stereoroid.com

The following is in response to a post on the Friendly Atheist blog, asking for short-and-sweet answers to common questions about atheists.

• Why do you not believe in God?

God-with-a-G means the Judeo-Christian God, I assume. I don’t believe in that “version” for the same reason I don’t believe in any of the others: no evidence for it that stands on its own merits, just “testimony” from fallible people.

• Where do your morals come from?

I don’t like the term “morals” at all: it reeks of prescriptive and proscriptive instructions, handed down from “authority”. I prefer to think in terms of “ethics”, sets of rules agreed on by a society of peers: doctors, lawyers, or… people.

• What is the meaning of life?

I think actions have the meanings you put in to them (the intentions behind them), and your life is the sum of your actions. In other words: a complex mess, just like life.

• Is atheism a religion?

About the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief: they don’t necessarily share any other positive beliefs, or agree on anything else. That’s a “no”, then.

• If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

Talk to people who can help. I sorted out my philosophical positions on most things years ago, and that “armour” proved its usefulness when I was handed something real to worry about: I felt no need to turn to faith.

• Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

I don’t think so: it only leads to resentment and reactionary thinking. You can lead a horse to water, and all that, but you can also lead by example: be a good person, and tell the truth about yourself if asked.

• Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

You can find plenty of evidence that Hitler was not an atheist, such as his statement about “doing God’s work” by trying to wipe out the Jewish race. Stalin is a more complex example: if you believe Khruschev’s “Secret Speech”, Stalin thought he was a god, and the Party was his Church.

• How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

Because people tend to do what’s easiest? If they are taught to believe from a young age, and live surrounded by fellow believers, what reason do they have to “swim against the stream”?

• Why does the universe exist?

“Why” is a human question: we want to know the reasons why things happen. It doesn’t mean that such reasons actually exist, or that “Why?” is a valid question to ask about the natural world. Does the universe care about our questions?

• How did life originate?

At this time I don’t believe anyone knows for sure: it was a very long time ago, so the evidence (if any is left) will be hard to find. Which does not mean that any religion has the Answer: that’s a “God of the Gaps” argument.

• Is all religion harmful?

I’m not qualified to talk about all religion, so I wouldn’t want to make any sweeping statements of that sort. What I do know is that much of the apparent good is not actually that good, in a wider context e.g. Mother Theresa, religious charities failing to spread the Safe Sex message.

• What’s so bad about religious moderates?

As people, I think they’re just people like me - this is not about who they are, but I have a problem with some things they do. Teaching children it’s OK to live their lives by “fairy tales” that have no evidence to back them, on the word of “authority”, is a grave disservice to the next generation of critical thinkers. They serve as “enablers” of religious extremism, much as friends and family of alcoholics can serve as “enablers” by buying the drinks.

• Is there anything redeeming about religion?

Religion has, at various historical times, provided essential services we would now expect from government. Laws, infrastructure, even “public health” (e.g. “don’t eat pork” when it was dangerous). It also provided a sense of community, something that atheists not really able to do successfully, yet. (We ask too many questions!)

• What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

If I ever meet up with one or more gods, I will have some harsh questions. Such as: “what the bleep were you thinking?”, or “where the bleep were you when your people needed you?” A god that just sat back and watched this planet gets no respect from me.

• Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

Certainly, as long as lack of belief is also respected. There should be no coercion, on any level, from anyone. Mandatory prayer, using my money to fund religious organisations, granting religion freedom from criticism… all forms of coercion. Basically, any intrusion of any particular religion, into an area it is not wanted, is a form of coercion, in my opinion.

• Are atheists smarter than theists?

It depends on what “smart” means. I think that atheists have done more thinking about the issues, but whether that’s “smart” or not is a “value judgement” I have doubts about. It could be that religious belief confers a long-term evolutionary advantage, which would be hard to argue against. See also Idiocracy.

• How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

That doesn’t sound hard at all: a real person, walking around 2000 years ago, saying things, perhaps performing magic tricks, is not a deal-breaker. Asking us to accept claims of supernatural powers is a problem, especially considering what we know about the history of the Church: a committee assembled an agreed version of events, based on written accounts, and included the supernatural claims that gave that Church its legitimacy.

• Would the world be better off without any religion?

Hard to say: maybe in the future, if people move that way of their own accord. My “no coercion” principle works both ways: actions have reactions, and even if I had the authority to take away someone’s religion, I would have no control over their beliefs.

• What happens when we die?

If I have a say in the matter, I hope I can feed a tree. A pear tree, specifically. I like pears.

I had high hopes for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I really did. The previous series by creator Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing, is at the top of my favourite TV show list, even surviving Sorkin’s departure, lasting a full seven seasons. Studio 60, on the other hand, was cancelled after just one season. As with The West Wing, Ireland is not far behind the USA; there, the last episode went out about ten days ago, while I’ve just seen the penultimate episode here. The following might be considered a “spoiler”, so stop reading if you expect to see it later.

