That Didn't Come from an Explosion

To the lady who, earlier today at Moe's, said, "That didn't come from an explosion," allow me to first restate what you said, and then respond.

First, I share your awe at the intricacies of the human body and your amazement at how well everything works together.  I too am floored by the complexity, beauty, and design of many multi-cellular systems.  It still evokes wonder from me to think how this amount of biological complexity came about. That said, and maybe I will not be fair in this summation but, here's what it sounds like you're saying: a) the big bang is a proposed explanation for biological complexity, b) as such, it is insufficient, and/or c) god is a more reasonable/likely explanation.

Some questioning on my part may have clarified what you meant but, having been in this circle before I knew this conversation was unwelcome, which is my first point. If you don't want to have the conversation, don't start it.  I'm partly to blame really. If it were more apparent that I am not a member of the echo-chamber, maybe this utterance would have been more couched.

The next thing that strikes me about this statement is the fact that it is a straw-man.  A humbler person may have instead asked, "Who is it that says that complex biological systems are the result of an explosion," and/or, "What do they mean and, why would they say that?".  It is these proxy questions I want to turn to first because I think it will help.  To the first, not really anyone.  What's known as the big bang theory, in short, is a scientific answer to the question, what was the universe like when it was only a fraction of a fraction of a second old, and the subsequent minutes and hours and so on.   A reminder, the big bang theory is not an attempt to explain where the universe came from. The underlined is not a logical or meaningful thing to try and explain. As for the science behind the big bang I'll have to leave that for another post, this is already getting longer than I intended, but, as one can see, the big bang theory is not a direct explanation of biological complexity.

So what does best account for biological complexity? By your statement I would gather that you are incredulous that anything we understand with science could come close to providing a satisfactory explanation. The irony is that the explanation that seems to work for you is, "god did it." Look, we have mapped the human genome.  We know beyond a reasonable doubt the kinship between ourselves and chimps, ourselves and fish, and even ourselves and fungi. We can trace our family tree all the way back to single-celled organisms.  We know beyond a reasonable doubt what the mechanisms of speciation are. I recommend talkorigins.org as a good starting place. How did life form from non-life? That's an interesting question that has nothing at all to do with the big bang theory.

Lastly, if god is supposed to be some better explanation, what explains the complexity of god? Surely complexity like that can't just happen without some guiding hand or force.  Attempting to explain away complexity by introducing something more complex just gets you into an infinite regression of impossibly more complex things.  It is therefore useless as an explanation.

Yours truly,

E


---
My take-away from all this, let ridiculousness solicit laughter (then refer them to your blog). :p

How Religion Hides from Reason

Religious ideas hide themselves in cloaks of obscurantism, ignorance, and incredulity.  Here's how:

When asked what the word 'god' means, a religious person will usually appeal to other similarly vague ideas like, a "higher power," "love," "an immaterial mind," and, equally nebulous, as I suggested in my last post, a "creator of the universe." (This is not an exhaustive list)

Also, the subject will often shift to perennial philosophical questions to which god is supposed to provide some explanation like, "Is it rational to be moral?", "What should our purpose be?", and, "What should we value?"

This is how religion hides under a cloak of obscurantism.  None of these questions are necessarily affected by there being a god.  To explain, I can imagine a god who is amoral.  I can also imagine a god who is indifferent.  I can imagine a god who used to exist and no longer does. If we prove tomorrow that there is a god it will answer no other question than the question, "Is there a god?"


Or the subject will swiftly and almost imperceptibly switch to the gaps in our current scientific knowledge like, "How do you get life from non-life?", "What caused the big bang?", "Why is there something rather than nothing?", and, "How do we explain consciousness?"

This is how religion hides under a cloak of ignorance.  The person who begins exploring the meaning and truth of religious claims ends up confronted with some of the most interesting questions we know how to ask.  If they are not very careful, they become diverted from the fact that these questions may not be affected at all by the claims of the religious; and many fall into the trap of thinking that ignorance is a way to argue the truth of something.

i.e. Premise 1: God is that which explains the unexplained.  Premise 2:  There are things that are unexplained. Conclusion: God exists. 

or Premise 1: We don't know how to get life from non-life.  Conclusion: God.

The formal problem with these is called the argument from ignorance.

I've often heard apologists say something like, "I just can't imagine there being no intelligence behind it all." This is an argument from incredulity.  It should be pretty clear to most that this is not a sensible form of argumentation.

What I'm advocating here is that we be clear about our terms, and that we argue logically.  If god is logical then I'm sure he would appreciate it.  If not, he's not worth my time anyway (which there's some chance he would appreciate since he wouldn't be logical).  Let's discuss one topic at a time instead of heaping all of our ignorance and incredulity onto the table.

