The are a lot of problems with the "argument from fine tuning" but here is one I haven't seen before.
If we assume there is/was a creator god, could it only have created potential worshipers in a universe that relies on natural forces with the values we currently observe?
The argument from fine tuning suggests that because life as we know it could not exist if the fundamental forces of nature were slightly different, then the most likely cause that the values came to be what they are, was an intelligent tuner. But this also suggest that a creator god could not have done things differently. Why not? That certainly cramps the meaning of omnipotent. Or if a god could have done things differently then why couldn't an alternative nature also have done things differently?
There are better, more direct refutations out there. But it seems odd to suggest that
(1) neither a creator god nor nature could have produced a different universe that would support life therefore a creator god is more likely ...or
(2) a creator god could have produced a different universe that would support life but an alternative nature could not have produced a different universe that would support life, therefore a creator god is more likely ...or
(3)both a creator god or an alternative nature could have produced a different universe that would support life therefore a creator god is more likely.
None of these arguments is particularly persuasive on their own. And when the alternatives are also considered each seems even weaker.
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sunday, May 29, 2011
People: our best hope
Let me share this comment in case it gets deleted:
Where is Doctors Without Borders? Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? Where is the Heritage Foundation? Where is the United Nations? Midwest relief from natural disasters does not fall within the purview of any of these organizations. Likewise, American Atheists nor Freedom From Religion Foundation.
RichardDawkins.net, in partnership with many non-belief organizations, has set up a donation link for Joplin relief, just as they did for Haiti relief:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
And of course Westboro Baptist Church is also doing their part.
There are a lot of good people doing good work in Joplin. Some of them might even tell you they are doing so because Jesus wants them to. But even if you could convince these people there is no divinity, they would not abandon their efforts. So too there are many non-religious christians and non-christians that are helping their neighbors. Tightly knit pre-organized church communities are going to make the most of their bonds. The rest of us sift into where we are needed. If anyone bothers to claim they are helping in order to glorify atheism, hopefully those tempted to claim they are glorifying their religious icons will recognize how silly that is.
While I was speaking more generally, this complaint exemplifies my point. They are doing. There will be those who do nothing more than pray. That's a great way to feel like you're doing something without really doing anything at all. And their prayers will be answered not by angels but by humans. For in other humans, there is real hope. The potential for help, progress and salvation are tangible in social groups, civilization or more specifically: people.
When the buildings once again stand, the foliage fills and the biggest concern is who will make the playoffs too many people will give a perceived deity all of the credit and none of the blame. Maybe we could run an experiment and see how much gets done without any human intervention. Is there any real hope that a supernatural being will replace or repair all those buildings and all that infrastructure? Or maybe we could bet on a sure thing: people. Real hope.
Joplin is full of relgious groups, you know, all those people with false hope whom you say aren't looking, do everything they can to help.
I have seen no atheist organizations making a concerted effort to help.
Where are those atheist activists like who went down to Joplin last year organizing meetups?
Where are the American Atheists and FFRF?
On their blogs.
Taking swipes as Christians.
Atheist spells Eatshit as far as I am concerned anymore.
Where is Doctors Without Borders? Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? Where is the Heritage Foundation? Where is the United Nations? Midwest relief from natural disasters does not fall within the purview of any of these organizations. Likewise, American Atheists nor Freedom From Religion Foundation.
RichardDawkins.net, in partnership with many non-belief organizations, has set up a donation link for Joplin relief, just as they did for Haiti relief:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
And of course Westboro Baptist Church is also doing their part.
There are a lot of good people doing good work in Joplin. Some of them might even tell you they are doing so because Jesus wants them to. But even if you could convince these people there is no divinity, they would not abandon their efforts. So too there are many non-religious christians and non-christians that are helping their neighbors. Tightly knit pre-organized church communities are going to make the most of their bonds. The rest of us sift into where we are needed. If anyone bothers to claim they are helping in order to glorify atheism, hopefully those tempted to claim they are glorifying their religious icons will recognize how silly that is.
"...all those people with false hope whom you say aren't looking, do everything they can to help."
While I was speaking more generally, this complaint exemplifies my point. They are doing. There will be those who do nothing more than pray. That's a great way to feel like you're doing something without really doing anything at all. And their prayers will be answered not by angels but by humans. For in other humans, there is real hope. The potential for help, progress and salvation are tangible in social groups, civilization or more specifically: people.
When the buildings once again stand, the foliage fills and the biggest concern is who will make the playoffs too many people will give a perceived deity all of the credit and none of the blame. Maybe we could run an experiment and see how much gets done without any human intervention. Is there any real hope that a supernatural being will replace or repair all those buildings and all that infrastructure? Or maybe we could bet on a sure thing: people. Real hope.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Morality Is Not Objective
Morality, the intrinsic sense of right and wrong, is not objective. If there were a single fount of morality then surely we would be able to trace it back to the head. Our connection to that fountainhead would necessarily correlate to our morality. That's not what we see in churches. That's not what we see in mixed (secular and non-secular) society. And that's not what we see in cultures largely untouched by Abrahamic faiths. Morality is the adhesive between social creatures in the struggle for finite resources. Sometimes we cooperate. Sometimes we compete. Usually we do both.
It is a balancing act between perceived self interest, varying degrees of loyalty to various group with which we self-identify (in-groups) and perceived out-groups. In any given situation we have to consider what is best for our self, what is best for our group(s) (family, employer, political party, nation, denomination, neighborhood, etc.) and what forces or entities encroach on our self- or group-interest. This is the way of all social creatures.
But this is a motivator that works primarily at an emotional level. And like most emotions, reasoning beings can intellectually overrule their feelings. Well, theoretically. When resources become more available at the self level we tend to be more charitable to the group. When resources become more available at the group level we tend to expect to benefit personally. When we and our group are doing well we tend to be less hostile to minor encroachment. So too do we reduce our hostility to out-groups when we recognize they are merely a more remote extension of our in-groups.
In addition to the emotional responsibility we feel toward our groups we can also understand and appreciate the benefits of an official civil structure based on codified ethics, rules and laws. While these go hand-in-hand with morality and tend to serve similar functions they are artificial constructions, both extragenic and extrinsic.