There is still one episode after tonight’s episode K&R Part III, and I’ll watch it, but it’s over for me. It was refreshing to see a Christian character on a prime time show who was not some holier-than-thou stereotype, the character of Harriet Hayes (Sarah Paulson). With Jordan McDeere (Amanda Peet) in surgery after pre-natal complications, and Danny Tripp frantic in the hospital waiting room (Bradley Whitford, another West Wing veteran), the show was already treading uncomfortably close to soap.

That was only half the drama, because the brother of show star Tom Jeter (Nate Corddry) is being held hostage in Afghanistan, and the press are camped on the studio doorstep, prompting colleague Simon Stiles to launch a Quixotic rant in their direction, and almost lose his job as a result.

Enough drama? Not quite: in this episode, the aforementioned Harriet pushed the “no atheists in foxholes” button I had hoped the show was canny enough to avoid. Danny is tearing out what remains of his hair, as Jordan suffers complications of her complications. What does Harriet do? She offers to “teach him how to pray”.

Why do I find this offensive? It’s a modern Hollywood cliché: treating religion as a “down home” value, something “real” in comparison to the “glamour” of modern life. It encourages the kind of religiously-intrusive behaviour I’ve seen for myself: preying on people in their time of need, offering delusional comfort and a distraction from their immediate concerns.

And Lo! Jordan doesn’t, well, “cross the Jordan”. She pulls through, and all is right with the world. To me, this was Studio 60’s Jump The Shark moment. If you follow the link, you’ll see how many other reasons other have to say it Jumped, but for me, that was it. I just cast my vote against “Harriet”.

I’ve heard it said that King Crimson, the band, is “a way of doing things”. I agree, but I would also apply that description to Rush, who have just released Snakes & Arrows. Far Cry is the first single:

Rather than tell you what the overarching theme is - which is not that simple to define - I’ll use the song Armor and Sword to illustrate the way a few well-chosen lyrics open up a world of concepts that lend depth to an album.

The first line also gave the album its name:

The snakes and arrows a child is heir to
Are enough to leave a thousand cuts

According to lyricist Neil Peart, the term “snakes and arrows” was originally a pun on the kids’ game “snakes and ladders”, and part of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy:

To be, or not to be, — that is the question: —
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? — To die, to sleep, —
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, — ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.

This passage has Hamlet questioning his own will to live; is life worth the pain? As used in the song, the “thousand natural shocks” becomes an unnatural “death by a thousand cuts”: the slowest and most painful form of death possible, it has also become a metaphor for the slow degradation or destruction of something held dear against one’s will. By way of contrast, the soliloquy came early in Shakespeare’s tragedy, when Hamlet thought himself in control of his destiny, and “to be or not to be” was a question he could honestly answer.

In the game of Snakes & Ladders (US: Chutes & Ladders), the tumbling of a dice marks your progress up the board, from the bottom to the top, step by step. Your luck can land you on a ladder, sending you upwards quickly, or on a snake, on which you slide downwards. In the worst case, a snake can send you “back to square one”, literally. The lucky player makes it to the top first, winning the game against the rivals.

Our better natures seek elevation
A refuge for the coming night
No one gets to their heaven without a fight

In the Old Testament myth, a snake was the reason Adam & Eve were ejected from the Garden of Eden, and (if you believe the Bible), our existence since that point has been a fight to re-enter that Heaven. It pays to be a “straight Arrow”, but the Snake is still with us, in the form of Sin, laying traps of Temptation to be resisted. In the Snakes & Ladders game, however, your progress is random, determined by the dice, so is there any meaning to be found in the fight to the top?

This is where luck adds an extra layer of meaning: in his album essay, The Game of Snakes & Arrows, Neil explains what happened next. When “Snakes & Arrows” was suggested as a possible album title, Neil went online to check if anyone else had used it, and found that there was once an Indian board game called “Snakes & Arrows”, the ancestor of “Snakes & Ladders” that was adapted by the British from the original.

Also known as Lila or Leela, meaning “play”, it’s a game based on a Hindu concept: the idea that life is a game, and the Universe is a playground for the gods; a puppet theatre in which spontaneous plays are improvised. All this is dharma, the will of the gods, with the random dice the sole deciding factor; I looked for any reference to karma, the idea that a person’s actions can influence their progress up the board, towards their particular heaven, but I found none.

So, if “no one gets to their heaven without a fight”, what are they fighting for? The lesson to be learned from Leela is that Life is a cosmic game, to be enjoyed for as long as it lasts.
The gods are just having fun; why should a human life be any different?