It Takes More Faith to be an Atheist

 

 

The very first problem I notice with this statement when religious people say it is, up until this statement, faith is supposed to be a good thing.  And yet, all of a sudden the religious want to eschew faith as much as possible.   Personally, I hope to be more consistent than that. I do call faith bad. The main difference is that I don't change my mind when it protects some belief I cherish.

 

The second problem, admittedly minor, is that in the statement's most generous interpretation, it uses a misapplication of the term 'atheist.'  It assumes that 'atheist' means an active disbelief in god when it is better characterized as a lack of a belief.  Someone who puts forth a definition of the word 'god' and then says that they actively disbelieve it would be better described as an anti-theist.

 

The next problem is that it's just false.  Let me illustrate this by listing the assumptions that atheists have to make, next to those of most theists.

 

Atheist assumptions:

• My senses are generally trustworthy to the extent that the consistencies they generate are representative of an actual, cooperatively experienced reality.

Theist assumptions: (these are usually made, not always)

• My senses are generally trustworthy to the extent that the consistencies they generate are representative of an actual, cooperatively experienced reality.
• There is a god. (whatever that could mean)
• God is omnipotent '''
• God is omniscient '''
• God is omnibenevolent ""
• God cares about what happens in our world
• God intervenes
• A particular "holy book" represents god better than the others
 
 

Some may be thinking that the separate god assumptions should be lumped together, to which I would point out that it's conceivable that there could be a god who doesn't care, and yet has all of those other attributes, but that's usually not what theists believe. Not all theists make all of these assumptions, but most make most.  It's pretty clear to me that theists make many more assumptions than atheists tend to make.

 

Faith is belief without evidence and reason. Stated differently, the more reason you have to disbelieve something, the more faith it takes to believe it.  I also would quibble a little on the idea that it takes faith to make that first assumption. I don't hold that position dogmatically and if challenged am happy to admit that I am making an assumption there.  Can the same be said for a theist for any of their assumptions. I think not.

 

 

 

 

 



What created the universe?

In response to the question, "What created the universe?" which is usually the end of a series of such causality inquires and meant as a 'you-can't-explain-that,' from Christian apologists.

Setting aside for the moment that the point wouldn't get us anywhere even if it made sense, let's illustrate the inanity of this question first by defining our term.

Universe: the set of all things that exist.

This is the way I use it. If you don't agree with that definition then we need to find a term we can agree with to proceed.

If you ask the question, "What created the universe?" with this definition in mind, you can clearly see that the question no longer makes sense. The word 'what' must refer to some 'thing', and would therefore belong in 'the set of all things that exist.'

What's more, time is a thing. We are looking for a creator or causer of time. But these concepts don't make sense either. The word 'create' is meaningless outside the context of time. And even if you can somehow force yourself to believe that some 'thing' 'created' time, doing so requires you to ignore the problem of causality which was the very problem we were trying to fix in the first place.

In my view, it is deeply mysterious. Either some thing always existed, something came from nothing, or causality itself can be broken. Each of these seem ridiculous and are impossible to believe, yet, here we are.

You Should Be Ashamed

The idea of vicarious redemption is a disgusting one.

The Beginning...

A criminal dons his dapperest suit in preparation for the trial. His bow-tie must be parallel to the floor. His shirt must show three quarters of an inch at each wrist. The rest of his life hangs in the balance. The judge sits. The crowd sits. The lawyers debate. The jury discusses. The jury judges, "Guilty on all charges!." The man's life is at an end in his mind. His last hope destroyed. But, "Wait!" the judge shouts. "I have a sentence to decree." The room falls still in anticipation. "I will have my son tortured to death, to stand in your place. Your judgement is satisfied." says the judge.

The criminal's mind races. Never would he have thought of such a saving grace, and yet... it feels hollow. He had been feeling that he was to get what he deserved, but now... he was to be responsible for the suffering of yet another? Would those he harmed feel satisfied at the shift in justice? Surely not, he thought. Surely the judge was rich enough to pay his debts, but this? Even he, a murderer and a thief, had never even dreamed of torturing someone. The criminal in a final attempt at redemption speaks up to yell, "No! I admit it, I did the crime, punish me. But leave your son alone." The judge stares uncaringly back and says, "No. I will have my son tortured to death and it will be your fault." Blinded by the thought of this added injustice he fights his bonds with all his might until he breaks free. He fights to warn the judges son, to prevent this injustice from being done. This, he thinks, would be the last important thing in his life. So he fights so hard and so tirelessly, that in the chaotic and many-manned attempt to subdue him, the would-be peace-keepers accidentally kill him.

...The End

Anyone should be ashamed to think that the judge is the hero of this story. Even more so if they think that the judge in this story is the greatest example of justice and mercy one could imagine. One may pay my debts. One may even lie in order to do my time in prison, but no one can take away my responsibility for wrong action. The act of scapegoating is central to Christianity, and it demonstrates quite clearly that the belief system is, at it's core, morally bankrupt.

