Science is often contrasted with religion by being portrayed as static and boring, of no real utility, and above all, as a ruiner of wonder. Newton destroyed the wonder of the rainbow for Keats when he explained the origin of its colours. I want to echo the sentiments of Richard Dawkins when he wrote Unweaving the Rainbow. I want to argue likewise that science is a source of wonder and not a destroyer of it. However, Dawkins had an entire book to dispel the myth, whereas I only have a few paragraphs.
I want to stress, like Dawkins, that science evokes more wonder than religion ever could. It certainly wreaks havoc by destroying the wonder with which we perceive now mundane objects such as rainbows and lightning, but it more than makes up for this by replacing it with an even grander sense of wonder at the universe itself. If a theologian experiences wonder when reading the Bible in its original Hebrew (or Greek or Aramaic), imagine how the astronomer feels when confronted by a photograph of a cluster of galaxies, taken from a satellite orbiting many kilometres above the Earth’s atmosphere. That truly is wondrous. But what is even more wondrous, if that is possible, is that we too can share in the wonder of the astronomer, unlike the religious laity who cannot read ancient languages like the theologian can.
As some religious people are oft to say, what we atheists believe, is, in a sense, even more miraculous than what they believe. Whereas they have the luxury of invoking an intelligent designer in order to explain the universe, we have nothing other than blind, purposeless chance. However, the very fact that theists believe that they need to invoke an intelligent creator to explain away various parts of the universe means that this “stupid” and “blind” force is capable of extraordinary things, betraying its seeming simplicity. Who ever saw a picture of the Earth taken from space and was not moved at some deep level? Only the most immovable of people.
Sometimes finally explaining something actually increases our wonder in it. Before we knew how it worked exactly, it was less wondrous than afterwards. Take life for example. If god actually exists, and who seeded life on this planet, then that isn’t a very improbable event at all. Whereas for life to have been an “accident” would have taken so many and so exacting conditions that we still do not have more than a broad-brush understanding of it. But what is even more remarkable than this is our existence. The existence of a species which can look back on the process which has created us and is able to comprehend it in some small way. We may be the only life forms of remote intelligence in the universe, either now or ever. So great is the improbability of our very existence.
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.”
(Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, pp. 1)
For me the word “Arabia” conjures up images of Aladdin and the genie; Ali Baba and the forty thieves, and all of those wonderful boyhood stories. But it also conjures up images of the Muslim world, with its beautifully decorated Qur’ans and mosques. The world would be infinitely poorer, culturally speaking, if Muhammad did not fall into a trance-like state in a cave and receive revelations from god, mediated by the angel Gabriel. Despite the blood shed in its name, some say rightly and some say wrongly, it has given us much more than just a glimpse of immorality masking itself as morality.
Of course, science cannot study class i gods since they are scientifically unfalsifiable. But can science study religions? Dan Dennett thinks so, and makes his case in Breaking the Spell. Many would be alarmed at this, seeing science as impeding upon their sacred ground where empirical investigation is strictly forbidden. The consequences would be too great. However, if they believe that god really exists, then what are they afraid of? Perhaps such investigations may actually help them. For it would soon uncover any fatuous claims, and get rid of those useless or otherwise damaging aspects.
I am arguing that scientific wonder far outsize’s religious wonder. That, even if the existence of god is disproved, whether through scientific or philosophical means, we will still be left with wonder. But there is also another source of wonder to be had. And that is of human ingenuity. We marvel at the abilities of others, and what they can achieve. Shakespeare and his plays, Newton and his apple*, Einstein and his imagination, Henry Lawson and his makeshift pen, and Michael Jackson and his feet. All of these people are a source of wonder for the rest of us seemingly average people who will never achieve anything of international significance. Even if there is no wonder in science, there will always be wonder so long as we are all different.
* Which is almost certainly a myth. There is no indication that Newton was inspired to discover gravity by a falling apple hitting him on the head.
References:
Dawkins, Richard. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. London: Allen Lane.
Dennett, Daniel C. (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Great Britain/USA: Allen Lane/Viking.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
What is Atheism?
Most people who have ever lived have been fully convinced that there is some kind of remarkable intelligence 'out there' somewhere, unlike any other. This being is often said to be the whole reason why we even exist in the first place. However, virtually for the same length of time some few people have rejected this notion for various reasons. Perhaps they found no convincing evidence to suggest that god exists. Or, perhaps they thought that there were good reasons to suppose that such a being does not, or cannot, exist. Either way, these disbelievers are known as atheists, as am I.
