Alex’s Heresies - embracing a physical reality

pdf: Epicurus - an early Greek humanist (right-click to save)

Epicurus was a humanist and freethinker in the Hellenic period of Greece after the Alexander’s death. Many of his messages for the ancient Greeks are also relevant today – seeing the world as a physical occurrence; developing close friendships; dismissing beliefs in and fears of gods as irrational; and reducing unnecessary consumerism.

Born in Samos, an Athenian colony, in 341BCE, Epicurus formed one of the major philosophical movements of the Hellenic period of ancient Greece. In 307BCE Epicurus moved to Athens and bought a property close to Plato’s academy – Garden of Epicurus – ‘the Garden’. Unlike most Athenians he welcomed all comers including women and slaves equally. Something we also didn’t see with Christians many years later.

His name is still with us today as epicurean typically defined as “Devoted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, especially to the enjoyment of good food and comfort.” (http://answers.com) Similarly, The Age newspaper in Melbourne offers an Epicure supplement (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/epicure/) promoting fine dining and eating. Seeking 21st Century-style pleasure wrongly characterises Epicurus. He promoted the pursuit of pleasure through static pleasure – reduction of physical and psychological pain, freedom from disturbance - rather than kinetic pleasure, short-term physical pursuits. Epicurus went as far as avoiding civic participation as he saw it as a cause of distress.

Metaphysically Epicurus saw gods as tranquil and remote beings from human affairs. More importantly he believed they had no involvement in the natural world and in fact neither created the universe nor involved with it. So for all practical purposes Epicurus saw reality like today’s atheists. The gods played role models for humans only. Epicurus was an atomist - belief started by Democritus some 80 years previously - and as such believed the universe has always existed and matter is formed randomly by the combining and dissolving of indivisibly small particles, atoms.

Epicurus taught four principles to reduce mental distress, tetrapharmakon:

• Do not fear gods – as gods have no involvement in human affairs so there is no benefit to supplication or fear
• Do not fear death – there is no possibility of everlasting pleasure or pain after death based on the whims of gods. As existence ends with death, there is no distress after death similar to there is none before birth.
• Good is easy to obtain.
• Learning to enduring unavoidable pain – something that cannot be avoided any way.

Epicurus also promoted improving health by developing and maintaining close friendships. Epicureanism is often referred to as the ‘cult of friendship’.

Epicurus died in 270BCE a painful death that he appears to have faced gracefully.

References

Craig, E. 2005, The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, London.

Flynn, T. 2007, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, Prometheus Books, New York.

Meyer, S. 2008, Ancient Ethics: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London

Baltzly, D 2005, ‘Epicurus’, in P. F. O’Grady (ed), Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece, Ashgate, Hampshire, England, pp. 167-169.

Bakalis, N. 2005, Handbook of Greek Philosophy, Trafford Publishing, Canada

© 2008 Alex McCullie

These are not true…

• A nasty, vicious lion stalks, attacks and murders a poor defenceless antelope on an ‘Animal Planet’ documentary.

• My cat loves me. He knows when I’m upset and will deliberately comfort me.

• Selfish genes behave immorally.

• The Earth is a living thing just like us.

Empathy is one of the great strengths to have evolved in humans. Our ability to see from someone else’s point of view forms the basis of social and moral behaviour. Wonderfully, this is all done subconsciously. Subsequent moral discussions are mostly rationalisations justifying these intuitive responses. (Steven Pinker http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html)

But here’s the rub. We apply this empathy to other things – living and non-living – in unhelpful ways. People believe they can see the world as a non-human would. Recently, a friend told me that he could genuinely imagine the world as seen by a bat. This belief has benefits, of course. We are more likely to respect other living and non-living things (Gaia, for example), if we see them as “like us”. Unfortunately, however, we also can moralise about animal behaviour, seeking to punish as if animals are free moral agents with responsibility. Again, all is done subconsciously. So, lions are not nasty; cute looking dears are not innocent; cats don’t love; genes are not morally selfish and Earth is not alive like us. As an aside, biologists, like Richard Dawkins, often refer to observed behaviour metaphorically. So behaviour can be described a selfish or altruistic without any moral implications.