Snakes & Arrows, in its lyrics, casts a soft, sympathetic, yet unrelenting light on the difficulties people create for themselves, in their beliefs and the wars they get into over them. Yet, what we face is not a game; religious fanaticism in all its forms is subjecting our world to “death by a thousand cuts”, the “snakes” are the sins we burden our children with, and the “arrows” are the dangerous ideas we cultivate in them. As children grow into adults, the intellectual weapons can become real weapons, if we cultivate irrationality in them. Is this what we want?

It’s a far cry from the world we thought we’d inherit
It’s a far cry from the way we thought we’d share it

This is not a conventional review, but Snakes & Arrows is not a conventional album. The musicianship is excellent throughout, with Geddy Lee in particularly fine voice and his basswork is as complex as it needs to be, and no more. Neil Peart’s playing is less flashy, more rounded but still precise; Alex Lifeson stretches his playing in to new territories, with the instrumental Hope showing him to be a master of the acoustic 12-string too. There is no shortage of great musicianship in the world today - enough to make me pessimistic about my own work - so I look to bands like Rush for much more than that.

Neil once wrote “the spaces in between leave room for you and I to grow”, and I agree: hidden depths are revealed in works of art that require the audience to think for themselves; even popular works, such as Star Wars , Desparate Housewives, or the Harry Potter books, benefit from time to dig in and send out shoots in unexpected directions.

I defy any reviewer to fully digest a Rush album in a single listening; if they write their review too soon, it shows in its superficiality. There’s far more to be found in Snakes & Arrows, if you’re prepared to look below the surface gloss.

Today, in London, five people were convicted of plotting to bomb targets in and around London. Those would not have been suicide bombings; the modus operandi was taken from Timothy McVeigh’s bomb attack on Oklahoma city, with fertilizer-based bombs in vans triggered remotely. There are more details at BBC News.

One of the planned targets was the Ministry Of Sound, a famous London nightclub. Transcripts of conversations (also at BBC News) between the bombers go in to detail on why this might have been a target. Something about “slags” (loose women) i.e. moral judgment on the people in the nightclub. They drink alcohol, dance, have adulterous sex outside marriage; so they deserve to die, right? Quote:

… no one can even turn around and say ‘Oh they were innocent,’ - those slags dancing around…

This line demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Western society; more specifically, the emphasis on individuals and individual responsibility. It starts with the way the role of governments has evolved.

Today, a Western government has strictly defined limits on what it controls. It does not have Carte Blanche to decide what is a crime and what is not, even if it sometimes seems that way. It responds to what it perceives as the “will of the people”, expressed though the members of Parliament, who talk directly to their constituents. There is a certain level of party-politics involved, where individuals do not get what they want, but the electorate will only tolerate so much of that.

Are drinking, dancing, or adultery crimes in Britain today? No, they are not. Your religion might say otherwise, or you may even look down your nose in secular disapprobation, but it doesn’t matter: in a representative democracy you, as an individual, do not get to impose your personal sense of right and wrong on others. In a country as large as Britain, that would make everyone guilty of something.

Now imagine that the bombing had taken place, and each of the victims was a “slag” in every sense, committing all of the “crimes” the bombers imagined them guilty of. Firstly, how would you get your message across? Press statement? Videos of guys in masks? Dangerous: a lot of smart people would be looking for you - mock them at your peril - and every piece of information that slips out builds up a picture that can lead them to you.

So you get your message broadcast on the BBC and Channel 4: what effect will that have? It’s not enough for you to say that the victims were “slags”; do you have proof? You do? Enough to convince their family. OK, but then how does it follow that they deserve to die?

In a civilized society, like it or not, “morality” is insufficient justification for someone to die. It might be in Pakistan etc., but you’re not in Pakistan, and there is no general desire to impose Pakistan’s Sharia laws on Britain. The accusations would not be accepted, because the accusers have no authority to pass judgments.

The response from the family and friends of the victims would drown out any accusations. Why? Because the right to life of an individual takes priority. Britain no longer has a death penalty, even for the most serious of crimes, and (reminder) the actions the “slags” are accused of not even considered to be crimes. Here parents don’t kill their children when they violate moral standards; they discipline them, instruct them, and forgive them. There is such a thing as an “ex-slag”.

It follows, logically, the Ministry Of Sound bombing would not have got the message to the people of Britain. It would been the senseless murder of people innocent of any crime under the laws of the society they live in. Had they lived elsewhere, they would have behaved differently. If you don’t understand how individuals can behave that way without the collapse of society, you have a lot to learn. Start with the Analects of Confucius - 500 years before Jesus, over 1000 years before Mohammad - and his advice:

• The superior man governs men, according to their nature, with what is proper to them, and as soon as they change what is wrong, he stops.