Theists see four basic levels of design within the universe: the universe itself (cosmological level), our planet (planetary level), life (biological level), and the microscopic level. The atheist recognizes none of these levels because we have a sufficient idea of how the universe could have come into being through purely naturalistic processes, and how evolution works by gradual changes and adaptation without the need to resort to supernaturalistic intervention or interventions at key points in the life history of Earth.
The generally accepted definition of an atheist is somebody who disbelieves in the existence of god (in the roughly conventional sense of the word). However, the situation is complicated by the fact that at least one of the New Atheists, as well as several other atheists in high standing, have proposed that atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god*. However, this would render atheism as indistinguishable from temporary agnosticism. And it would also require us to coin a new term to describe those persons who not only lack a belief in god but actually disbelieve in their existence, since a lack of belief and disbelief are fundamentally different things.
Reverting back to the conventional definition of atheism, atheists are usually divided into two different categories:**
However, I cannot see how weak atheism differs appreciably from temporary agnosticism, and hence I choose not to recognize this category. To me atheists are people who believe that there are specific reasons to reject the existence of god. Anybody of more minor philosophical persuasions are agnostics. But I do retain a dichotomous view, by introducing a new category:
In order not to render this new category as superfluous before I even coined the term, I redefine strong atheism as the view that the existence of god is highly improbable (but not impossible).
Having defined atheism it is quite clear that as such a general philosophical stance is the only commonality between all atheists, there is no precedent for how we should conduct ourselves. Though many of us are humanists who fight for the freedom of speech and gay rights far more vigorously than the religious among us.
As we reject the notion of an afterlife, this is the only life we will have. And hence atheists tend to value their lives a lot more. But this means that we also value the lives of other far more as well. For example, I dare say that we care more about the atrocities committed around the world than theists do because they believe that, though such pain and suffering is incomprehensible, there will nevertheless be heavenly rewards for those victims who suffer at the hands of others. To us the child who dies of leukaemia will never live again. A precious life taken far too soon.
*So far as anybody can tell this is purely to lift the burden of proof off of the atheist and squarely on the shoulders of the believer. However, as I shall argue in a future blog post, I believe that both the atheist and the theist/deist have a responsibility to try to justify their position, regardless of whether it is of a positive or a negative nature. The question of god's existence is not purely scientific, and hence trying to smuggle in the null-hypothesis into philosophy is similar to that of ID being a rehashing of creationism (though to be fair, we cannot guarantee that all ID proponents have political motives), which the New Atheists in particular (as well as theistic evolutionists) chastise.
**These two categories go by a whole raft of different names, each pair of which employs antonyms to stress the dichotomy evident in the beliefs of different atheists.
Theists see four basic levels of design within the universe: the universe itself (cosmological level), our planet (planetary level), life (biological level), and the microscopic level. The atheist recognizes none of these levels because we have a sufficient idea of how the universe could have come into being through purely naturalistic processes, and how evolution works by gradual changes and adaptation without the need to resort to supernaturalistic intervention or interventions at key points in the life history of Earth.
The generally accepted definition of an atheist is somebody who disbelieves in the existence of god (in the roughly conventional sense of the word). However, the situation is complicated by the fact that at least one of the New Atheists, as well as several other atheists in high standing, have proposed that atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god*. However, this would render atheism as indistinguishable from temporary agnosticism. And it would also require us to coin a new term to describe those persons who not only lack a belief in god but actually disbelieve in their existence, since a lack of belief and disbelief are fundamentally different things.
Reverting back to the conventional definition of atheism, atheists are usually divided into two different categories:**
- Weak atheists: people who lack a belief in god, coupled with the belief that if there is no good evidence or arguments for the existence of god we should not believe in them.
- Strong atheists: people who feel that there are good arguments or evidence against the existence of god, and hence they either do not exist, or more extreme, cannot exist.
However, I cannot see how weak atheism differs appreciably from temporary agnosticism, and hence I choose not to recognize this category. To me atheists are people who believe that there are specific reasons to reject the existence of god. Anybody of more minor philosophical persuasions are agnostics. But I do retain a dichotomous view, by introducing a new category:
- Aggressive atheism: the view that the existence of god is logically and/or physically impossible.
In order not to render this new category as superfluous before I even coined the term, I redefine strong atheism as the view that the existence of god is highly improbable (but not impossible).