The bottom line is we should be aware that living things (and non-living for that matter) have no natural or moral purposes. They just evolved to what they are today and will continue to do so. Evolutionary processes are blind and uncaring and putting chance aside, they reward (non-morally) characteristics leading to successful reproduction and punish (again, non-morally) those that don’t. As suggested in Pinker’s article, even our moral attitudes can be seen to have developed in a similar way.

Don’t get me wrong. We shouldn’t use this awareness as an excuse to ignore the problems we create for all livings things and for the planet. Our capacity to see and remedy problems beyond conflicting immediate needs may be our true greatness.

© 2008 Alex McCullie

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (Skeptical Inquiry magazine): http://www.csicop.org/

Center for Inquiry http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

Skeptic (Skeptic magazine) http://www.skeptic.com/

What is science?: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html

Complete works of Charles Darwin http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Evolution - the Experience (Conference 8-13 Feb 2009 Melbourne Convention Centre) http://www.evolution09.com.au/

Evolution - The Experience 8-13 February 2009

Web site: http://www.evolution09.com.au

Speakers:

Prof Michael Ruse

Professor Michael Ruse is Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Program in History and Philosophy of Science, Florida State University. He obtained his Ph.D. (Philosophy) from the University of Bristol, and holds Honorary Doctoral Degrees from McMaster University (D. Litt.) and from the University of Bergen (D. Philos.). Prof. Ruse has held academic positions in Canada, USA, New Zealand, England, and Scotland among others. As one of the most prolific and well known philosophers and historians of Darwinism, he has authored and edited many classic books including: The Philosophy of Biology, Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense?, The Darwinian Revolution, Is Science Sexist?, Taking Darwin Seriously, Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry, Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?, Can a Darwinian be a Christian?, Cloning, Genetically Modified Foods, Stem Cell Research, Debating Design: Darwin to DNA, Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a Purpose?, The Evolution/Creation Struggle, Charles Darwin. Prof. Ruse’s books have been translated into Spanish, Russian, Italian, Portuguese, Korean and Dutch.

Dr Robert Bakker, Morrison Natural Museum

Prof Alan Dixson, School of Biological Sciences, Victoria U. of Wellington
Prof Tim Flannery, Division of Environmental and Life Sciences Macquarie Uni.

Prof Douglas Futuyma, Department of Ecology & Evolution, State U. of New York
Prof Jenny Graves, The Australian National University (ANU)

Prof Randolph Nesse, Research Centre for Group Dynamics, U. of Michigan
Prof Neil Shubin, Department of Organismal Biology U. of Chicago
Prof John H. Vandermeer, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan
Prof Margo Wilson & Prof Martin Daly, Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour at McMaster U. of Hamilton

To quote an email:

2008 National SoFiA Conference will be hosted by the Melbourne SoFiA Group.
September 19th to 21st.  2pm Friday to 2pm Sunday.
Venue:  ‘Amberley’, a conference centre located on Melbourne’s Yarra River in Lower Plenty.
Theme:  “Science and Faith: An Open Dialogue.”
Keynote Speaker on Cosmological aspects:
Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss.  (Former Professor of Physics at Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, USA.)
“Science, Non-Science, Nonsense and Religion.”
Keynote Speaker on Progressive Theological aspects:
Dr. Val Webb.  (Author - Like Catching Water in a Net: Human Attempts to Describe the Divine.)
“God-talk in an Age of Science.”
Keynote Speaker on Evolutionary aspects:
Dr. John S. Wilkins. (Research Fellow in Department of Philosophy, University of Queensland.)
“If Religion is Natural, is Religion False?”
Details and Registration: http://www.sof-in-australia.org
Enquiries: sciencefaith2008@gmail.com
Please register as soon as possible.  Offers to conduct Workshops are welcome.

Evolution

Introductions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/intro1.htm

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1510.htm (course notes)

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/

Common myths

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM

This question was posed by Philosophy Today magazine. Here is my answer…

It’s not necessary.

This deceptively simple question has such profound implications for our sense of independence. I take a bottom-up approach to understanding reality. We have developed coherent and comprehensive physical explanations for our world. Using empirically-based sciences, we continue to build an understanding of the living and non-living aspects as it is now and has been over its 4.5 billion year history of Earth. There are still gaps in our knowledge and will also be so. Either way the growth of awareness of the physical reality over the last 500 years has been extraordinary by any measure.