If we want to credit a capricious ghost in the sky for our morality (intrinsic selfless social responsibility) but not our selfishness we still have to speculate where that selfishness came from. Assuming we were created, and the god did not put selfishness in us, where did that extra ingredient come from? Were there more fingers in the pie than were reported in the Judeo-Christian creation myths? God and divine creation are very poor explanations for the visceral gymnastics we experience when our various interests are in conflict.
Apologists argue that without an objective source there can be no morality, or perhaps that it is meaningless or that there can be no true justice. But morality is not something that comes to us, it is something that comes from us. It is a balance of interests which are ultimately self-interest. It may seem counter-intuitive to credit self-interest for the creation of morality and selflessness. It may seem vulgar to think that our finest examples of humanity are merely extensions of our basest drives. Though the idea may be hard to stomach, it is staring back at us with pedantic patience. Morality is an intrinsic emotional balancing of often conflicting personal interests in a social environment. While Creation skips over the creation of selfishness, evolution explains both selfishness and selflessness, lo, they are the same.
If everything we could ever need or desire were infinitely available, there would be no competition for resources. Nor would there be an evolutionary selection force for cooperation, other than reproduction. But even reproduction is a need/desire.
When I first recognized that I was no longer a theist I came to the conclusion that morality is a lie and that we need rely only on ethics. Some years later I realized that ethics is a construct that we build. Ethics are cultural and intellectual. And yet even children have an innate sense of justice when objectively observing social exchanges. While they may not be able to articulate why something is fair or unfair, but they are good at identifying injustice when they are a disinterested third party. When they are not disinterested, they tend to make excuses favoring their self or their friend/family.
My first guess is that we are using the term "morality" to represent two different but similar and overlapping ideas. Traditionally, morality is an system of conduct based on ideas of absolute right and wrong. Additionally, such a code of morality is or was typically ascribed as divine edict. That which is permissible by that doctrine is moral. That which is forbidden by that doctrine is immoral. There is also the common belief that morality is ingrained in us by supernatural authority as a sense of right an wrong.
In the absence of divine authority "ethical" and "unethical" should carry the same weight as "moral" and "immoral". Yet they do not. Why is that? What is the difference between ethics and morality? If "morality" deserves more weight than "ethics" we should be able to say why.
When we speak of morality we tend to suppose that good and bad, right and wrong are absolute (or nearly so) and must be recognized. We seem to be appealing to an inescapable source of discernment. When we speak of ethics we are never referring to an innate sense of right and wrong, rather mutually accepted rules for civility or specific activities. Ethics tend to be based on common values. These values are not arbitrary or prescribed. These values are the description of what most people feel intrinsically about what is good or bad, right or wrong. It is not a matter of what is believed, understood or reasoned. It is a matter of what is felt. Is there a word for this raw, unreasoned, pre-intellectual, intuitive, subjective sense of what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust?
What is that word?
I use the label "morality" for that unreasoned sense which is within us as the foundation of social responsibility. If we had another word for it I would use it happily. It is unfortunate that we do not. The traditional definition of morality as a moral code of conduct leaves the subject wide open to the theist's favorite tool of misinformation: the equivocation.
Where I describe morality as "an intrinsic emotional balancing" I refer to that innate feeling of right and wrong that triggers our conscious intellectual consideration of what is right and wrong. In this sense morality is not our end judgment, not our conclusion of what is right and wrong, but rather our initial motivation (in any given situation) for considering what is best.
Before we devote any objective reasoning to a "moral" or ethical question, it is likely that the more subjective regions of the brain have already assigned values to the variables.
It is a balancing act between perceived self interest, varying degrees of loyalty to various group with which we self-identify (in-groups) and perceived out-groups. In any given situation we have to consider what is best for our self, what is best for our group(s) (family, employer, political party, nation, denomination, neighborhood, etc.) and what forces or entities encroach on our self- or group-interest. This is the way of all social creatures.
But this is a motivator that works primarily at an emotional level. And like most emotions, reasoning beings can intellectually overrule their feelings. Well, theoretically. When resources become more available at the self level we tend to be more charitable to the group. When resources become more available at the group level we tend to expect to benefit personally. When we and our group are doing well we tend to be less hostile to minor encroachment. So too do we reduce our hostility to out-groups when we recognize they are merely a more remote extension of our in-groups.
In addition to the emotional responsibility we feel toward our groups we can also understand and appreciate the benefits of an official civil structure based on codified ethics, rules and laws. While these go hand-in-hand with morality and tend to serve similar functions they are artificial constructions, both extragenic and extrinsic.
If we want to credit a capricious ghost in the sky for our morality (intrinsic selfless social responsibility) but not our selfishness we still have to speculate where that selfishness came from. Assuming we were created, and the god did not put selfishness in us, where did that extra ingredient come from? Were there more fingers in the pie than were reported in the Judeo-Christian creation myths? God and divine creation are very poor explanations for the visceral gymnastics we experience when our various interests are in conflict.
Apologists argue that without an objective source there can be no morality, or perhaps that it is meaningless or that there can be no true justice. But morality is not something that comes to us, it is something that comes from us. It is a balance of interests which are ultimately self-interest. It may seem counter-intuitive to credit self-interest for the creation of morality and selflessness. It may seem vulgar to think that our finest examples of humanity are merely extensions of our basest drives. Though the idea may be hard to stomach, it is staring back at us with pedantic patience. Morality is an intrinsic emotional balancing of often conflicting personal interests in a social environment. While Creation skips over the creation of selfishness, evolution explains both selfishness and selflessness, lo, they are the same.
If everything we could ever need or desire were infinitely available, there would be no competition for resources. Nor would there be an evolutionary selection force for cooperation, other than reproduction. But even reproduction is a need/desire.
When I first recognized that I was no longer a theist I came to the conclusion that morality is a lie and that we need rely only on ethics. Some years later I realized that ethics is a construct that we build. Ethics are cultural and intellectual. And yet even children have an innate sense of justice when objectively observing social exchanges. While they may not be able to articulate why something is fair or unfair, but they are good at identifying injustice when they are a disinterested third party. When they are not disinterested, they tend to make excuses favoring their self or their friend/family.