• When one cultivates to the utmost the principles of his nature, and exercises them on the principle of reciprocity, he is not far from the path. What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others.

Translation: coercion or violence will not change people; you have to deal with them as they are, and that works both ways.

Naturally, there are now calls for further inquiries in to the surveillance operations, to try to lay the blame for not catching these aspiring bombers sooner, and even the July 2005 bombers. You know what? I’m more than satisfied with the explanations, because it shows that surveillance is not 100% effective or comprehensive, and that there is still a chance of privacy in Big Brother Britain.

Once again I am reminded of The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand:

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Today, we need governments and police forces to protect us from the actions of the uncivilized. The ideal civilization would need no policing, from without or within; a society of individuals who would know what to do, and why they do it. It would carry no burdens of fear or guilt, and require no coercion; it can not be forced into existence, but can only come about through the open-eyes acceptance of education and self-enlightenment. I will not live to see such a world, not as long as parents burden their children with their unjustified beliefs.

Assuming that you’re a “free thinker”, who has avoided or escaped the effects of childhood indoctrination in the religion of your parents or country (a whole ‘nother topic), and is free to decide what to believe or not: imagine it’s a trial, and you are the judge, who has to make a decision based on the evidence.

If you adhere to standards of evidence that would hold up in court, that leads you directly to agnosticism, which started with Thomas Huxley’s ideas: “the foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with lying; to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.”

It’s a good place to start, but there’s some dispute about the “possibilities of knowledge”, what is knowable and unknowable. Huxley viewed religion as “beyond”, which is similar to the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) proposed by the late Stephen Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins, however, strongly disagreed with Gould on this, and in The God Delusion maintains that theories about the existence of gods are theories about reality, to be subjected to the same scientific scrutiny as any theory would be.

Compare the following two statements:

• “I do not believe that there are any gods”
• “I believe that there are no gods”

The difference should be clear:

• the first could be called agnostic or atheistic, depending on who writes the definition. Going back to the Greek “A Theos”, which translates to “No Theism”, I’d say it fits both definitions.
• the second is the “hard atheism” stance, which I don’t agree with, because it assumes knowledge of the entire universe throughout its existence. Huxley - who coined the term “agnosticism” - hit the nail on the head in my opinion. Some dictionaries define atheism by this measure.

Now compare the following two statements:

• “I do not act as if there are any gods watching me”
• “I act as if there are no gods watching me”

The difference is not as clear, is it? I can say both those things about myself. This is to illustrate how philosophy doesn’t always translate in to the real world as neatly as we might think. So, philosophically, I could use either term to describe myself, but the “catchphrase” I came up with is think agnostic, act atheist.

I think far too much is made of the differences between agnosticism and atheism as philosophies. In this case, the differences between the two last-mentioned statements positions are no real obstacle to deciding how to live your life, on a practical basis.

One problem I see is when religious believers attack atheists with the assumption that they are “hard atheists”, based on simplistic definitions offered by their religious leaders, or even dictionaries (which are themselves a reflection of their time). The reality of modern atheism is far more subtle than that.

How many “hard atheists” (by the second definition) are there, anyway, and do you really need to make such a “statement of belief” to call yourself atheist? The “popular atheists”, from what I’ve read of their work, don’t fit that description. Dawkins in particular is happy to say “I could be wrong”, and so does Sam Harris.

Yet, far too often “allowing for the possibility of gods” is seen as a loophole to exploit, as if the person who says that is just waiting for someone to come along and convince them. Even when a person has an open mind, in a general long-term sense, getting them to adopt a religious belief requires evidence. Simply telling someone “you’re wrong” won’t work, because those are just words, written by people, and they express a view of reality, not reality itself.

This is why I say: think like a judge, or a defense attorney, when it comes to evaluating evidence, starting with what is and is not evidence in the strict sense. To be blunt:

• What you or someone else saw is not evidence.
• It’s totally convincing to you, and it changed your life, but it’s not evidence.
• What someone wrote down is not evidence. (The medium on which something was written can be evidence, but calling it evidence does not make the written words true.)
• Even when the source is a famous person, known for good works, trusted and believed by millions: it’s not evidence.

The word for all that is testimony, and that does not carry the weight of evidence in a court of law, for very good reasons. As any experienced judge or attorney will tell you: people can, and do, say anything to push their particular views or protect themselves, hence the emphasis on evidence that stands up regardless of human testimony.

Without that, and the freedom to decide without coercion (no tampering with the jury, please), I could not be confident in making a fair and valid decision; so I need to be strict in upholding my standards of evidence against expedience . To leave it up to chance, or “common practice”, or inertia, would be negligence on my part; an abrogation of my rights as a thinking human being, or my responsibilities as a judge in the matter before the court: is religious belief justifiable, based on the available evidence? The verdict, in this court, is a resounding No.