However there still seems to be a significant ontological gap between the third-person physical explanations of the world and our rich first-person experiences. But is there?

Consider the following. Imagine all humans suddenly dying or consider the Earth some 750,000 years ago. Either way there would be no self-reflecting living things with personal experiences or imaging’s that concerns us today. The physical explanations of reality would be fully satisfactory, if somewhat incomplete. So the need for this gap does seem to depend on having animals like us with the ability for self-reflection. To put this timeframe into perspective we evolved to our present form some 100 000 years ago about 0.002% of the history of Earth.

We have a couple of ways of dealing with this gap. Firstly, we could infer an ontologically separate non-physical reality (NPR) – many people do. This reality could be as large as a parallel version to our total physical reality. Many see this type of NPR being filled with an all-powerful being as well as being a repository for the non-physical aspects of dead human beings – their ‘souls’. Or, for many, the NPR could be as limited as a repository for our first-person conscious processes – the “mind” – residing somewhere in the brain. This very limited form of NPR would disappear with the death of the host.

All versions of NPR seem to solve the dilemma of the gap between physical existence and your personal experiences until you delve into the detail. Immediately you notice two things. There is no physical evidence that these NPRs exist. That may seem self-evident as they are “non-physical” realities. Also there seems to be no satisfactory explanation of how these NPRs interact with the everyday physical world. For me, explanations around miracles, magic and supervenience do not “cut the mustard”. They are non-explanations and shouldn’t be considered enough to be convincing.

Given the main question let us concentrate on the universal NPR with an all-powerful being. The first difficulty is which one? The obvious sources of information, other than personal wishes or desires, are the many human religions. Given the age and obscurity of their sacred texts, most believers rely on interpretations from the religious leaders for their understanding about NPR. Even then the variations and contradictions of teachings within each religion and across different religions are staggering especially when presented with such certainty. Given the variations of theory and teaching surely a person’s belief must be an accident of birth both time and place.

From my limited observations there seems to be only a few common factors amongst the religions. There is a certainty that their version of NPR exists (often with an all-powerful being); that the universe has an underlying purpose; and that knowledge of this will give you an insight to the meaning in life. Many use the promise and threat of life after death to control people’s behaviour. No evidence other than personal revelations and testimonies are offered to support these beliefs. Even here the religious theories are malleable with regular adjustments to confirm to society expectations. Their “absolutes” is more “relative” than they wish to admit.

“The Vatican has overhauled its list of mortal sins, adding several more to cope with the age of globalisation.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/list-of-mortal-sins-gets-longer/2008/03/10/1205125804885.html

Alternatively, we could work with a physical view only. It is reasonable to expect that science will provide better explanations as to how the brain processes perceptions, feelings and cognition to manage our body’s interrelationships with the external physical world, including social relationships. Newer theories arising from neuroscience, linguistics and philosophy are proposing ways of understanding the human condition such as morality, aesthetic appreciation and socialisation. Theories like “embodied realism” provide satisfying explanations for human cognition within an embodied relationship with our environments.

Moreover there may always be a separation between third-person knowledge and first-person experience. And is that really a problem? You can still enjoy music, films, plays and art without participating in a romantic fantasy that will never fulfil its promises.

© 2008 Alex McCullie

On Monday 28 July I’ll be running a 5 night public course - introduction to Atheism & Agnosticism - as part of the lifestyles department at Council of Adult Education, Melbourne, Victoria.

Enter the world of atheism and agnosticism with related ideas of secularism, theism, materialism - old and new. How atheism relates to morality, meaning of life, happiness, science, spirituality and death. Each week bring a specific profile of atheist thinkers.

Enrol by phone

Telephone enrolments can only be accepted if you have one of the following credit cards:

• Mastercard
• Visa

Phone 9652 0611

8.30am to 6pm Monday to Thursday
8.30am to 5pm Friday

Please have your credit card number, card holder’s name and expiry date ready. It will also assist us if you have your student number ready - if you have participated in a previous course, you will find your student number on your class receipt.