My first guess is that we are using the term "morality" to represent two different but similar and overlapping ideas. Traditionally, morality is an system of conduct based on ideas of absolute right and wrong. Additionally, such a code of morality is or was typically ascribed as divine edict. That which is permissible by that doctrine is moral. That which is forbidden by that doctrine is immoral. There is also the common belief that morality is ingrained in us by supernatural authority as a sense of right an wrong.
In the absence of divine authority "ethical" and "unethical" should carry the same weight as "moral" and "immoral". Yet they do not. Why is that? What is the difference between ethics and morality? If "morality" deserves more weight than "ethics" we should be able to say why.
When we speak of morality we tend to suppose that good and bad, right and wrong are absolute (or nearly so) and must be recognized. We seem to be appealing to an inescapable source of discernment. When we speak of ethics we are never referring to an innate sense of right and wrong, rather mutually accepted rules for civility or specific activities. Ethics tend to be based on common values. These values are not arbitrary or prescribed. These values are the description of what most people feel intrinsically about what is good or bad, right or wrong. It is not a matter of what is believed, understood or reasoned. It is a matter of what is felt. Is there a word for this raw, unreasoned, pre-intellectual, intuitive, subjective sense of what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust?
What is that word?
I use the label "morality" for that unreasoned sense which is within us as the foundation of social responsibility. If we had another word for it I would use it happily. It is unfortunate that we do not. The traditional definition of morality as a moral code of conduct leaves the subject wide open to the theist's favorite tool of misinformation: the equivocation.
Where I describe morality as "an intrinsic emotional balancing" I refer to that innate feeling of right and wrong that triggers our conscious intellectual consideration of what is right and wrong. In this sense morality is not our end judgment, not our conclusion of what is right and wrong, but rather our initial motivation (in any given situation) for considering what is best.
Before we devote any objective reasoning to a "moral" or ethical question, it is likely that the more subjective regions of the brain have already assigned values to the variables.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Quran burning
Fundamentalist cleric Terry Jones made headlines with his plan for an "International Burn a Koran Day." Jones ostensibly canceled the event but managed another public display (International Judge the Koran Day) that ended with quran flambé. As a result several UN workers and 2 US soldiers have been killed abroad in some ill conceived attempt at retribution. AP article on Yahoo here.
Sam Harris does well in speaking my mind here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/do-we-have-the-right-to-burn-the-koran/
By placing ANY responsibility on Terry Jones we are assuming that islam is not the religion of peace and its adherents are not capable of morality or humanity on a person by person basis.
Even if we assume that muslims are semi-human hornets, should we ignore the nest in our midst and merely eschew provocation? The real problem is much harder to solve. By ignoring it we allow the problem to fester, mutate and grow. Focusing on Jones' stupid grandstanding diverts our attention from an issue... we were already ignoring.
If moderate and liberal muslims don't want islam associated with acts of violence they need to do a lot more than remain silent in the wake of these events. If they don't take their religion back from the fundamentalists then I am quite happy to assume the louder more violent voices are the true representatives of islam. How can the apparent silence of moderates be interpreted as anything anything other than tacit approval?
Terry Jones is just one more false prophet. That's not a crime in the US. I'd be more than happy to make it a crime here and everywhere. But what criteria would we use to determine falsehood? That's where we'll have a hard time finding consensus. I may not like the idea of book burning, probably due to historical correlatives. If the world wants to condemn Terry Jones for being a charlatan, grand-stander, troll, attention whore, self-important prick, asshole or something other than quran burning, I'm OK with that. If anyone wants to gag Jones because we can't hold violent muslims accountable, I'm not OK with that. This is definitely a case where the easier thing to do is not the right thing to do.
If the right thing is the hard thing and the hard thing is getting muslim hardliners to be reasonable, then we better get started.
Sam Harris does well in speaking my mind here:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/do-we-have-the-right-to-burn-the-koran/
By placing ANY responsibility on Terry Jones we are assuming that islam is not the religion of peace and its adherents are not capable of morality or humanity on a person by person basis.
Even if we assume that muslims are semi-human hornets, should we ignore the nest in our midst and merely eschew provocation? The real problem is much harder to solve. By ignoring it we allow the problem to fester, mutate and grow. Focusing on Jones' stupid grandstanding diverts our attention from an issue... we were already ignoring.
If moderate and liberal muslims don't want islam associated with acts of violence they need to do a lot more than remain silent in the wake of these events. If they don't take their religion back from the fundamentalists then I am quite happy to assume the louder more violent voices are the true representatives of islam. How can the apparent silence of moderates be interpreted as anything anything other than tacit approval?
Terry Jones is just one more false prophet. That's not a crime in the US. I'd be more than happy to make it a crime here and everywhere. But what criteria would we use to determine falsehood? That's where we'll have a hard time finding consensus. I may not like the idea of book burning, probably due to historical correlatives. If the world wants to condemn Terry Jones for being a charlatan, grand-stander, troll, attention whore, self-important prick, asshole or something other than quran burning, I'm OK with that. If anyone wants to gag Jones because we can't hold violent muslims accountable, I'm not OK with that. This is definitely a case where the easier thing to do is not the right thing to do.
If the right thing is the hard thing and the hard thing is getting muslim hardliners to be reasonable, then we better get started.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
More "F" word
(This is taken unedited from comments I made elsewhere. Where it lacks context or reiterates earlier postings... that's why.)
Faith is unworthy of reverence. Faith, on any consequential scale, is absolutely deserving of despite. It’s only a state of mind, but then again so are bigotry and hubris.
If the religious and non-religious could stop using the world faith to describe reasonable naturally-supported expectations then there would only be one reason to object to its usage. And the rest of the crap could stand or fall on its own merit. If the twenty or so church marquis I pass on a regular basis are any indication, equivocation is a siren song to christians. They eat that shit up. So if non-believers seem overly reticent about broad usage of the “F” word it is a well founded concern rather than unreasonable anxiety.
One stumbling block we are going to run into is semantics. Subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the definition and proper range of usage will (and seemingly have) lead to disagreements based on misunderstandings. As a proponent of secularism and as an anti-theist I’ve come to expect this from supporters of superstitious and religious orthodoxy. But we are not evaluating “faith” for its poetic value so there is no honest benefit to leaving the door open for further equivocation.
