Alex’s Heresies - embracing a physical reality

Here’s an interesting graphical representation of atheist populations by country (website). US has the least percentage and Vietnam the most.

Alex McCullie

According to Christian Today, on-line Christian newspaper, The American Humanist Association will run bus ads proclaiming a godless holiday with the great quotation:

“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake”

This follows the lead from the British Humanist Association that ran with the quotation:

“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”

The newspaper article is quite reasonable from a Christian viewpoint even though some of the quotations just refrain from using the term blasphemy (full article 14 Nov 2008).

A group of humanists announced this week plans to plaster over 200 buses in Washington DC with ads bearing its “godless holiday” message.

Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake”, will appear on the outside and inside of DC Metro buses starting next Tuesday and will run throughout December. Newspaper versions of the ads ran in The New York Times and The Washington Post this week.

The advertising campaign is part of an effort by the American Humanist Association to reach out to like-minded individuals around the nation’s capital and elsewhere who might be interested in humanism. The atheist group espouses the belief that people can live a moral life apart from a belief in a god or the afterlife.

…

“It is the ultimate ‘grinch’ to suggest there is no God during a holiday where millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. It is insensitive and mean,” remarked Mathew D Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group that has defended the rights of cities and schools to display nativity scenes and Christmas decorations.

“Christmas is a time of joy and hope, not a time for hate,” added Staver. “Why believe in God? – Because Santa is not the only one coming to town.”

…

Roberta Combs, who heads the Christian Coalition of America, said the campaign’s attempt to ban God and Christmas from the public square will not sit well with many Americans.

…

But Combs said her organisation plans to mobilise its 2.5 million supporters to contact city officials and Congress to stop the “un-Godly campaign.”

Alex McCullie

REMINDER - HAPPENING TONIGHT AT 8.00pm

Atheist Society 8pm Tue 9 September 2008 at Unitarian Hall, 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne (Melways 2G, D2)

The New Atheists and Christian Nationalism Prof Graham Oppy - Monash University

Alex’s Heresies - embracing a physical reality has been added to The Atheist Blogroll (Deep Thoughts). You can see Deep Thoughts in my sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community of Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to add your blog, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/

Council of Australian Humanist Societies http://www.humanist.org.au/

Rationalist Society of Australia http://www.rationalist.com.au/

Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au/

The Australian National Secular Association http://home.vicnet.net.au/~secular/

The Atheist Network – Australia http://www.theatheist.net/e107/news.php

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

pdf: Atheism and Agnosticism (right-click to save)

Typically atheism and agnosticism are seen as alternate positions of disbelief in a god. The atheist is perceived as taking the harder line of absolute rejection whereas the agnostic has a more diffident position of uncertainty. Even today agnosticism is probably seen as a more socially acceptable and reflective view.

Amongst atheist communities the meanings of atheism and agnosticism cause considerable debate and angst about which, if any, truly reflect people’s positions. Many dislike the term atheist as a “belief in opposition” and seek alternatives like non-theist, naturalist, physicalist or materialist, free thinker, humanist and non-believer, even though some can have quite different meanings.

Atheism and agnosticism have very different etymologies. Atheism is literally without (“a”) gods (“theos”) from Greek and has a long history of use. Socrates was accused of atheism for not worshipping the gods of Athens. Early Christians were similarly accused by their opponents in Roman Empire. Atheism was usually used as a derogatory term for not believing in the accusers’ gods and not total rejection. Even though agnosticism uses a method of construction - without (“a”) knowledge of the divine (“gnosticism”), it was only coined publicly in1869. Prof Thomas H Huxley, an English biologist, was concerned like many others with the definitive nature of atheism and felt that agnosticism was a more reasoned stance.

Most dictionaries provide two similar but distinct meanings for atheism – a disbelief in god and a denial of the existence of god. For example,
•    Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
(http://www.answers.com/atheism)

Many writers refer to these positions as weak or passive (“disbelief”) and strong or active (“rejection”). Despite seemingly similar these positions are quite different. Imagine arguing either of these stances with a believer. Holding a weak atheist position requires you to refute any arguments seeking to prove the existence of god. This is similar to not believing in any number of ideas like unicorns, ghosts and Iraqi WMD. The believer has the responsibility to convince. The fact that billions of people believe in a god or gods does not constitute a proof.

Alternatively, supporting strong atheism requires that you refute proofs of god’s existence and, more importantly, prove that god doesn’t exist. Unfortunately as no definitive proof exists one way or the other, this strong position seems ultimately impossible to support. There is a slight wrinkle here, though. A strong atheist could reasonably ask “what do you mean by god?” There are many arguments around the apparent contradictory nature of some conceptions of god, such as the presence of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god with the freewill and existence of evil.

Many of today’s strong atheists prefer to talk about probability rather than certainty of the non-existence of god. Richard Dawkins makes this point in “God Delusion” by describing god’s existence as highly improbable.

Instead of separating atheism and agnosticism I prefer to talk about the belief in existence of god (metaphysics) and claimed knowledge available (epistemology). So a strong atheist would have no belief in god and would also believe that we have certain knowledge of that. The weak atheist would have the same belief but make no claims about knowledge. The typical non-believing agnostic would also not believe in god but have doubts about whether or not it is ultimately unknowable.

References

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

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

Martin, M. 2007, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Benedict, G. 2008, The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faiths, Watkins Publishing, London

© 2008 Alex McCullie

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