In the last half-year or so, several popular books have thrust atheism and atheists in to the media spotlight. The response from religious writers has been varied, with some turning away, and others becoming aggressive in their reactions.

One all-too-common response has been to start using religious terminology to describe atheists and their activities: “fundamentalist atheism”, “atheists sermons”, “crusades against religion”. (The word “crusade” is derived from the same root as “cross”.) This became very annoying, very quickly, and I soon learned to use such language to judge the integrity of an article on the topic.

The annoyance lies in the viewpoint, expressed subtly or unsubtly in such articles, that atheism is just another form of irrational belief. The implication, which I totally reject, is that atheists have dropped one form of irrational belief (a religion) and replaced it with another irrational belief. Then, by talking about it at all, they are “proselytizing”, they have become “evangelistic” about atheism.

The “F-Bomb” in such discussions is not the one you might think of, but “fundamentalism”. That is a false charge, a “straw man” theists string up to beat on. Refuting it is easy; all it takes is for the other side to pay attention, but all too often the sides in a debate end up talking past each other.

If you examine just one aspect of “fundamentalism”, the idea of beliefs that are solid and unshakable, you can see the problem straight away. Scientific theories are hardly immutable, or guaranteed, over time, and much of it can be counter-intuitive.

My beliefs are robust, with healthy roots, but they are not unshakeable. If I need to move them, I can; it would not be painful or destructive, all I would need is a good reason. However, in 25 years of acknowledged atheism (using the word), nothing has come along that would persuade me to adopt a belief in any supernatural entity. There is simply no evidence for it.

Now, some believers say “I have faith, and don’t need evidence”, and I need say no more about that. Others, however, say “but there is evidence, right here”. But what do we mean by evidence? This is, in my view, a key differentiator, and the main point of this article. Let me state clearly what I understand as evidence, and what is not evidence.

It starts with an understanding that mankind is not important. We and our big brains were not always here to look at the world the way we do, and as we evolved, we went through different levels of brain power on the way. Before there was abstract reasoning there was practical knowledge, on how to survive, then live, then enjoy ourselves and think beyond our immediate difficulties.

All of this is just a blip on the universal radar, the last minute in a 24-hour day. The stars, while not unchanging, have been steady enough for us to rely on, to make predictions on. This planet has been less static, over billions of years, but it is a rock of stability compare to people, with their self-centric view of the world. We are simply not that reliable, as witnesses, even over short periods of time, never mind over millennia.

What does this tell us about standards of evidence? In short: the most reliable evidence is which people can go to Nature for; if that connection is broken, because of time and distance. If the primary source for evidence is a person, or the work of a person, it can’t be trusted; it might correspond with nature, and then nature is the primary source.

An example of good evidence: Copernicus did not set out to overturn the established wisdom, that the Earth was the centre of the universe; he made observations, did calculations, and came to the conclusion that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Later, Galileo checked Copernicus’ work against the sky, came to the same conclusions, and got in to a lot of trouble. Note how the primary evidence was not Copernicus’ writings; it was in the skies, and the passage of decades did not diminish it. Amateur astronomers today can verify it with a minimum of skills and equipment, and do so regularly.

An example of bad evidence: scriptures, such as the Bible and Qu’Ran. They are books; that is, the works of man, and therefore devolved from nature by layers of human imagination and interpretation. Some say these scriptures are divinely inspired, and contain universal truth, but what supports such assertions? The books themselves? That is a circular argument. Authority? Authorities are still people, with their own wishes and failings. Positive results? People can do good, and bad, with or without religion - we have evidence of that from parts of world that have never seen a scripture of any kind.

So if you can’t trust scriptures, and can’t trust authority, what is left? Again, we can go back to nature. This is why Atheism is called a “naturalist” view of the world. Two different people can look at nature, one sees the hand of God, and the other does not. Who is right? Put the question more simply: one person sees something specific, or hears a specific sound, and the other does not. No, you can’t fairly claim that one person is blind, or deaf; that is evading the wider question.

The more rational explanation, based on experience of people and their capacity for self-delusion, is that the sound did not occur; the specific vision did not appear; that Nature does not need people, and their particular supernatural interpretations of it, to be what it is. It was here long before we were, and will be here after we have gone. We are fickle and unreliable by comparison.

There are scientists who adhere to scientific principles in their work, yet hold personal religious beliefs. It would be hypocritical of me to practice amateur psychology on them, considering how much I hate it when people try that on me, so I will merely allude to what others have said, on the ability of people to separate work activities from personal life, and don’t see much more significance there. I certainly do not accept that the existence of religious scientists - i.e. people - is any kind of validation of their particular religion. I don’t presume to know what they’re thinking, and statements from e.g. Francis Collins on the topic have been unsatisfying.