* Faith is a belief or convicted decision made in the absence of adequate objective evidence.
There are occasions when expedient decision making is required. This is usually a matter of urgent need and limited resources (time and information being considered resources). This is not faith, unless you’d like to consider faith to be synonymous with desperation. When inaction and indecision equate to increased risk of suffering even a gamble or poorly informed guess is reasonable. In the cost/benefit analysis of “Known bad” vs. “Unknown alternative” wherein the “known bad” is severe enough, most people will brave the unknown.
There is a degree of uncertainty is every aspect of life. But the natural world, especially the civilized world at peace, is fairly predictable. We develop expectations and they are generally met. Gaping sink holes under the street seldom collapse our driving surfaces under us. But it does happen. Is it reasonable to expect it is going to happen to you at any moment? Is it more reasonable to expect that while this could happen to you it probably never will? We can make a fairly well informed decision in such matters (local geology, history lacking sink holes and undermining, competent geologists and civil engineers) and develop reasonable expectations. We might even call it trust, informed trust. To call this faith belittles the faith of the religious. There is nothing preventing you or anyone from calling this faith, except (I hope) intellectual integrity.
In situations where objective evidence is missing and there is no impending peril it is better to admit ignorance. We may operate under assumptions but if we don’t recognize that that is what we are doing we are likely to reinforce our ignorance. Where the resources exist to make informed decisions, relying on faith is willful ignorance, absolutely. If someone is too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence regarding a matter they clearly consider important… it is mildly tragic. When they think their ideas are important enough to share with others but are still too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence… it is disgusting.
*Faith may also be a belief or convicted decision made contrary to objective evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence.
This type of faith goes beyond willful ignorance. This is delusional fanaticism. It can even be self-inflicted. Outside of “spiritual” matters and Cubs fans this is recognized as psychological affliction. And here we return squarely to the realm of beliefs based on wishful thinking and fear. This is faith at its purest (as in undiluted) ugliest form. This is the faith that too often rationalizes incivility, inhumanity and atrocity. This is the faith wherein a preconceived belief negates any contrary evidence *a priori*. This faith is a weapon, loaded and looking for a target. Most people will stop short of violence to themselves or others. But few people have difficulty condemning non-conforming culture... evidence and facts be damned.
> “Faith in vows made to others, and by
> others”
Why do these deserve faith? If they are deserving of trust (trust that you give and/or trust that you feel), that is, if they have earned trust, it’s not faith. If they are not deserving of trust neither are they deserving of faith.
> “in talent, ability, skill”
If there were anything to this then no one would ever practice. Faith is meaningless. Reasonable expectation based on previous performance is meaningful.
Positive outlook does not have a statistical influence on recovery rates. It just makes us more sympathetic to the patient. Everyone seems to think it does but studies do not back it up.
Self confidence is more reliable as a manifestation of reasonable expectations than it is as a manifestation of faith. A lack of self confidence may also be described as faith in inability. A lack of self confidence is a self fulfilling prophecy in that it deters effort. Faith or over confidence is also detrimental in that early failures tend to deter further efforts. Reasonable expectations and the knowledge that real challenges generally require tenacity are much more reliable.
All of these examples fail for the same reasons. Placing trust in something or someone that doesn’t deserve it is a gift or a gamble. Placing trust in something or someone that has earned it is evidence-based reasonable expectation.
Faith, religious or otherwise, should be despised. Using the word “faith” to describe what should be reasonably expected is an indirect, possibly unintentional, endorsement of uninformed epistemology. Willful ignorance should be mocked, not praised. The quality of a belief cannot and should not be measured by conviction of believer. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irresponsible.
I like fiction too but I don’t see the point in celebrating the excuse a girl used to explain how her full-term baby was born 7 months (I’m guessing) after her marriage… two thousand years ago. Not even if she had a note from Epstein's Mother's deity.
Faith is unworthy of reverence. Faith, on any consequential scale, is absolutely deserving of despite. It’s only a state of mind, but then again so are bigotry and hubris.
If the religious and non-religious could stop using the world faith to describe reasonable naturally-supported expectations then there would only be one reason to object to its usage. And the rest of the crap could stand or fall on its own merit. If the twenty or so church marquis I pass on a regular basis are any indication, equivocation is a siren song to christians. They eat that shit up. So if non-believers seem overly reticent about broad usage of the “F” word it is a well founded concern rather than unreasonable anxiety.
One stumbling block we are going to run into is semantics. Subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the definition and proper range of usage will (and seemingly have) lead to disagreements based on misunderstandings. As a proponent of secularism and as an anti-theist I’ve come to expect this from supporters of superstitious and religious orthodoxy. But we are not evaluating “faith” for its poetic value so there is no honest benefit to leaving the door open for further equivocation.
* Faith is a belief or convicted decision made in the absence of adequate objective evidence.
There are occasions when expedient decision making is required. This is usually a matter of urgent need and limited resources (time and information being considered resources). This is not faith, unless you’d like to consider faith to be synonymous with desperation. When inaction and indecision equate to increased risk of suffering even a gamble or poorly informed guess is reasonable. In the cost/benefit analysis of “Known bad” vs. “Unknown alternative” wherein the “known bad” is severe enough, most people will brave the unknown.
There is a degree of uncertainty is every aspect of life. But the natural world, especially the civilized world at peace, is fairly predictable. We develop expectations and they are generally met. Gaping sink holes under the street seldom collapse our driving surfaces under us. But it does happen. Is it reasonable to expect it is going to happen to you at any moment? Is it more reasonable to expect that while this could happen to you it probably never will? We can make a fairly well informed decision in such matters (local geology, history lacking sink holes and undermining, competent geologists and civil engineers) and develop reasonable expectations. We might even call it trust, informed trust. To call this faith belittles the faith of the religious. There is nothing preventing you or anyone from calling this faith, except (I hope) intellectual integrity.
In situations where objective evidence is missing and there is no impending peril it is better to admit ignorance. We may operate under assumptions but if we don’t recognize that that is what we are doing we are likely to reinforce our ignorance. Where the resources exist to make informed decisions, relying on faith is willful ignorance, absolutely. If someone is too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence regarding a matter they clearly consider important… it is mildly tragic. When they think their ideas are important enough to share with others but are still too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence… it is disgusting.