Having defined atheism it is quite clear that as such a general philosophical stance is the only commonality between all atheists, there is no precedent for how we should conduct ourselves. Though many of us are humanists who fight for the freedom of speech and gay rights far more vigorously than the religious among us.
As we reject the notion of an afterlife, this is the only life we will have. And hence atheists tend to value their lives a lot more. But this means that we also value the lives of other far more as well. For example, I dare say that we care more about the atrocities committed around the world than theists do because they believe that, though such pain and suffering is incomprehensible, there will nevertheless be heavenly rewards for those victims who suffer at the hands of others. To us the child who dies of leukaemia will never live again. A precious life taken far too soon.
*So far as anybody can tell this is purely to lift the burden of proof off of the atheist and squarely on the shoulders of the believer. However, as I shall argue in a future blog post, I believe that both the atheist and the theist/deist have a responsibility to try to justify their position, regardless of whether it is of a positive or a negative nature. The question of god's existence is not purely scientific, and hence trying to smuggle in the null-hypothesis into philosophy is similar to that of ID being a rehashing of creationism (though to be fair, we cannot guarantee that all ID proponents have political motives), which the New Atheists in particular (as well as theistic evolutionists) chastise.
**These two categories go by a whole raft of different names, each pair of which employs antonyms to stress the dichotomy evident in the beliefs of different atheists.
Friday, 16 March 2012
My Definition of God
The word ‘god’ means very different things to different people, even within the same society, before we even consider the vastly different conceptions of god of all of the different cultures and religions all around the world, and throughout history. However, there certainly are some common elements to such definitions such as exceptional power and knowledge, immortality or eternalness. But apart from these few properties, the name 'god' has been applied to an enormously varied range of intentional objects, from a human-like deity to an abstract pseudo-being.
Any atheist who wishes to either disprove the existence of god, or at least show why their existence is improbable, needs to give an explicit definition of god. What is it exactly that the atheist is rejecting? Does this being having any relation whatsoever to what theists and deists believe? For example, I could easily claim to disprove the existence of god, and then proceed to do so, if my definition of god were something like this: "a round square". This definition is explicitly contradictory and so no such round square could exist in reality. But this "being" bears no resemblance whatsoever to the being worshipped by conventional religions, other than the name which is used to refer to them (i.e. 'god').
When the theist gives a definition of god they invariably define god as specifically the being they believe in and not all possible gods. Take for example this definition given by Richard Swinburne, Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, Oxford:
“I take the proposition ‘God exists’ (and the equivalent proposition ‘There is a God’) to be logically equivalent to ‘there exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things’ ”
Any atheist who wishes to either disprove the existence of god, or at least show why their existence is improbable, needs to give an explicit definition of god. What is it exactly that the atheist is rejecting? Does this being having any relation whatsoever to what theists and deists believe? For example, I could easily claim to disprove the existence of god, and then proceed to do so, if my definition of god were something like this: "a round square". This definition is explicitly contradictory and so no such round square could exist in reality. But this "being" bears no resemblance whatsoever to the being worshipped by conventional religions, other than the name which is used to refer to them (i.e. 'god').
When the theist gives a definition of god they invariably define god as specifically the being they believe in and not all possible gods. Take for example this definition given by Richard Swinburne, Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, Oxford:
“I take the proposition ‘God exists’ (and the equivalent proposition ‘There is a God’) to be logically equivalent to ‘there exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things’ ”
(The Existence of God, pp. 7)
There is no reason why all possible gods need to have these specific powers and attributes. Surely a being with a finite amount of power rather than omnipotence (that is, the ability to do anything which is logically possible) would still qualify as a god. So when Swinburne says that he is giving a definition of god he is rather defining the specific god which he believes exist. This happens to be the god of the Ontological argument, first proposed by St. Anselm (1033-1109) of Canterbury:
“If therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, then this thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which a greater can be conceived. And this is clearly impossible. Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in reality.”
(Saint Anselm, Proslogion)
Like Professor Swinburne, many atheists also define god as the most perfect being possible. But of course they would deny (as I would) that (necessary) existence is a Great Making property. And so god does not exist necessarily. They would cite the incompatible-properties arguments as proof of god's non-existence (I shall be writing about these arguments in the coming weeks so don't worry if you don't know what they are). However, the atheist who defines god in such a limited way is doing so without justification. As I wrote earlier, god could easily be different than what the Ontological argument states god is like.