Lastly, going back all the way: religious believers have “creation myths” that (in their view) fully explain how the universe started. Scientists only have “theories”, such as the Big Bang theory, which was the logical result of empirical evidence (red shift of stellar spectra in all directions). Is that a complete, satisfying answer? No; there remains the question of what was “behind” the Big Bang, the question of causation. We’re trying to find out, but today we don’t know, and that’s a gap in knowledge that theists exploit. This is an issue I’ve touched on before; are you strong enough to tolerate uncertainty and say “we don’t know”, or must you fill a gap in your knowledge with … something… anything?

It’s a new year, and getting close to five years since I started this blog (even though not all posts are up here yet). In that time I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything about Ayn Rand and Objectivism, or if I have it was a long time ago, so this is a good time to recap my position on it.

I first encountered Objectivism through the band Rush, specifically their lyricist Neil Peart, who adapted Ayn Rand’s Anthem for their 1976 breakthrough recording 2112. It’s hard to gauge just how “serious” he was about that, though he did express concern about how it led to attacks from journalists, in the UK in particular, where Individualism is associated with Capitalism. It made him persona non grata to Socialists. Peart’s writing has come a long way since then.

I’ve come to view Objectivism as a “starter philosophy”, or “my first philosophy”: one that doesn’t “scale” as one grows philosophically. This is not a bad thing in my view, since Objectivism serves the important purpose of introducing fundamental philosophical questions to an audience who might not think about philosophy at all.

I haven’t read all of Rand’s writings - far from it- but one important point I took away was the importance of living for oneself. At times she specifically cited pure altruism as a negative proposition, for example, and promoted a kind of “enlightened selfishness” that has clear roots in free-market economics. Take the “invisible hand” of laissez-faire economics as a principle, and apply it to ethics and actions, and the human race will improve its state and potentialities, according to Objectivist theory.

This is where philosophy collides with reality, in my opinion, since the human race has shown a distinct lack of competence in deciding just what is in its own self-interest. I’ve written, previously, on my opinion that people sabotage their own lives by excessive breeding. The growth of fundamentalist religions, especially Islam, show how people are prepared to accept restrictions and irrationality in the name of stability. (I’m just back from Dubai, where I was left wondering just how much genuine belief there was in Islam, outside the law, official statements, and social mosque attendance.)

Taking command of your personal philosophy is not a trivial matter; Christians would have you believe that morals will decline without the biblical dogma, so if you were to become an atheist, the onus would be on you to live a good life without biblical guidance, as an example to others. Can you be “selfish”, putting yourself first, while still being a good person and law-abiding citizen?

Selfishness does not preclude charity or other good works, since both benefactor and beneficiary gain something from donation. If your country is under threat, and you would suffer at the hands of an enemy, you have a reason to fight. The part that bothers Objectivists is the idea of being beholden to others where there is no benefit to you; slavery, blind faith, sacrifice in the name of duty or religion alone. If you take advantage of others, or commit crimes against them, have you - your personality and core beliefs - really benefited?

It follows, therefore, that I don’t quite understand how people can ever get so attached to Objectivism that it becomes canon or dogma. The term “Randroid” has been used to describe serious Objectivists, and there have even been “schisms” in the study and interpretation of Ayn Rand’s work. Is that what she was hoping for - a cult of personality based around her and her books? I don’t think so; in my view, this is against the spirit of free thought and personal growth she was aiming for. In her own words: “a blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject”.

If living for yourself is a good thing, then so is thinking for oneself. If this takes you far away, philosophically, from Rand and Objectivism, would Rand object? If the philosophy you develop is anathema to some Objectivists, it is nevertheless yours, and if Randroids have a problem with that, it is their problem; not yours.

If I have one wish for 2007, it is that everyone in the world takes some time for serious thought, on their own behalf, about who they are, what they are doing, where they are going, and - most critically - why, without blindly accepting the word of any “authority”.

I’m back from London, a trip that finally allowed me to finish The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Airport lounges and the flights themselves were enough for me to put a major dent in it, with only a little left to finish this morning.

The book got a little heavy-going around the middle, but opened up nicely after that, and far more of it is positive and practical than the iconoclastic title would have you believe. It is more of a personal statement by the author than his previous scientific books, but I knew that going in, so the occasional lump of loaded langauge was to be expected.

The heading on this post is my attempt to summarise my position on religion in to a pithy soundbite - a take on “Think Global - Act Local”. I found myself fully in agreement the Isaac Asimov quote that I used here before, which says what I have been saying for years, but more effectively. Prof. Dawkins touches on this in the GD book, under “The Poverty of Agnosticism”: the way I see it, Agnosticism is acceptable as a philosophical proposition, but it just doesn’t cut the mustard in today’s world, where taking a neutral position is seen as passivity, a sign of weakness, a chink in the armour to be exploited by those with strong theocratic agendas they can enact without opposition.