*Faith may also be a belief or convicted decision made contrary to objective evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence.
This type of faith goes beyond willful ignorance. This is delusional fanaticism. It can even be self-inflicted. Outside of “spiritual” matters and Cubs fans this is recognized as psychological affliction. And here we return squarely to the realm of beliefs based on wishful thinking and fear. This is faith at its purest (as in undiluted) ugliest form. This is the faith that too often rationalizes incivility, inhumanity and atrocity. This is the faith wherein a preconceived belief negates any contrary evidence *a priori*. This faith is a weapon, loaded and looking for a target. Most people will stop short of violence to themselves or others. But few people have difficulty condemning non-conforming culture... evidence and facts be damned.
> “Faith in vows made to others, and by
> others”
Why do these deserve faith? If they are deserving of trust (trust that you give and/or trust that you feel), that is, if they have earned trust, it’s not faith. If they are not deserving of trust neither are they deserving of faith.
> “in talent, ability, skill”
If there were anything to this then no one would ever practice. Faith is meaningless. Reasonable expectation based on previous performance is meaningful.
Positive outlook does not have a statistical influence on recovery rates. It just makes us more sympathetic to the patient. Everyone seems to think it does but studies do not back it up.
Self confidence is more reliable as a manifestation of reasonable expectations than it is as a manifestation of faith. A lack of self confidence may also be described as faith in inability. A lack of self confidence is a self fulfilling prophecy in that it deters effort. Faith or over confidence is also detrimental in that early failures tend to deter further efforts. Reasonable expectations and the knowledge that real challenges generally require tenacity are much more reliable.
All of these examples fail for the same reasons. Placing trust in something or someone that doesn’t deserve it is a gift or a gamble. Placing trust in something or someone that has earned it is evidence-based reasonable expectation.
Faith, religious or otherwise, should be despised. Using the word “faith” to describe what should be reasonably expected is an indirect, possibly unintentional, endorsement of uninformed epistemology. Willful ignorance should be mocked, not praised. The quality of a belief cannot and should not be measured by conviction of believer. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irresponsible.
I like fiction too but I don’t see the point in celebrating the excuse a girl used to explain how her full-term baby was born 7 months (I’m guessing) after her marriage… two thousand years ago. Not even if she had a note from Epstein's Mother's deity.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Some thoughts on the "F" word
"We are most superstitious when we are least in control." I believe it was Andy Thomson who said that.
Faith should be despised as a venom inflicting insidious credulity.
The definitions of "god" change as needed by the believer. It is essentially impossible to disprove god because any attempt nearing success prompts the believer to "move the goal." That which defies observation is at a neutral buoyancy between "indisputable" and "incredible." Every person has an array of motives driving their epistemology. Just as we may find some people's behavior confusing, we tend to interpret their thoughts and motives through subjective filters. What we want and what we fear seem to be most influential. Likewise, the existence of a superghost is supported through selection bias, wishful thinking and, of course, fear.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." ~inane christian babbling
If you encounter this platitude issue the following correction:
"Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for." ~me And then you can debate the subtle differences between the two statements or the complete lack of difference.
"Faith" is an insidious social tool that preys on our desire to belong... our desire to be civil. In all non-religious matters we are told: caveat emptor... "Let the buyer beware." But how often are we made to feel guilty with phrases like, "Don't you trust me?" "What are you afraid of?" For some reason it is uncouth to suggest to someone they haven't earned your trust.
Side note, old joke: How does someone from Los Angeles say "Screw you?" Answer: "Trust me."
We are told to be wary of salesmen, to convict only in the absence of reasonable doubt and "Don't believe everything you read." But with religion the rules are reversed. For "spiritual" matters belief is touted as superior in the absence of evidence. It's not hard to understand why. "Evidence" that supports supernatural claims is at best subjective and suspiciously incomplete.
"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" ~Christopher Hitchens
And yet, the believer puts stock in the lack of evidence DISPROVING the existence of whatever supernatural phenomenon they cling to. It doesn't seem to matter that every alternate supernatural claim shares equal footing through the same stale argument. It seems quite possible for anyone to believe anything. The main steering point seems to be self-preservation. In order to believe in flying pizzas or to disbelieve in gravity it is useful to have an alternate explanation and essential to have a reason to do so. If you can overcome those two hurdles you could probably convince people of ancient space warlords, magic underwear or an intangible eternal essence of self.
This is why skepticism is so important. It is not just in legal matters, financial matters, physics and used-car purchases. If there is an omnipotent deity that wants to interact with us it would be a fairly important issue. Why would we go with the least reliable, most abuse-able epistemology? Who is making these claims? Why should we believe them? Why should we believe their claims? Is it trust? Faith? Tradition? Fear? Desire? These are all horrible reasons to accept something as true. These are the weaknesses that grifters and charlatans rely on. You do get the "benefit" of being able to believe in something that is otherwise unbelievable.
It is only by faith that we may be fooled.
Sometimes the word "faith" is misapplied when what is meant is "trust." For instance, "I have faith in my friends." If that faith is based on a track record of reliable behavior then that's not really "faith." If that faith is based on a history of unreliable or consistently detrimental behavior then it should be called "faith." It should also be called "sick."
Most people who try to justify their faith in something supernatural do so by crediting (confirmation bias) welcome events to that supernatural entity. As mentioned before: subjective, incomplete evidence. Unwelcome events? For some reason the entity gets no blame. The distribution of welcome and unwelcome events across cultures and belief systems is suspiciously uniform. If there is a supernatural influence casting benevolence upon the world it doesn't seem to matter if you believe in it.
There is a certain comfort to be gained in a single tidy supernatural explanation for everything you don't understand. And it is a lot less embarrassing than admitting you don't understand the myriad details of how the world works. In light of reality, empiricism, demonstrable facts and technological progress faith has become an embarrassment and a burden. People can, may and shall believe whatever Determinism or their freewill dictates. But as long as people continue to value faith over evidence, regardless of quality, regardless of quantity, people will continue to thank god for the airbag or medical treatment that saved their life. As much as I enjoy irony, the injustice makes me cringe.