Having considered all of the various definitions of god given by both believers and non-believers throughout history, I have come to see the following as the most parsimonious way of delineating such a complicated affair as this. The key feature, I believe, which separates god from all other types of beings is eternality. These gods can then be shoe-horned into one of two categories according to whether they are immaterial, or have a material body:
Class i: An eternal being who exists immaterially. What theologians would call a 'simple' being, made up of no physical parts.
Class ii: The gods of most ancient cultures. Eternal beings who have a human-like body, usually with only limited powers.
Since most believers today consider god to be an immaterial being, most of what I say in my blog posts will only apply to class i gods. However, this does not mean that it isn't important to acknowledge the possibility that god has a material body.
References:
Swinburne, Richard. (2004). The Existence of God, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Welcome to the Blog
To start off this blog I thought that I would sketch some brief autobiographical notes for the benefit of the reader. However, since I have always been an atheist, or at least since I have been able to comprehend the existence of god, I don't have a conversion story. For as long as can remember I have always regarded god's existence as being logically impossible. And for equally as long I have been utterly puzzled as to how people can believe something which is so obviously false (I shall come to the arguments against god's existence in coming weeks, so for now this statement is merely an assertion).
Of course, that isn't to say that belief in god is necessarily irrational. It depends entirely upon what basis theists and/or deists have for believing in god. Certainly if the believer is versed in the various academic arguments for and against the existence of god then I don't believe that they have sufficient justification for reaching the conclusion that an immaterial spirit (or however they wish to define god) exists. I myself am not entirely convinced by the arguments of other atheists and so I don't expect believers to convert to atheism because of them. If anything, agnosticism is the justified position, despite the flack "fence-sitters" have received over their decision to await the required evidence and/or argument to convince them either way (which may never come).
However, if the believer is unfamiliar with the arguments then their faith is probably a result of childhood indoctrination, which one cannot help. But it may also be because they believe that they have experienced god in some empirical sense. Perhaps they witnessed what they believed was a miracle, or had a prayer answered. The fact that these experiences were not veridical (i.e. not genuine experiences of god) does not mean that concluding that god exists from them is irrational. If the experience seemed genuine to the witness then, even it were not veridical, the only rational conclusion one could draw (on a practical level) was that a being consistent with the nature of the experience, exists. Of course, as god is impossible such experiences cannot a priori be veridical, and hence it would be irrational on a logical level to assume believe in god.
To conclude my inaugural blog post I would simply reiterate my belief that god's existence is impossible. If the theist or deist genuinely believes that god exists then they have every right to continue to believe, but in the face of arguments to the contrary they are unjustified in steadfastly pronouncing the modern discoveries of cosmology as proving their claim that god is the originator of the universe. Or some other aspect of our existence as making god's existence more plausible than not, as the natural theologian Richard Swinburne would be inclined to argue.
Of course, that isn't to say that belief in god is necessarily irrational. It depends entirely upon what basis theists and/or deists have for believing in god. Certainly if the believer is versed in the various academic arguments for and against the existence of god then I don't believe that they have sufficient justification for reaching the conclusion that an immaterial spirit (or however they wish to define god) exists. I myself am not entirely convinced by the arguments of other atheists and so I don't expect believers to convert to atheism because of them. If anything, agnosticism is the justified position, despite the flack "fence-sitters" have received over their decision to await the required evidence and/or argument to convince them either way (which may never come).
However, if the believer is unfamiliar with the arguments then their faith is probably a result of childhood indoctrination, which one cannot help. But it may also be because they believe that they have experienced god in some empirical sense. Perhaps they witnessed what they believed was a miracle, or had a prayer answered. The fact that these experiences were not veridical (i.e. not genuine experiences of god) does not mean that concluding that god exists from them is irrational. If the experience seemed genuine to the witness then, even it were not veridical, the only rational conclusion one could draw (on a practical level) was that a being consistent with the nature of the experience, exists. Of course, as god is impossible such experiences cannot a priori be veridical, and hence it would be irrational on a logical level to assume believe in god.
To conclude my inaugural blog post I would simply reiterate my belief that god's existence is impossible. If the theist or deist genuinely believes that god exists then they have every right to continue to believe, but in the face of arguments to the contrary they are unjustified in steadfastly pronouncing the modern discoveries of cosmology as proving their claim that god is the originator of the universe. Or some other aspect of our existence as making god's existence more plausible than not, as the natural theologian Richard Swinburne would be inclined to argue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)