The metaphorical door that could lead to belief in a God or Gods is closed, but not locked. It won’t be falling open by itself, no matter how hard the wind blows. If some agent is intelligent enough to figure out the handle, I will welcome it in for a cup of tea and a chat, but I’m not going to hang around waiting. I have things to do, and I’m going to get on with them.

However, there are dogs at the door: their howling is annoying, they are crapping on my doorstep, attacking my cats and stealing my chickens. I would like to be left alone, but I’m not being allowed to do my work. So: they should not be surprised when I open the door with a shotgun in my hand, and pepper them with rock salt.

I’ve seen some highly complex epistemological arguments about all the relationship between the concepts of Agnosticism and Atheism, but if we’re going to make any impact on the general population, the ones who don’t read Newsweek or The Grauniad, we need a Tabloid headline. I concede that Think Agnostic - Act Atheist might be a bit much, since it assumes people understand those respective concepts, but it’s something..?

You are an Atheist

When it comes to religion, you’re a non-believer (simple as that). You prefer to think about what’s known and proven. You don’t need religion to solve life’s problems. Instead, you tend to work things out with logic and philosophy.

What’s Your Religious Philosophy?

Well, I answered a few questions, and that’s what it told me…

Recent debates on Atheism have me asking: do atheists have to know a lot about religion to be able to dismiss it? Some of the discussions I’ve read go in to excrutiating detail on religion’s origins and history, the theological justifications for it, or lack thereof.

I work in IT, and firmly believe in keeping things simple, and reliable. When I see theists constructing complicated arguments for the existence of God, I have the persistent impression that they’re having to work too hard at it, like Wil. E. Coyote flailing his legs around in the hope that gravity will leave him alone!

We do have experts in the field, such as Prof. Richard Dawkins, who has spent some time studying theology and discussing it with “modern” (i.e. educated, non-dogmatic) theologists. He interviewed some for his Channel 4 documentary The Root Of All Evil? and wrote about them in his book The God Delusion. Theology is a major “humanity” field, which encompasses philosophy, sociology, epistemology, psychology and more: you can spend your whole life studying it, or your whole life arguing with theologists. Sorry: my life is too short. My “personal atheism” is far simpler, starting with the absence of belief, how the word “atheism” is the best description of that, and I take it from there.

This also helps to explain why atheists aren’t generally out there pushing their agenda: we have literally “nothing” to be evangelistic about. The current books by Sam Harris and Dawkins are a sign of something else: we would have little to say if we were just left in peace, but the way the world is going - particularly the USA - appears to be a precursor to theocracy and religious war.

Telling people “your faith is founded on nothing” is unpleasant, and should not be necessary in an ideal world. I don’t like to antagonise people that way, it feels uncomfortable, and I don’t do it to friends unless the topic comes up in discussion. But out here, on the Internet, I can be more blunt; not only does the Pope have no Clothes, people are so invested in the idea of clothes that nudity horrifies them!

Here’s an experiment I recommend for anyone interested in getting to the heart of the matter: find a quiet room, sit down, and put on John Lennon’s Imagine. Listen to the lyrics, and try to Imagine what John was imagining. Then, after the song has ended, sit in silence for a while, and listen. Your ears become more sensitive as time goes by. Is someone you know walking around outside? That computer fan is a bit noisy, isn’t it? Listen to your breathing, your heartbeat. That tune stuck in your head? Ignore it, it will go away.

The more I use the analogy of “atheism as silence”, the more apt it seems. There is music in the universe, some of it the product of religion, some created by people without reference to religion, most of it the soundtrack to the universe itself. Religion itself, to my “ears”, is unnecessary noise. We could debate the relative merits of pink noise vs. white noise vs. brown noise, but your ears will thank you for just turning the noise off.

I have Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion here at the moment; I’ve been stuck at 1/3 of the way through for some time, with work and other reading taking priority. My position on atheism is quite simple: I’ve been calling myself a “theoretical agnostic, practical atheist”. This is summarised in this apposite quote from Isaac Asimov, Free Inquiry, Vol. 2, Spring 1982:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

Recently I figured out another way to put it: the Abrahamic god (of Judaism, Christianity & Islam) is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. So, the idea of there being such a god “somewhere else” is a non-starter, since “omnipresence” means there is no such thing as “somewhere else”, or “some other time”.

If he is Omnipresent, he is here now - but do we see him, today?
If he is Omnipotent, he can do anything - but do we see him doing anything, today?
If he is Omniscient, he knows everything - so why is there so much stupidity and ignorance in the world, today?