When someone says, "You gotta have faith," ask them not to use the "F" word around you because it is perverse.
Faith should be despised as a venom inflicting insidious credulity.
The definitions of "god" change as needed by the believer. It is essentially impossible to disprove god because any attempt nearing success prompts the believer to "move the goal." That which defies observation is at a neutral buoyancy between "indisputable" and "incredible." Every person has an array of motives driving their epistemology. Just as we may find some people's behavior confusing, we tend to interpret their thoughts and motives through subjective filters. What we want and what we fear seem to be most influential. Likewise, the existence of a superghost is supported through selection bias, wishful thinking and, of course, fear.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." ~inane christian babbling
If you encounter this platitude issue the following correction:
"Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for." ~me And then you can debate the subtle differences between the two statements or the complete lack of difference.
"Faith" is an insidious social tool that preys on our desire to belong... our desire to be civil. In all non-religious matters we are told: caveat emptor... "Let the buyer beware." But how often are we made to feel guilty with phrases like, "Don't you trust me?" "What are you afraid of?" For some reason it is uncouth to suggest to someone they haven't earned your trust.
Side note, old joke: How does someone from Los Angeles say "Screw you?" Answer: "Trust me."
We are told to be wary of salesmen, to convict only in the absence of reasonable doubt and "Don't believe everything you read." But with religion the rules are reversed. For "spiritual" matters belief is touted as superior in the absence of evidence. It's not hard to understand why. "Evidence" that supports supernatural claims is at best subjective and suspiciously incomplete.
"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" ~Christopher Hitchens
And yet, the believer puts stock in the lack of evidence DISPROVING the existence of whatever supernatural phenomenon they cling to. It doesn't seem to matter that every alternate supernatural claim shares equal footing through the same stale argument. It seems quite possible for anyone to believe anything. The main steering point seems to be self-preservation. In order to believe in flying pizzas or to disbelieve in gravity it is useful to have an alternate explanation and essential to have a reason to do so. If you can overcome those two hurdles you could probably convince people of ancient space warlords, magic underwear or an intangible eternal essence of self.
This is why skepticism is so important. It is not just in legal matters, financial matters, physics and used-car purchases. If there is an omnipotent deity that wants to interact with us it would be a fairly important issue. Why would we go with the least reliable, most abuse-able epistemology? Who is making these claims? Why should we believe them? Why should we believe their claims? Is it trust? Faith? Tradition? Fear? Desire? These are all horrible reasons to accept something as true. These are the weaknesses that grifters and charlatans rely on. You do get the "benefit" of being able to believe in something that is otherwise unbelievable.
It is only by faith that we may be fooled.
Sometimes the word "faith" is misapplied when what is meant is "trust." For instance, "I have faith in my friends." If that faith is based on a track record of reliable behavior then that's not really "faith." If that faith is based on a history of unreliable or consistently detrimental behavior then it should be called "faith." It should also be called "sick."
Most people who try to justify their faith in something supernatural do so by crediting (confirmation bias) welcome events to that supernatural entity. As mentioned before: subjective, incomplete evidence. Unwelcome events? For some reason the entity gets no blame. The distribution of welcome and unwelcome events across cultures and belief systems is suspiciously uniform. If there is a supernatural influence casting benevolence upon the world it doesn't seem to matter if you believe in it.
There is a certain comfort to be gained in a single tidy supernatural explanation for everything you don't understand. And it is a lot less embarrassing than admitting you don't understand the myriad details of how the world works. In light of reality, empiricism, demonstrable facts and technological progress faith has become an embarrassment and a burden. People can, may and shall believe whatever Determinism or their freewill dictates. But as long as people continue to value faith over evidence, regardless of quality, regardless of quantity, people will continue to thank god for the airbag or medical treatment that saved their life. As much as I enjoy irony, the injustice makes me cringe.
When someone says, "You gotta have faith," ask them not to use the "F" word around you because it is perverse.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Deity asks: you feelin' me?
How might one respond to the claim...
Always keep in mind that you will almost never win an argument WHILE it's happening. You may influence onlookers. And your partner (a term which some may find preferable to "opponent") may give honest and earnest consideration to your points upon review. That being said, how might we respond?
Seek clarity. Theists tend to dodge by changing the subject or definition when their suppositions are deflating. Here too, any direct assault will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed. In seeking clarity regarding the "I feel" pseudo-evidence try to establish why the claimant believes that statement is meaningful.
A possible question to ask: "Should I (or anyone else) believe because of what you feel?" If the answer is "yes" then we might ask why this single perception of presence countermands the presence perceived by adherents of non-abrahamic faiths both today and historically. If the answer is "no" then we might ask how they can recognize that their perception of presence is insufficient second-hand evidence but as the object of the unreliable subjective experience they feel justified in accepting it as irrefutably divine.
The senses can be fooled and the psyche may be led astray.
The same experience of "divine presence" is available through every faith system, electromagnetic bombardment of the brain, neural chemical imbalances, physical brain damage, intoxicants, mental illness and the good ole natural high (usually brought on by awe, wonder or enthusiasm). That such a feeling is so commonly a result of religious fervor should not be considered "inspirational" as much as it is should be considered "embarrassing."
In every other realm of the human experience, loss of bodily function or mental faculty is either tragic or comical. But we've bound this psychological handicap to culturally accepted intangible forces that defy all objective observation. Somehow this disguises our pitiful and primitive misunderstanding of the world (and of ourselves) with a euphoric facade of exalted cosmic self-importance.
What is "felt" does not indicate substance. What is "felt" can only influence valuation. If you don't believe me just ask every girl I thought I was in love with as a teenager.
"I believe in God because I feel his presence."
Always keep in mind that you will almost never win an argument WHILE it's happening. You may influence onlookers. And your partner (a term which some may find preferable to "opponent") may give honest and earnest consideration to your points upon review. That being said, how might we respond?
Seek clarity. Theists tend to dodge by changing the subject or definition when their suppositions are deflating. Here too, any direct assault will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed. In seeking clarity regarding the "I feel" pseudo-evidence try to establish why the claimant believes that statement is meaningful.