Consistency is Key

"There's a homeless man in our attic!"

"What?"

"It's true! He's been thumping around up there all morning!"

"All morning? How'd he get in there? Didn't we lock up last night?"

"I don't know but he's probably going through all our stuff looking for valuables."

"I'm sure we locked up, did you see him?"

"No, I just heard him."

"Well, how do you know it's a him then?"

"Okay okay, a homeless person. But it's probably a him, just statistically speaking."

"Well, if you only heard the noise, how can you be sure it's a homeless person and not a raccoon or something?"

"I KNOW it's a person. A raccoon couldn't possibly make that much noise."

"Now wait a second, how can you say that you KNOW it's a person when you said yourself that you didn't see anyone?"

"I KNOW it's a person. I'm 100% sure of it. My instincts are spot on on this type of thing."

"Hold on a sec..."

"It's a hairy homeless man who wants soup. He's probably a war vet and wants to find his old war medals which he drunkenly believes reside in our attic. He got in by taking a crowbar to the back door. We should call the cops because he's armed and dangerous and wanted in three counties."

"..."

"What?"

"You can't possibly know all that if the only evidence you have is that you heard something. I didn't hear anything. For all I know you didn't either."

"Just because the truth is frightening doesn't make it not the truth. Don't worry, we'll call the cops. We can hide in the bedroom and lock the door and turn the lights off and I'll cuddle you under the covers to keep you safe. We should probably take our clothes off too because the soup-craving veteran criminal is said to be afraid of naked bodies."

"...in that case, I'll take my chances with the homeless man."


At what point do we stop taking the claims of this person seriously? And for what reasons? Are those reasons consistent with the way we handle claims made by everyone?

Examine your reaction to the dialogue. Were you skeptical right away? Or did it take the claimant making a statement of knowledge that was not apparently available to him?

I don't ask that people convert. I just ask that they be consistent. If it is not okay to accept this persons claims on faith, then why would it be okay to accept the claims of a priest, pastor, rabbi or mullah on faith? Each make claims about reality, with 100% certitude, to which they can not apparently know the answer.

The Switcheroo

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

Mark Twain

Most people of faith either lack a mechanism for validating and invalidating claims, or they simply suppress that mechanism in favor of a certain belief, a process known as compartmentalization. The compartmentalized belief is impervious to any statement that could be made, any evidence that could be shown, and any proof that could be given which in any way might damage that belief. Therefore, as an attempt to work from the inside out, I present the following:

The Switcheroo

A long time ago God created the universe. He did it in such a way that a very specific process would play out. This process would lead to a beautiful cosmos to look at, and an amazing diversity of life which would yield one of God's eventual favorite species, the human. These carbon-based bipedal primates would have a capacity for intelligence unmatched by their contemporaries (on the same planet at least), and would therefore have a remarkable capacity for good, for evil, for love, for hate, for learning, and for credulity. A rival god named Lucifer swung by once to see what God had created and he coveted it. He was jealous beyond belief at the beauty of this universe and of the creatures that would be in it. So he devised a plan to steal it. Sharing the space was easy enough because both gods are omnipresent.

But that wasn't enough. He wanted the humans. He wanted their minds. The creator god, interestingly enough, didn't care to have the minds of the humans, he just wanted them to use them. Knowing this, Lucifer decided to interfere in human affairs in just such a way, that the humans would create a book which was two-fold in purpose. First, to cripple the minds of the humans and second, to get them to worship him. Lucifer figured this was enough to get the creator god to be jealous of him, purchasing Lucifer the eternal bragging rights which would, in his mind, assuage his insatiable jealousy.

But it didn't work. The creator god had a strong intuition that the humans might overcome the deception. He had read the book that had been written about Lucifer and wagered that the humans would be able to see through the attempt at deception and once again be the creatures they evolved to be. He even noted that some of Lucifer's outrageous jealousy had spilled over into the verses. (There were even some that commanded the humans not to have any other gods before him.) He wasn't going to give Lucifer the satisfaction of caring that billions of humans were going to be worshipping him. So he just folded his arms and observed. He didn't try to stop Lucifer, because he knew it was what Lucifer wanted.

As the millennia passed, it played out exactly as Lucifer wanted. He even had it put in the book that the creator god was not actually the creator god, but the devil, subservient to him in every way. He had set it up such that once the belief took hold, it was virtually impossible for the humans to change their minds.

Will the humans ever emancipate themselves from Lucifer's deception? Will the creator god end up intervening to save the minds of billions? Will any believer be able to freely contemplate this story?

For the conclusion of this dramatic tale... stay tuned.

Here's the question: How can a religious person know that this story isn't absolutely, 100% true, without doubting their own beliefs on the same bases?