a superstition because it constitutes a lack of belief in superstition-based quack therapies—in other words, practices that have no proven cause-effect links. But to do so would be a category mistake. If you can show that someone is being irrational in his beliefs, that he is being dogmatic in his persistence in holding those unfounded beliefs, and you spend just as much time trying to convince him otherwise; if you wrote books decrying the negative effects of his irrational beliefs on society, or petitioned government for laws to protect society from those harmful delusions, or any of a thousand other actions to oppose him, would that make you irrational also?
(Seth, I tried to email you, but you’ve changed your email address. Please check your use of “infer.”)
Jim wrote: “You misunderstand Occam’s Razor (or the Law of Parsimony). It’s not a mere aphorism or a suggestion or a rule of thumb, but in fact a law of science and the first I was taught in Clinical Psychology before running our first experiments. It does not mean that you merely accept the simplest explanation, but rather the simplest explanation that accounts for all test results.”
We seem to be stuck on the word “law.” Ockham’s Razor is not a law. It does not describe an aspect of the physical universe. It’s a device used in scientific research to guide investigations and help to avoid mistakes.
But it’s not an infallible statement, and here’s an example that proves this:
Five hundred thousand years in the future, long after our society has collapsed and all of our knowledge has been lost (perhaps as a result of biological war) some scientist (perhaps an alien) is examining the DNA of corn and finds a genetic sequence that makes the corn resistant to the biological effects of a chemical substance N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine. The parsimonious answer to the riddle of why this genetic sequence exists might be that the plant evolved a natural resistance to N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, which may have at one time been a common substance in the environment in the past.
This would be a perfectly rational and reasonable conclusion to draw from the evolutionary basis because it’s simple. But it would be entirely wrong, because in fact, resistance to N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine did not evolve, it was intelligently designed. N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine is also known as “Roundup,” a common herbicide, and it was invented by Monsanto.
While Ockham’s Razor is a useful scientific tool, and does, as you describe, help prevent scientists from coming to the conclusion that “God did it” when they are unable to discover a simple, naturalistic answer for something, it’s not, as we can see, infallible.
And that’s the point, and the only point I’m making about it. It’s not a “law” it’s a cognitive assistant.
Jim wrote: “So, yes, to me, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. But to anyone who thinks He is a necessary hypothesis, I would ask, “If you think some Being was necessary for life to begin, then by that same reasoning you must believe that another Being prior to It was necessary for It to come into existence. And another Being prior to that Being and so on, ad infinitum.”
Not necessarily, but possibly. It depends upon which view of the universe(s) you subscribe to.
The example that I like to use, because there is nothing in physics or science which precludes this hypothesis, is that what we refer to as
“God” may actually be, as Clarke puts it, merely a sufficiently advanced intelligence inhabiting an adjacent universe that has the capacity to manipulate time, space, matter or energy in this universe.
Nothing in current alternate-universe cosmological thinking (otherwise known as “speculation”) precludes a membrane or bubble universe adjacent to our own which has been in existence for billions of billions of years longer than our own, and in which an intelligence has come into being, or evolved, that is so vastly superior to our own that we cannot begin to comprehend it.
Nothing in current cosmological theory prohibits the physical laws of an alternate universe from being completely different from our own to the extent that such an intelligence might be non-physical.
Thus, because such things are possible, it is therefore irrational to discard such notions out of hand merely because science holds an institutional antipathy to “supernaturalism.” What science views as “supernatural” may not be at all supernatural, it may be entirely natural, but simply inexplicable by our present level of scientific understanding.
The hubris of science is in assuming that it knows enough about God to dismiss the concept by labeling it as supernatural. I’m saying that science cannot rationally, or even in accordance with Ockham’s Razor, make this determination and remain logically and rationally consistent.
Jim wrote: “That, as you say, “intelligent life can create life, and . . . that it is possible for life to begin, and evolve, without intelligent design” is in no way comparable to creating the entire universe ex nihilo, which the theist believes.”
Again, this falls into the trap of the Atheist’s Fallacy. What theists believe may be irrelevant to the true nature of an intelligent entity we might reasonably refer to as God while at the same time being founded in a grain, or dune’s worth of truth. But by the same token, nothing in physics or science preclude this hypothetical hyper-intelligent entity inhabiting another universe that is capable of penetrating into this universe from “creating” it.
We have yet to explain where all the matter that formed the Monobloc which exploded during the Big Bang came from. I can easily hypothesize, and remain completely within the boundaries of “science” by positing that our “bubble” of an expanding universe was indeed created by this hyper-intelligent entity that injected the matter into an “empty” universe all at once, thereby causing the Big Bang.
This comports with the statements in Genesis, however ineptly and incorrectly the human understanding of the event, perhaps as described to some human by this intelligence, might be. And therein may lie the grain of truth behind theism that is concealed by the human-created edifice of theistic religion. That the grain of truth is concealed in the foundations of the dogma does not render the truth invalid, merely very hard to find.