A possible question to ask: "Should I (or anyone else) believe because of what you feel?" If the answer is "yes" then we might ask why this single perception of presence countermands the presence perceived by adherents of non-abrahamic faiths both today and historically. If the answer is "no" then we might ask how they can recognize that their perception of presence is insufficient second-hand evidence but as the object of the unreliable subjective experience they feel justified in accepting it as irrefutably divine.
The senses can be fooled and the psyche may be led astray.
The same experience of "divine presence" is available through every faith system, electromagnetic bombardment of the brain, neural chemical imbalances, physical brain damage, intoxicants, mental illness and the good ole natural high (usually brought on by awe, wonder or enthusiasm). That such a feeling is so commonly a result of religious fervor should not be considered "inspirational" as much as it is should be considered "embarrassing."
In every other realm of the human experience, loss of bodily function or mental faculty is either tragic or comical. But we've bound this psychological handicap to culturally accepted intangible forces that defy all objective observation. Somehow this disguises our pitiful and primitive misunderstanding of the world (and of ourselves) with a euphoric facade of exalted cosmic self-importance.
What is "felt" does not indicate substance. What is "felt" can only influence valuation. If you don't believe me just ask every girl I thought I was in love with as a teenager.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Upon hearing, "It's a miracle!"
A deity deserves exactly as much credit for the salvation as it does blame for the adversity.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Transcendent B.S.
This is a response to Reza Aslan’s OpEd at newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices. I assume this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan) is the same Reza Aslan. I like his name so much I had assumed it was a pseudonym. I also like his writing style. I imagine it’s very influential to anyone like-minded or uninformed. But while he brings up some good points he manages to suggest that the subjective “evidence” for spirituality, transcendence and the supernatural are equal to or greater than the objective and subjective evidence against them. So I thought I’d point out a few points he managed to get…
Wrong.
There are "new atheists" who have never been burdened by unqualified subjective supernatural explanations of the aspects of consciousness that are popularly thought of as spirituality or transcendence. But vast numbers of "new atheists" are apostates who have first-hand awareness of the religious experience.
Wrong again.
The histories of philosophical and theological study do not support the validity of the supernatural any more than do the histories of tarot, astrology or voodoo. The supernatural is entirely dependent on a lack of understanding of natural relationships and causes. As our understanding of the natural world has increased, natural explanations have had a nasty habit of debunking supernatural beliefs. So too, improved understanding of neuro-physiology removed any objective reason to suspect that "spiritual transcendence" is anything more than brain function. Stimulating the brain naturally/artificially (electromagnetically, via brain damage or chemically... as opposed to supernaturally) results in the same experience as that induced by religious fervor. This is not coincidence or mere correlation. There is a cause and effect here. Artificially stimulating the brain doesn't induce a spiritual episode, it induces the perception of a spiritual episode. When a "spiritual" episode is induced by religious fervor the same brain function is taking place. Do supernatural occurrences have the same effect on the brain as artificial stimulation? Does artificially induced perception of spirituality merely open a window in the brain to let transcendence in? Is brain function is a side effect of supernatural influence? If so, and we take away the side effect, where is the spirituality? There's nothing left.
There are arguments to be made on behalf of "spirituality." But every argument that mitigates natural explanations (which we can observe and measure) also may be used equally well or better against supernatural explanations (which we can't observe for some strange reason).
So right, you're wrong.
Additionally Aslan supposes that the ubiquity of "spiritual" or "transcendent" experiences is evidence of the supernatural. And I have to admit that this is subjective evidence. But it is also evidence that no religious doctrine can claim authority. If there is a supreme supernatural entity being accessed through spirituality then apparently every religion, as well as deism and agnosticism have equal access, contrary to the claims of at least the big three religions. So thank you Reza for debunking judaism, christianity and islam.
And would you believe: Wrong?
Is the supernatural knowable or not? (not = unknowable)
Does the supernatural influence the natural or not?
Is the influence of the supernatural observable (objectively attributable) or not?
If the answer is "no" then there is no point in pursuing the supernatural even if it is real. If the answer to any one of these questions is "yes" then the answer to all of them is "yes." If the answer is “yes” then the supernatural is subject to scientific investigation. Well, it could be that the supernatural can only be known through subjective intuition and/or unassailable prophets. But even then, observations and predictions should be possible. But for some reason attempts to observe supernatural influences either rely on bias or result in random (non-confirmational) results. Supernatural influence is exactly as reliable as random chance. So even if the answer were "yes," even if it is real, the supernatural is moot.
Fundamentally wrong.
If there is anything new about "new atheists" it is their motivation. As a movement, atheists are responding to the growing influence of religious fundamentalist. While most religious people are "watered-down" or moderate about which cherry picked specifics deserve their faith, it is the believers who submit more of themselves to faith that grab the reigns* and pull the rest along. The very nature of faith is to believe without evidence, or worse: despite evidence. Beyond the topic of religion faith is recognized as being unreasonable or ideological. But in a religious or spiritual context, it is somehow considered admirable. It is the less reasonable, more faithful people who are motivated to represent their groups. These faithful are the people who drive their groups’ agendas. And it is the most faithful who taint civil progress with archaic superstition and dogma. It is these people who disrupt secular politics and education with claims of moral superiority and magic origins. They have become better organized, better funded and more intrusive with their "spirituality." The only thing new about "new atheists" is their new-found motivation from necessity.
The term "atheist fundamentalism" is either an oxymoron or redundant. Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s). For purposes of this argument I would even allow a substitute definition: belief in the absence of god(s) (assuming we all understand the distinction). This definition is the sole and fundamental belief of atheism. What does the fundamentalist atheist believe that the non-fundamentalist atheist does not? Their belief is the same. Their interpretation of their belief is the same. If their behaviors differ it is not because one follows a more fundamental or literal interpretation of the sole belief. Attempting to liken verbose atheism to bible literalism is a disingenuous ad hominem distraction. In short, it’s dishonest.
*(Yes, I know how to spell “reins.” The homonym was too good to ignore.)
Wrong.
There are "new atheists" who have never been burdened by unqualified subjective supernatural explanations of the aspects of consciousness that are popularly thought of as spirituality or transcendence. But vast numbers of "new atheists" are apostates who have first-hand awareness of the religious experience.