Class details

5 sessions:
Mondays 6.00PM-7.30PM: 28/07/08 to 25/08/08

Venue: CAE Building B - 253 Flinders Ln, Melbourne

Fee: $139.00 - Code: DNS22801

Content

Session 1

What is atheism? Starting with a broad introduction to atheism and agnosticism, including historical perspectives, we also look at related concepts of theism, religion, faith, secularism and materialism. The first profile is ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus (341-270 BCE), one of atomists who believed that the universe consisted on an infinite number of atoms forming matter without any supernatural intervention.

Session 2

Does science and, in particular, evolutionary theory support today’s atheism? How was our world view changed with the publishing of Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species in 1859? Tonight’s profile is Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789), friend of Denis Diderot and David Hume, who was an atheist writer and philosopher during the French Enlightenment.

Session 3

How do atheists see the world without gods? We examine two world views – naturalism and secular humanism. The profile is atheist Robert Ingersoll, a famous and popular orator in the late 19th century US.

Session 4

Can there be a Godless morality? We look at morality, death and personal meaning in a world without God. Simone de Beauvoir, wife of Jean-Paul Sartre, was a highly influential 20th Century writer and philosopher as well as the intellectual precursor to the feminist movement.

Session 5

Where is atheism today? We look at population distributions. Do the successful publications of atheist books mean an increase in acceptance? Or, are there other more serious challenges? What does future hold? Richard Dawkins, British biologist, recently authored God Delusion, a best seller in many countries. He is an outspoken and controversial atheist who regularly attacks religious belief. Dawkins is our final profile.

Alex McCullie

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23918139-25132,00.html

Kevin Hart, US Profession of Theology, criticises the new atheists – the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger and Daniel Dennett – in his recent review of atheist books (The Australian 2 July 2008). He criticises these writers on a number of fronts. Firstly, they deliberately attack an archaic view of God as easy targets. Today’s faithful are more sophisticated with softer, more benign views of God. Secondly, terrorists like the 9/11 attackers are wrongly claimed to be motivated by faith. Hart counters that it’s much more to do with politics. Finally, atheists wrongly invoke science and the scientific method to challenge the validity of religious beliefs.

Hart presents a modernised, non-anthropomorphic God as the majority view. His God is a “free creator”, “behind nature”, “uncreated being”, “created the world” and “pure ‘to be’”. Curiously his “our father” re-introduces a more familiar patriarchal vision. The latest Pew US Survey (2007) presents a different picture. Everyday believers apparently hold more traditional views than promoted by Hart with 60% believing in a personal God; 74% in heaven; and 59% in hell. Even the holy books are seen as the word of God (63%) with 33% of responders believing in their literal truth. Hart’s claim that holy books are seen as purely “writing poetry” is simply not true.

The motivations of religious extremists are hotly debated. Most commentators, though, don’t portray them as pursuing strictly political agendas. Faith plays an important role. There seems little doubt that the 9/11 attackers saw themselves as “warriors” for Islam at the same time as fulfilling political objectives. Their faith added passion and commitment to their violence just as faith can encourage great sacrifices for worthy causes. Conveniently Hart discounts the clear pronouncements of faith by Islamic extremists as those of not the truly faithful.

Despite shortcomings science and other empirically-based areas of human study have proven to be our most successful ways of producing reliable knowledge about our physical world. As religions regularly make claims involving the physical, science has a valid and vital role in checking their veracity. So ‘historical existence of Jesus Christ’, ‘resurrection of Christ’ and so on should all be open to scientific and historical research independent of people’s faith. This is especially true when religious academics say such things as “resurrection of Jesus is a compelling 97 per cent probable”. In this situation I’d expect overwhelming secular evidence to support such a statement. We should see that simply combining material from religious sources with some intricate logical arguments is not enough for the claim to be proved.

Finally I disagree with Kevin Hart in the characterisation of people today in Western Europe and Australia as “indifferent”. I believe “irrelevant” might be a better term to represent people’s attitudes towards religious belief. Religions thrive in areas of low personal security and where people feel personally threatened. Governments in Western Europe and Australia provide environments that are less precarious and more stable. The need for supernatural reassurance seems more and more irrelevant to their lives.

© 2008 Alex McCullie