Thus, again, I have provided a “naturalistic” hypothesis for the creation of our universe that involves no supernaturalism. Therefore, once again, for “science” to dismiss such notions is irrational and illogical on the part of science.
Jim wrote: “I reply: Yes, God, in some form, may exist. But there’s no proof compelling me to believe that He does. Until there is I’m not going to undermine my own intellect by believing in something (on nothing but faith, whatever that is) that could be no more than a subjective construct born of wishful thinking on the part of others.”
And this is a decision that each person makes for himself that I have no quibble with. What I am decrying here is the unreason and illogic of science and the conceits and obstructions to logical, rational thought that those who have knee-jerk anti–theist reactions to the claims of theists.
As I’ve said, the ONLY rational, logical answer that any person of science can give to the question “Does God exist?” is “There is insufficient critically robust evidence in the record to come to any rational, logical conclusion either for or against the proposition.”
If those who constantly fall into the trap of the Atheist’s Fallacy would simply leave it at that, we’d all get along much better. Many people do, and are fully justified in doing so. But many people use unreason and illogic to attack theism as a political issue, because they hate the constraints that religion places on human liberty and hedonism, particularly their own.
The true intellect says Yes, God, in some form, may exist. But there’s no proof compelling me to believe that He does” while at the same time remaining open-minded towards both the naturalistic possibilities for explaining God, and an open mind towards new evidence that might lead to the conclusion that God, or something we might or perhaps ought refer to as God, comes to light.
The true intellect is also tolerant of the perhaps misguided beliefs of theists, when they remain peaceable in their beliefs and actions, knowing that for all the dogma, there may exist that single grain of truth that is at the nucleus of belief that is objectively, scientifically true.
And finally, Jim wrote: “If you argue that atheism is a religion because it constitutes a lack of belief in a supernatural being, then you must say that science-based medicine is a superstition because it constitutes a lack of belief in superstition-based quack therapies—in other words, practices that have no proven cause-effect links.”
You continue to misunderstand the difference between “theism” and “religion” and between “belief” and “religion.”
Religion is how you practice your belief system. It doesn’t matter what that system of beliefs is, if you practice it devotedly, as a matter of conscience or ethics, it qualifies as religious practice.
This is a valid description of religion provided by the people who are tasked with providing us definitions and meanings of words. That it is a much broader definition that most people understand is not relevant. It has sufficient weight in modern usage to have entered the lexicon, and it’s appropriate to use it.
Not all religion is theistic or spiritual, that much we know. Secular Humanism was long described as a religion by those who founded it, for example. Medicine is, in fact, a religion, with it’s own canons of ethics and dogmas. It matters nothing that it’s a “true” religion in the sense that it is based on sound scientific principles and what doctor’s believe about pathology and biology are true, the essence of religion is belief and practice combined. The Hippocratic Oath is the central tenet of medicine, and that is clearly and absolutely a matter of ethics or conscience practiced devotedly by doctors.
The core belief of religious atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist. There are many other tenets of this particular religion, but that is the core belief, and it’s firmly rooted in the textbook definition of atheism, which is a “lack of belief in god or gods.” But as PZ Myers says, Atheism is not merely a lack of belief, it has a set of positive beliefs and an agenda of action in the human world that is based in ethical and moral concerns, which makes it every bit a religion.
Irrationality is not a necessary condition for the existence of religion.
I think Religion is organized and bureaucratized and decided FOR rather than BY the person.
Probably true. So what? Some people need guidance and regimentation in their lives.
Yup. Is this why you’ve always lived at home, Seth?
Don’t most people live at home? Isn’t “home” where one hangs one’s hat? What, exactly, are you implying?
RE; since you issued the challenge.
Seth, you’re atheist. But you aren’t religious because of that, you are religious because you choose to have one–a religion.
True, but one can also be religious without necessarily knowing it.
How though, I need examples. Please.
If you hold and practice a set of beliefs devotedly, as a matter of conscience or ethics, you are practicing religion, whether you acknowledge it, or even recognize it, or not.
I still think your definition of religion is too broad.
I have a question, can a person who believes in a deity, but does not identify with any dogma, nor practice any ritual, nor even ever mention this belief, have a religion?
If so, how, in what way?
Of course. Religion is intensely personal. Nothing requires “dogma” or public display of beliefs.
In what way is religion—as opposed to faith—personal?
The tenets of religion–how to practice it, what to do, what not to do–that is dictated. It is not personal.
Really? I think not. I have developed for myself the tenets of my religion, Tolerism™, which guide my behavior, and that is entirely personal. Nothing prevents you from doing the same thing. Neither does religion prevent you from adhering to my tenets of faith.
You didn’t tell me how Seth. How the independent believer is religious. What would this person do, how would this religiosity manifest? I need more than concept, can I have RL examples?
One need only devotedly hold to and practice a set of beliefs as a matter of conscience or ethics to be engaged in religious practice.
You may remember that I was Catholic, my family still is. Religion is not a foreign concept to me.