If there is useful information in scriptures, it is a product of its time, containing some universal truth, but also much that used to make sense but no longer does. (Example: there was a time when pork was unsafe, but we’ve learned how to cure it.) But this kind of change is too complicated for mere people to handle - not out of stupidity, but out of laziness - so I’m not surprised to see a fundamentalist push to regress society to match the scriptures. (Hey, life was simpler 2000 years ago, let’s go back!)

A god that might exist, but can not be perceived; who sees this screwed-up world and does nothing to fix it; who knows everything but lets his people wallow in ignorance; is a god who is absolutely no use to me. Leave that idea behind, the sun keeps shining and the Earth keeps turning. If there is a teapot in orbit around the Sun, it’s made of chocolate.

I’ve subscribed to various “tag feeds”, on topics I’m interested in, and one of them popped up a typical Christian view of Atheism, one that “focuses on the person, not on the issue”. I started writing a comment , but I was having so much fun, it got a bit too big to be a comment, and big enough to be a post here. Before reading my responses, go ahead and read the article: 6 Points To Remember When Debating An Atheist, then my responses.

1. I’ve never heard that one, and can only imagine it being used by someone who was already angry, and then by only a few. Just be aware atheists regard outright evangelizing as pointless, and prefer rational discussion without attempts to convert them. If by “Christians like you” they mean “Evangelists”, doesn’t that tell you something about how aggressive Evangelism fits in to a modern adult society? Tone it down!
2. If someone calls you a “hypocrite” directly, that’s just insulting. However, while atheists generally don’t accept bible quotes as meaningful to them, many have read the bible, and are aware of the contradictory messages it contains (even if they can’t quote chapter & verse offhand). To say you follow the Bible, but only the “nice” New Testament bits and not the harsh bits, is to risk accusations of hypocrisy - that’s (mostly) where that kind of talk starts.
3. I imagine that is an occupational risk for evangelists: if you don’t want resistance to your arguments, don’t evangelise to atheists. Or do you assume “they just haven’t heard the Word”, and are waiting for you to enlighten them? That can make you sound patronising, which some (like myself) really do find insulting. Avoid.
4. I’m sorry, this is just the kind of really old fallacy that annoys rational atheists. What is so hard about the concept of people having “no belief”? Were you born with belief? Becoming an atheist is no harder than forgetting something you were taught, or enjoying silence after hearing noise. If an atheist tells you “that’s how I see it”, and you contradict them, you’re saying “I know atheism better than you” - despite you not being an atheist - and the discussion will go nowhere but downhill from there. Avoid!
5. I don’t know what kind of atheists you go looking for, or what you say to them, but statements like “their bread and butter is in tearing up the Bible and shoving it down the Believer’s throat” are not helpful. That is mischaracterising atheists as “anti-Christian”, which I suppose makes it easier for you to hate them, but it’s not true, even if your preacher says so. Most atheists don’t go looking for fights, and don’t care what people believe, as long as no harm comes of it - but the last point is very relevant in the world today. Personally, I don’t even mention my atheism unless the topic comes up, and would only resort to such tactics in the face of an evangelical assault. However, if Christians feel under attack by atheists today, you need only look at the world today, the USA and Middle East in particular, and understand also that we don’t think Christianity is fundamentally (?) better than Islam, over long-term history.
6. This is related to (4), I think: if you insist on evangelizing, when that is clearly unwelcome, that’s just bad behaviour on your part that is going to raise hackles, and while you may believe it is your Mission, be aware you may be overstepping personal or social boundaries in the process. You have to be sensitive, take no for an answer, and back up a statement with more than a bible quote - which tells an atheist nothing useful! Avoid any “arguments from authority” like “the Bible says so” - what is an atheist going to make of that? We know you believe it, but we don’t, so telling someone “you’re wrong because my book says so” is never a good idea, any more than “I say you’re wrong”!

Summary; the article is hostile to atheists, and contains a lot of overexaggeration designed to portray atheists as irrational, hostile, or unthinking - the kind of rhetoric a preacher might use to whip up a frenzy in his congregation. I don’t doubt you will meet such people - stupidity knows no religious divide - but if you insist on characterising all atheists in such negative terms, don’t be surprised if you find atheists hostile to your approach. My advice would be: chill out, treat the people you talk to as your intellectual equals, and assume they know and have thought about all this stuff. They just came to different answers, and who are you to tell them they are wrong, if no harm comes of what they believe or not?

If a Muslim says to you (as often they do): “if you but read the Qu’Ran, you will become a Muslim”, how do you react? Do you think there’s anything in there you need to know, or that it has the power to change your life? Do you accept Allah’s authority, because Islam says so? Well, atheists feel the same way about all “holy scriptures” and religions, and regard “God” as just another superstition they don’t believe in, alongside Vishnu, Fairies, and Santa Claus.