Wrong again.
The histories of philosophical and theological study do not support the validity of the supernatural any more than do the histories of tarot, astrology or voodoo. The supernatural is entirely dependent on a lack of understanding of natural relationships and causes. As our understanding of the natural world has increased, natural explanations have had a nasty habit of debunking supernatural beliefs. So too, improved understanding of neuro-physiology removed any objective reason to suspect that "spiritual transcendence" is anything more than brain function. Stimulating the brain naturally/artificially (electromagnetically, via brain damage or chemically... as opposed to supernaturally) results in the same experience as that induced by religious fervor. This is not coincidence or mere correlation. There is a cause and effect here. Artificially stimulating the brain doesn't induce a spiritual episode, it induces the perception of a spiritual episode. When a "spiritual" episode is induced by religious fervor the same brain function is taking place. Do supernatural occurrences have the same effect on the brain as artificial stimulation? Does artificially induced perception of spirituality merely open a window in the brain to let transcendence in? Is brain function is a side effect of supernatural influence? If so, and we take away the side effect, where is the spirituality? There's nothing left.
There are arguments to be made on behalf of "spirituality." But every argument that mitigates natural explanations (which we can observe and measure) also may be used equally well or better against supernatural explanations (which we can't observe for some strange reason).
So right, you're wrong.
Additionally Aslan supposes that the ubiquity of "spiritual" or "transcendent" experiences is evidence of the supernatural. And I have to admit that this is subjective evidence. But it is also evidence that no religious doctrine can claim authority. If there is a supreme supernatural entity being accessed through spirituality then apparently every religion, as well as deism and agnosticism have equal access, contrary to the claims of at least the big three religions. So thank you Reza for debunking judaism, christianity and islam.
And would you believe: Wrong?
Is the supernatural knowable or not? (not = unknowable)
Does the supernatural influence the natural or not?
Is the influence of the supernatural observable (objectively attributable) or not?
If the answer is "no" then there is no point in pursuing the supernatural even if it is real. If the answer to any one of these questions is "yes" then the answer to all of them is "yes." If the answer is “yes” then the supernatural is subject to scientific investigation. Well, it could be that the supernatural can only be known through subjective intuition and/or unassailable prophets. But even then, observations and predictions should be possible. But for some reason attempts to observe supernatural influences either rely on bias or result in random (non-confirmational) results. Supernatural influence is exactly as reliable as random chance. So even if the answer were "yes," even if it is real, the supernatural is moot.
Fundamentally wrong.
If there is anything new about "new atheists" it is their motivation. As a movement, atheists are responding to the growing influence of religious fundamentalist. While most religious people are "watered-down" or moderate about which cherry picked specifics deserve their faith, it is the believers who submit more of themselves to faith that grab the reigns* and pull the rest along. The very nature of faith is to believe without evidence, or worse: despite evidence. Beyond the topic of religion faith is recognized as being unreasonable or ideological. But in a religious or spiritual context, it is somehow considered admirable. It is the less reasonable, more faithful people who are motivated to represent their groups. These faithful are the people who drive their groups’ agendas. And it is the most faithful who taint civil progress with archaic superstition and dogma. It is these people who disrupt secular politics and education with claims of moral superiority and magic origins. They have become better organized, better funded and more intrusive with their "spirituality." The only thing new about "new atheists" is their new-found motivation from necessity.
The term "atheist fundamentalism" is either an oxymoron or redundant. Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s). For purposes of this argument I would even allow a substitute definition: belief in the absence of god(s) (assuming we all understand the distinction). This definition is the sole and fundamental belief of atheism. What does the fundamentalist atheist believe that the non-fundamentalist atheist does not? Their belief is the same. Their interpretation of their belief is the same. If their behaviors differ it is not because one follows a more fundamental or literal interpretation of the sole belief. Attempting to liken verbose atheism to bible literalism is a disingenuous ad hominem distraction. In short, it’s dishonest.
*(Yes, I know how to spell “reins.” The homonym was too good to ignore.)
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The right to believe vs. the responsibility to doubt
We are quick to claim our rights. We are not so swift in owning our responsibilities. I am reluctant to suggest that there be a moratorium on any particular belief, any brand of belief or any style of belief. I agree that some beliefs will land you in a padded room but no belief should land you in jail.
Behavior. Actions. These we not only may police but we must police them. It is very nearly the definition of belonging to a social group. We have rights as individuals but we also have responsibilities to the group, at least if we are to be part of the group.
But beliefs... Erroneous belief is but a symptom. Unqualified belief, likewise. It is the process of thought (or lack thereof) that allows and leads to faulty and/or unqualified belief that is the underlying issue. We (humans) are quick to claim superior knowledge, quick to defame conflicting opinions and information but reluctant to meticulously verify the evidence and lay out a case. That's hard work. No wonder so few people make the effort. And many of those who appear to make the effort use erroneous or subjective evidence, faulty reasoning and fallacious premises. Trusted "thinkers" often jump to ostensibly solid, often predetermined, conclusions.
We have the right to speak. We have the right to hear. We have the right to draw conclusions. But do we not also have the responsibility to think clearly, rationally, logically, rigorously, deliberately, diligently...?
We are quick to claim our rights but slow to own our responsibilities.
Behavior. Actions. These we not only may police but we must police them. It is very nearly the definition of belonging to a social group. We have rights as individuals but we also have responsibilities to the group, at least if we are to be part of the group.
But beliefs... Erroneous belief is but a symptom. Unqualified belief, likewise. It is the process of thought (or lack thereof) that allows and leads to faulty and/or unqualified belief that is the underlying issue. We (humans) are quick to claim superior knowledge, quick to defame conflicting opinions and information but reluctant to meticulously verify the evidence and lay out a case. That's hard work. No wonder so few people make the effort. And many of those who appear to make the effort use erroneous or subjective evidence, faulty reasoning and fallacious premises. Trusted "thinkers" often jump to ostensibly solid, often predetermined, conclusions.
We have the right to speak. We have the right to hear. We have the right to draw conclusions. But do we not also have the responsibility to think clearly, rationally, logically, rigorously, deliberately, diligently...?
We are quick to claim our rights but slow to own our responsibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)